Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

lawstreetmedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 270 posts

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#201

Post by jp57 »

busterarm wrote: post #192
jp57 wrote: post #175

When the incident happened I worked with a woman who had served in the Navy at sea. Her opinion was that if the they had accidentally shot down an airliner during a training/practice exercise, hundreds of people on the ship would know about it and it would be impossible to keep them all from talking. Is there anyone from that ship who is on record saying "yeah, we shot down that plane?"

How many rank and file military personnel would be present for a capabilities test of a classified, state-of-the-art missile system? That's not exactly the same as a training exercise.

The ship was at sea, so presumably the full ship's complement? That's a bit over 300 people for an Aegis destroyer.

Her point was that the accident wouldn't be knowledge that could be kept confined to the bridge/CIC and soon everyone on board would know about it.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#202

Post by throwoutway »

jp57 wrote: post #175

When the incident happened I worked with a woman who had served in the Navy at sea. Her opinion was that if the they had accidentally shot down an airliner during a training/practice exercise, hundreds of people on the ship would know about it and it would be impossible to keep them all from talking. Is there anyone from that ship who is on record saying "yeah, we shot down that plane?"

From the docket, the claim is that it was from land not from a naval warship:

> Although the SPY-ID(V) would later become a key component aboard the next wave of Navy destroyer ships, in 1996 the only option with the hardware and computing power sufficient to operate the SPY-ID(V) was a New Jersey land-based testing site called the Combat Systems Engineering and Development Site (“CSEDS”).

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#203

Post by woodruffw »

avh02 wrote: post #190
ceejayoz wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but how many have seen a mid-air explosion of a 747 to compare against ? "It looked like a missile" may be entirely true. It may also be true that a burning, rapidly climbing half of a 747 looks a bit like a missile from afar. Re: edit: > Missiles are far faster Speed is notoriously hard to measure visually. Watch a A380 come in for a landing and you'll swear it's barely moving. > are on fire from the ground up…

Of everything you said > A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical for a bit with the entire nose missing. Is doing some very heavy assuming.

I don’t know about “vertical”, but the pitch-up theory is the NTSB’s own, not the sole assumption of the person you’re responding to.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#204

Post by xboxnolifes »

jrockway wrote: post #46
lbotos wrote: post #18

Interesting claims from the lawsuit linked: "However, instead of allowing the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”), the agency tasked with investigating all domestic aviation incidents, to lead the investigation of the TWA 800 incident, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)took charge. The FBI also enlisted the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency(“CIA”). Indeed, the FBI essentially froze the…

What always surprises me is how bad people are at covering up the cover up. Why deny access to radar tapes? Just make fake tapes that say what you want.

Making fake tapes creates additional risk of cover up discovery.

The best cover up involves the least lies.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#205

Post by busterarm »

jp57 wrote: post #201
busterarm wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many rank and file military personnel would be present for a capabilities test of a classified, state-of-the-art missile system? That's not exactly the same as a training exercise.

The ship was at sea, so presumably the full ship's complement? That's a bit over 300 people for an Aegis destroyer. Her point was that the accident wouldn't be knowledge that could be kept confined to the bridge/CIC and soon everyone on board would know about it.

But the claim in the suit isn't that the missile was fired from any ship, but from a land base in New Jersey.

Navy ships compatible with these systems were still 5 years out...

If you're referring to the naval radar scans, only the people present on the bridge (and really only a handful of those...) would need to participate in any coverup, and that's only if the official account differs significantly from what was recorded. If the official explanation is plausible enough based on the data, which it seems to be, then you don't need any participation from the ship at all.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#206

Post by xboxnolifes »

waynecochran wrote: post #157

"The filing states claims for negligence" Accidently shooting down an airplane w a missile is "negligence?"

If you are legally intending to fire a missile, but not intending to hit a plane, what else would it be?

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#207

Post by thriftwy »

macintux wrote: post #174
thriftwy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe, everybody has a long history of being invaded by everybody else, so trying to spin that as "Russia bad" requires a very myopic outlook. Russia also has a long history of being invaded from the West. That's why Russia is super nervious about NATO expansion.

Last time Russia was invaded: the time they helped a genocidal maniac try to conquer Europe, 80 years ago. Last time Russia’s neighbors were invaded by them: well, obviously, now.

That genocidal maniac is who unites the EU today. If you no longer blame Germany for Hitler you can't in any kind of good faith blame Russia for Soviet Union's pact with Hitler.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#208

Post by detaro »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #116
thriftwy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, if the USA may repeatedly hit-and-run Soviet/Russian submarines it sounds like a worthy tactic instead of an accident. Blame should be on the Soviet/Russian side for failing to counter.

If there were collisions, I think they were probably accidents. For one, deliberate collisions would risk the loss of the American submarine too. They weren't built for ramming. Secondly, the circumstance of an accidental collision seems very believable. Such collisions would not have been freak accidental encounters; the main mission of US attack subs at the time was to tail Soviet ballistic missile subs very closel…

And it has happened to others that almost certainly weren't trying to kill each other: In 2009, a French and a UK ballistic missile sub collided

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant...

not to mention quite a few more incidents of subs ramming surface vessels, which should be even easier to avoid.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#209

Post by growse »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #119
woodruffw wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existence of evidence is not veridical in nature: that’s why we classify evidence as circumstantial, observed, etc. In other words: if nothing has changed about the eyewitness accounts in the last 26 years, then there is no new reason to doubt the (overwhelmingly likely) explanation for them.

I responded to the claim "there is literally zero evidence for it" by pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts.

The problem is that this circumstantial evidence contradicts actual hard evidence on the wreckage.

Re: Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

#210

Post by nabakin »

jp57 wrote: post #175

When the incident happened I worked with a woman who had served in the Navy at sea. Her opinion was that if the they had accidentally shot down an airliner during a training/practice exercise, hundreds of people on the ship would know about it and it would be impossible to keep them all from talking. Is there anyone from that ship who is on record saying "yeah, we shot down that plane?"

Except the test didn't happen at sea. It happened on land at a testing site. See 64+ of the lawsuit [0]

[0] https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Cou...

Post reply on HN