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

71–80 of 270 posts

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

#71

Post by woodruffw »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #69
woodruffw wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and may be completely mistaken. But nevertheless, they are evidence. 'Evidence' doesn't imply 'proof'.

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.

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

#72

Post by imglorp »

jeffbee wrote: post #21

If there’s any meat in this case, they left it out of the filing. It’s basically the plane exploded, the navy owns missiles, QED. The part about the plucky retiree who unearths the truth is actually a big red flag.

There's a third possibility: there was a missile but it came from terrorists from a country we would like to protect, for unrelated reasons.

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

#74

Post by anonuser123456 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #22
anonuser123456 wrote: post #20

This would require Boeing's cooperation. Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks.

> 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 interest in committing fraud for other programs.

- Boeing has shareholders and a board of directors. There are no laws in the US that allow executives and staff to defraud shareholders and the board on behalf of the government. Employees/executives would be subject to criminal and civil liability.

- 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.

- FBI is composed of numerous divisions, with competing interests and turf to defend.

At the end of the day, someone at Boeing legal would have to sit down and look at this and say "Well, if the hundreds of people involved all agree to commit fraud and no one finds out, we're in the clear for some nebulous illegal kickback down the line line. Sign us up!"

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

#75

Post by theflyingelvis »

ceejayoz wrote: post #55
theflyingelvis wrote: post #52

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Destruction_of_... > During the course of its investigation, and in its final report, the NTSB issued 15 safety recommendations, mostly covering fuel tank and wiring-related issues. Among the recommendations was that significant consideration should be given to the development of modifications such as nitrogen-inerting systems for new airplane designs, and where feasible,…

Right. But, recommendations are not airworthiness directives.

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

#76

Post by Gamecollector »

fermigier wrote: post #25

For reference: this crash was covered in great details by "Admiral Cloudberg": https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/memories-of-flame-the-cr... Here's the part of his conclusion relevant to this new development: "And it is perhaps understandable that we struggle to ascribe an event so utterly horrible to the mere banality of fate, a sequence of mundane events that could have happened anywhere and at any time. No, we f…

> Here's the part of his conclusion relevant to this new development

This quote isn't even remotely relevant to the new developments and it's extremely obvious you didn't even take 30 seconds to skim the docket.

They've obtained significant new evidence through FOIA litigation that shows the Navy's Aegis missile system missed its intended target (a test drone) and hit TWA 800 instead. One of those pieces of evidence is a set of Navy radar tapes (previously confiscated by the FBI) that show an object heading towards TWA 800 and then spiraling away. They also have dozens of witnesses who saw the missile tests happening, including two Air National Guard pilots who were flying in a Blackhawk nearby when they saw the missile hit TWA 800 and then proceeded to the crash site to see if they could help rescue anyone.

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

#77

Post by woodruffw »

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 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.

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

#79

Post by WalterBright »

thunderbird120 wrote: post #28
bombcar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if it was skin-to-skin impacted by an unarmed missile?

TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air. That would not be caused by an inert missile impact. The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup on top of the fact that there is literally zero evidence for it. The most likely explanation is exactly what is written in the official report.

Yeah, it could. A 747 is designed to withstand all sorts of failures, but impact by a missile is not one of them.

Loss of structural integrity could easily cause violent breakup by aerodynamic forces. A 747 is not going to stay together if the pointy end isn't into the wind. Then there's all that fuel suddenly released and atomized, and fuel absolutely loves to burn. Remember that fireball when the airliners hit the twin towers?

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

#80

Post by some_random »

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 theory to me.
Post reply on HN