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

191–200 of 270 posts

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

#191

Post by dontknowwhyihn »

some_random wrote: post #80
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…

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…

It sounds to me like some legal, social media PR is happening in this case.

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

#192

Post by busterarm »

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.

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

#194

Post by woodruffw »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #189
woodruffw wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s exactly the kind of circumstantial, already-mediated evidence we’re talking about: can you, as a civilian, reliably distinguish a missile arc from a burning fuselage at dusk from miles away? I know I can’t.

The one's going up and the other's coming down.

If you read the NTSB’s report, you’ll note that they address this explicitly: the front half of the plane more or less sheared off, causing the back half to pitch up before descending.

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

#195

Post by jrs235 »

woodruffw wrote: post #168
jliptzin wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t know why you are being downvoted, I am also from Long Island and remember the same accounts at the time

Because it’s exactly the kind of circumstantial, already-mediated evidence we’re talking about: can you, as a civilian, reliably distinguish a missile arc from a burning fuselage at dusk from miles away? I know I can’t.

If you think you know you can't you're probably right. I would think and give credibility to the idea that people can distinguish between something moving up/away from the horizon into the sky and vice versa.

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

#196

Post by growse »

tremon wrote: post #151
ceejayoz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory isn't just "it's burning jet fuel", though; it's that the plane broke apart, and that the now tail-heavy back section with the wings flew upwards as the nose fell to the water. It's not an insane idea, and is at least partially backed by radar data.

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.

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

#197

Post by woodruffw »

dontknowwhyihn wrote: post #186
woodruffw wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would indeed be damning if true! I suppose we’ll see if and when those are made public.

It seems pretty damming that the evidence was withheld in the first place.

Not really. The NTSB (or FBI, or CIA) is not compelled to release any particular piece of material, especially not if all already public material sufficiently explains what happens.

I don’t particularly trust the FBI or CIA, but that alone is not good enough, nor is circumstantial evidence that is adequately accounted for.

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

#198

Post by woodruffw »

jrs235 wrote: post #195
woodruffw wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s exactly the kind of circumstantial, already-mediated evidence we’re talking about: can you, as a civilian, reliably distinguish a missile arc from a burning fuselage at dusk from miles away? I know I can’t.

If you think you know you can't you're probably right. I would think and give credibility to the idea that people can distinguish between something moving up/away from the horizon into the sky and vice versa.

Please see the adjacent response: part of the fuselage almost certainly ascended before its final descent. That’s the part that I am not confident I would be able to distinguish.

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

#199

Post by woodruffw »

rdtsc wrote: post #185
woodruffw wrote: post #77

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.

> overwhelming evidence (including the recovered fuselage) that nothing collided with the aircraft. Anti-aircraft missiles don’t necessarily collide with the target. They can spray sharpnel/fragments at the target. Only a few of those in the fuel tank or engine would be necessarily. So unless they recovered all the fuselage parts, it might be hard to discount the missile as the cause. Wonder if anyone who confiscated…

I believe over 95% of the airframe has been recovered at this point, with no evidence of an external explosion or collision. I suppose the evidence could be solely present on the 5% that wasn’t recovered, but that requires a significant speculative leap.

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

#200

Post by MichaelCollins »

thriftwy wrote: post #97
macintux wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe neighbors were armed because Russia has a long history of invading them.

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 preempt the inevitable whataboutism; America never got with the program either. Not really. But America isn't the one threatening Western Europe with war, and Eastern European countries like Poland and Ukraine choosing to align themselves with America/NATO to protect themselves against Russia speaks volumes about the relative threat of America vs Russia to peace in Europe.

Post reply on HN