Live data from Hacker News

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

lawstreetmedia.com

141–150 of 270 posts

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

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missile damage to aircraft leaves very distinct and VERY obvious traces as you would expect from a bunch of shrapnel suddenly slicing through the fuselage at hundreds of different points. If you want an example look at the reconstructed fuselage Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 which got shot down over Ukraine. 95% of the fuselage of TWA 800 was recovered. It was not hit by a surface to air a missile.

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.

The radar tapes show something impacting the plane and then "spiraling away", sounds like it could easily be a collision by a missile without a warhead.

> 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.” Another describes an object on radar “impact[ing]” TWA 800 and “spiral[ling] away,” while also stating that witnesses described seeing a “flair (sic) going up. . . . , orbit/circle another object. Subsequently debris fell from the sky.”

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

#143

Isn't there a statute of limitations? 1996 was 26 years ago.

Also I don’t know if civil suits would be subject to statues of limitation.

Civil torts definitely (can) have statutes of limitation; for example, you can only be sued for bad debt for a few years.

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

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missile damage to aircraft leaves very distinct and VERY obvious traces as you would expect from a bunch of shrapnel suddenly slicing through the fuselage at hundreds of different points. If you want an example look at the reconstructed fuselage Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 which got shot down over Ukraine. 95% of the fuselage of TWA 800 was recovered. It was not hit by a surface to air a missile.

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.

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

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel terribly for these families, but the evidence presented in this filing is circumstantial at best: it adds nothing to contradict the overwhelming evidence (including the recovered fuselage) that nothing collided with the aircraft. It’s easy to see ghosts everywhere, and sometimes they really are there. But TWA 800 probably isn’t one of those cases.

Quoted post unavailable.

> They also manufactured overwhelming evidence that the Viet Cong attacked a navy ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, and that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.

Why would you use these examples? These are cases of them being wrong, not manufacturing. Both cases are well-documented. And the Viet Cong did attack, but only once.

> They’ll gladly manufacture evidence that leads to the deaths of more than 100k+ Americans

Why? And what scenario was going through your mind when you typed 100k+? I can only guess a false flag nuclear strike.

> altering or destroying evidence to cover up the death of hundreds is a normal workday.

You work there too? Got sources on the inside? Don’t make them in to some kind of boogie man. You’ll only obfuscate the truth.

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

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linchpin of your argument seems to be that we need to believe the official reason given, and that the CIA would never lie to the American public. That sounds naïve to anyone with even a passing familiarity with American history.

Whereas the lynchpin of your argument, inasmuch as there is one, is "pfff, who needs evidence when you can have allegations instead".

Rather, the linchpin of their argument is "a public explanation given by the CIA carries less weight than no explanation at all".

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

#147
post #118
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that is new. They said that at the time. Dozens/hundreds of witnesses said same. Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before and would know what one looks like.

Ah, I'm finally in my element here. I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles, and there's nothing so unintuitive about them that a layperson would confuse them with, say, a cloud. In other words, it's a thing in the sky with fire and smoke coming out one end, traveling way faster than you would expect. Probably making a loud, high-pitched roar, depending on where you're sitting. I can't i…

> In other words, it's a thing in the sky with fire and smoke coming out one end, traveling way faster than you would expect.

With respect, by the time a patriot missile reaches a target like an airliner at altitude, the motor is long burnt out. No fire and no smoke (until the fuze detonates), just kinetic energy being bled for terminal guidance.

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

#148
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I'm finally in my element here. I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles, and there's nothing so unintuitive about them that a layperson would confuse them with, say, a cloud. In other words, it's a thing in the sky with fire and smoke coming out one end, traveling way faster than you would expect. Probably making a loud, high-pitched roar, depending on where you're sitting. I can't i…

> I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles... How many exploding, breaking-up 747s, though?

Come now. If you've seen one detonation compromosing a man made structure, nevermind one that is carefully constructed specifically to repeatedly take off under its own power you've seen about all you need to see.

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

#149
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…

I'm really not convinced, the linchpin of the missile argument is that the CIA and FBI were put in charge to cover up a missile shootdown, but it's pretty well documented that they were put in charge because it was a suspected terrorist attack. Everything else is circumstantial evidence at best. I'm certainly interested in what shakes out of this court case, but as of right now it just seems like a typical conspiracy…

And why was it a suspected terrorist attack?

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

#150

Pulling off this coverup would require cooperation of many agencies and lots and lots of people. These kinds of things are really, really hard to do, because someone always talks.

People did talk, but they were silenced and the media did not report on it: http://raylahr.com/ntsb-clears-up-twa-800-conspiracy-theory.... > No fewer than four serious professionals within the investigation made specific allegations of evidence theft or tampering: Linda Kunz and Terrel Stacey of TWA, Jim Speer of TWA and ALPA, and Hank Hughes of the NTSB. Their allegations were taken seriously. Kunz and Speer were s…

This is always the way it is. "It would be impossible to cover up, people would talk." "People did talk." "Those people were lying."
Post reply on HN