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

221–230 of 270 posts

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

#221

Post by Gamecollector »

woodruffw wrote: post #68
MichaelCollins wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being struck violently by an unarmed missile could have caused a massive structural failure of the aircraft, which then exploded. > literally zero evidence for it. There is literally circumstantial evidence for it, as well as eye-witness testimony. This is not "proof" by any stretch, but it's certainly evidence.

My understanding is that the chronology of all eyewitness accounts for the missile have been after the airframe was known to have broken up, meaning that they were most likely seeing large sections of the burning fuselage. Are there other eyewitness accounts that don’t match that, or are you saying that the official chronology is itself suspect?

> My understanding is that the chronology of all eyewitness accounts for the missile have been after the airframe was known to have broken up

This statement is absurd on its face unless all the witnesses were simultaneously staring at the seconds ticking on a nuclear clock as they witnessed the plane explode. The whole thing would've transpired in less than a minute. There's no way they could pinpoint the timing of witnesses observations that accurately.

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

#222

Post by Gamecollector »

ceejayoz wrote: post #181
yucky wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Missile damage to aircraft leaves very distinct and VERY obvious traces And conveniently the CIA prevented the NTSB from doing their normal investigation, so I guess we'll never know what obvious traces may or may not have been.

That theory falls apart instantly. The NTSB housed the 95% reconstructed fuselage and used it for training for more than two decades.

And that explanation falls apart instantly when you consider the fact that the FBI was criticized by a neutral third party for removing some of the wreckage without any documentation.

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

#223

Post by naniwaduni »

bitexploder wrote: post #176
mike_d wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are represented by a top tier litigation firm, not some random lawyer trying to make a name for himself. I'm sure they have expert witnesses lined up.

Expert witnesses always agree with whomever hired them. Just a point to consider.

The real filter is, of course, on being able to hire credible expert witnesses who agree with you.

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

#224

Post by Gamecollector »

ceejayoz wrote: post #41
ipsin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the Navy radar tracks for an intercepting missile, and how those, like witness accounts, were actively discounted and suppressed, in favor of a "no missile" narrative?

> What about the Navy radar tracks for an intercepting missile The radar tracks are detailed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Missile_or_bomb... They're not from the Navy (they're ATC tracks), they don't intersect, and one of them's going 30 knots.

You've made about 20 comments on this thread and all of them demonstrate you haven't read a single word of the docket.

Plaintiffs now have the Navy radar tapes and they show and object hitting the plane then spiraling away from it.

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

#225

Post by tyingq »

thunderbird120 wrote: post #120
tyingq wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That would not be caused by an inert missile impact Why not? Inert missile punches through a fuel tank, aerosolizing the fuel, and either the missile engine or a damaged aircraft engine ignites it.

That would cause a fire, not a detonation. The same way gas tanks don't actually explode if you shoot them, they spring leaks and those leaks may catch fire but actual booms require very specific circumstances. Specifically, they require the correct mixture of air and fuel vapors but that doesn't require a missile impact to ignite. Something much more mundane like a spark is just as effective and about 5 orders of ma…

That's helpful, though comparing a (perhaps) 1900kg missile that's 53cm/21in in diameter with a ~1000°C exhaust temp to a bullet isn't quite right.

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

#226

Post by thaumasiotes »

ruddct wrote: post #23

The lawsuit[0] is worth a read and goes into quite a bit of detail about the claimed timeline. Roughly: * Upgraded missile defense systems were deemed a national security priority around this time * Navy ships compatible with these systems were 5 years out, so… * Live missile testing happens at a compatible land base in New Jersey, under congested airspace * Multiple civilians report seeing missile tests in & around…

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-destruction-of-...

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

#227

Post by theflyingelvis »

crazytony wrote: post #160
theflyingelvis wrote: post #52

I remember thinking it was odd that there weren’t any airworthiness directives issued for the center fuel tank.

I guess this is part of the coverup https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... and https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... and https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... and https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... there's about ~20 total unique if I recall. Some supersede others.

I stand corrected. Didn’t see these AD’s.

Also it appears that in 2005 there were about 100 AD’s issued in response to flight 800 center tank issues.

Finally, I never stated that there was a coverup.

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

#228

Post by ceejayoz »

Gamecollector wrote: post #222
ceejayoz wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That theory falls apart instantly. The NTSB housed the 95% reconstructed fuselage and used it for training for more than two decades.

And that explanation falls apart instantly when you consider the fact that the FBI was criticized by a neutral third party for removing some of the wreckage without any documentation.

The IAMAW wasn't a "neutral third party"; the union's members were the ones potentially responsible for the maintenance faults resulting in the alleged short-circuit in the fuel tank.

> Problems with the aircraft's wiring were found, including evidence of arcing in the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wiring that enters the tank. The FQIS on Flight 800 is known to have been malfunctioning; the captain remarked on "crazy" readings from the system about 2 minutes and 30 seconds before the aircraft exploded.

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

#229

Post by absolutelynobo »

growse wrote: post #196
tremon wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an insane idea? How much lift can a pair of wings generate without thrust or stabilization? If the plane broke apart in mid-air, as you say, the engines would have shut down immediately. The only "thrust" the back section had remaining is the inertial energy from its moving mass. Without attitude control and with a huge gaping hole in the front acting as an air brake, I struggle to see how the plane could have cl…

> I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling. This is because you understand neither aerodynamics, or what happens to planes during failures, specifically big ones where when the front falls off. Thankfully, other people do.

This is not a good-faith comment. This is incredibly dismissive without providing any supporting information. Do better.

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

#230

Post by ceejayoz »

Gamecollector wrote: post #224
ceejayoz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about the Navy radar tracks for an intercepting missile The radar tracks are detailed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Missile_or_bomb... They're not from the Navy (they're ATC tracks), they don't intersect, and one of them's going 30 knots.

You've made about 20 comments on this thread and all of them demonstrate you haven't read a single word of the docket. Plaintiffs now have the Navy radar tapes and they show and object hitting the plane then spiraling away from it.

> You've made about 20 comments on this thread and all of them demonstrate you haven't read a single word of the docket. Plaintiffs now have the Navy radar tapes...

Pot, meet kettle. The docket actually says this:

"For example, Dr. Stalcup obtained several FBI records never released to the TWA 800 families or the public. One described an 'original [Navy radar] tape' showing an object “heading straight for TWA 800.'"

There's no claim they have the actual tapes. We'll see what the record they've got says; that they're not parading it to the media is, at the very least, interesting.

Post reply on HN