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

231–240 of 270 posts

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

#231

Post by sudosysgen »

wbl wrote: post #144
WalterBright wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A missile with a dummy warhead could easily bring it down without exploding. Just hit it where structural failure would result. What you'd want to look for is an appropriately sized hole, and residue from the missile's exhaust. The reason for the warhead is to improve the odds of the bringing down the airplane.

No it could not unless it impacted at exactly the wrong place. Downing planes with missiles is hard: much of a plane can survive having a hole in it, while there are a few critical sections. A AIM-9 crashed into a MIG, didn't go off, got stuck, and reverse engineered after landing.

An SM-2 and an AIM-9 have a two order of magnitude difference in kinetic energy. It's not even close. The SM-2 is 10x heavier and would impact such a target at relative velocity of Mach 2+, whereas a Sidewinder will often impact at only a few hundred kilometers an hour.

At the same time, a 747 and a MiG are two completely different vehicles.

An SM-2 has a solid chance of sinking a ship - and was seriously investigated for that application. A direct hit on a 747 is game over. It's going to go clean through, and if it's into the fuselage, cut it in two.

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

#232

Post by yucky »

ceejayoz wrote: post #54
yucky wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate. If the government accidentally blew the plane up and the CIA covered it up, then who exactly would be putting pressure on Boeing?

Is this a trick question? The government and specifically the CIA, presumably.

Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the government would be pressuring Boeing to show that the CIA covered up the real results of the investigation.

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

#233

Post by waynecochran »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #206
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?

I think if a shot a gun down the street intending to hit a rabbit and shot my neighbor instead I would be charged with something more than mere negligence.

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

#234

Post by thriftwy »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #200
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.

Most of Europe lost their taste for war a few generations ago, and have since tried to create a world where constant invasions of their neighbors is no longer the status quo. They are weary of Russia because Russia never got with the program. Russia does not believe that a peaceful future is possible, assumes the old status quo will continue, and act accordingly by continuing to invade their neighbors. And just to pr…

Few generations is not enough. Having a few generations between large-scale war is how Europe operated in the last 200+ years. Maybe it's just few generations o'clock.

Add to that how Europe absolutely botched both Bosnia and Kosovo and had full-scale wars there. Your arguments about world peace are bogus. Europe is encircled in a ring of fire made from ex-USSR, Middle East and Maghreb. All the wars in the world happen around Europe specifically. Maybe it's time to ask why.

As you can see now, not all of Ukraine wants to align itself with America/NATO.

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

#235

Post by sudosysgen »

rascul wrote: post #158
sudosysgen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even truck mechanics, cooks, and the like have plenty of opportunities to see missile launches. EDIT : Missiles are far faster, and crucially, are on fire from the ground up. They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically. They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much i…

> Even truck mechanics, cooks, and the like have plenty of opportunities to see missile launches. Not necessarily. Based on my time in the US Army, the opportunities for most troops to see missile launches first hand are fairly low. Even for those of us who were in air defense. Live fire exercises were rare, and we never got to fire any in Afghanistan.

That specific base was home to a missile testing center, where dozens were shot.

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

#236

Post by sudosysgen »

ceejayoz wrote: post #117
sudosysgen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even truck mechanics, cooks, and the like have plenty of opportunities to see missile launches. EDIT : Missiles are far faster, and crucially, are on fire from the ground up. They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically. They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much i…

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…

> Most of the eyewitnesses were over the horizon from any potential launch site.

Yes, you will still see it ascend over the horizon. Not so for a level plane.

>A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical for a bit with the entire nose missing.

No, it can't. In the unlikely event that it can keep from stalling, a positive feedback loop from being aerodynamically unstable would send it in a spin. It wouldn't be able to pitch up for more than a few seconds before spinning wildly or disintegrating from aerodynamic forces. Most likely it is already in a state of stall and basically in a fall.

> People largely reported hearing an explosion, not a sonic boom.

Sonic booms sound just like explosions. Here is what a high supersonic to hypersonic missile sounds like : https://youtube.com/shorts/QknqE1IIgHc?feature=share

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

#237

Post by jeffbee »

barbacoa wrote: post #180
jonnybgood wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missile launches perhaps, but not missiles in flight.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wsujROvXg Missile videos like the one above are common. 1996 was soon after the gulf war, tons of missiles were broadcast in the news during that time.

At the point of impact, 15000 feet in the air and 120 miles downrange, it would not have looked anything like that. The missile would have been in a terminal glide and there would have been a huge trail of smoke all the way back to Philadelphia.

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

#238

Post by growse »

absolutelynobo wrote: post #229
growse wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sorry, just bored of the self-centered "I don't understand this thing, so therefore it can't be true" mentality that seems to be a common trait across most conspiracy theorists.

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

#239

Post by licebmi__at__ »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #74
ceejayoz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks. You mean other than their many billions in military contracts, and criminal penalties for releasing classified information? I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate.

>but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate. Boeing is not 'a person' and neither is the government. Boeing is a conglomerate of affiliated smaller organizations. So is the FBI and CIA. Understanding those dynamics is what makes this scenario so implausible. - Boeing commercial programs are separately funded from military. The executives and engineers in charge generally have no int…

> Boeing is not 'a person' and neither is the government. Boeing is a conglomerate of affiliated smaller organizations. So is the FBI and CIA. Understanding those dynamics is what makes this scenario so implausible.

>At the individual level, many of these people have security clearances. Fraud/lying on official documents is the easiest way to lose your clearance. There are no provisions for "It's OK to lie for the good guys". If you lie in an official proceeding, you are going to lose your clearance.

Are these 2 arguments consistent with each other? I mean, Boeing, government and letter soup agencies don’t behave organizationally, except when it comes to upholding the right rules?

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

#240

Post by ceejayoz »

waynecochran wrote: post #233
xboxnolifes wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think if a shot a gun down the street intending to hit a rabbit and shot my neighbor instead I would be charged with something more than mere negligence.

That'd be a negligent discharge, and if they died, a negligent homicide.
Post reply on HN