[HN Gopher] Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lo...
___________________________________________________________________
Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over
1996 TWA crash
Author : hammock
Score : 216 points
Date : 2022-09-25 15:00 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lawstreetmedia.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (lawstreetmedia.com)
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| This would require Boeing's cooperation. Not clear why Boeing
| would cooperate given the legal risks.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > 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.
| yucky wrote:
| >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?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Is this a trick question?
|
| The government and specifically the CIA, presumably.
| yucky wrote:
| 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.
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| >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!"
| licebmi__at__ wrote:
| > 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?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Boeing commercial programs are separately funded from
| military.
|
| Boeing still has a top level of management; the CEO's
| purview includes everything from SLS to Air Force tankers
| to the 737-MAX's problems.
|
| > There are no laws in the US that allow executives and
| staff to defraud shareholders and the board on behalf of
| the government.
|
| National security letters are a prominent counterexample to
| this claim.
|
| > There are no provisions for "It's OK to lie for the good
| guys".
|
| James Clapper lied to Congress about PRISM without
| repercussions.
|
| > 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!"
|
| That's backwards. Boeing Legal would go "we've been told
| the following items are classified Top Secret, and all of
| us can go to jail for disclosing them". Loss of future
| programs is a _consequence_ - the stick, not the carrot.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| How do you figure? Reflexive anti-Boeing groupthink? The
| government's narrative is that the plane blew itself up, e.g.
| it was Boeing's fault. The lawsuit contents that the plane was
| shot down, accidentally, by the US military.
|
| Boeing already took the reputational hit. If the allegations of
| the lawsuit are correct, it was never Boeing's fault in the
| first place. Boeing would be vindicated.
| trasz wrote:
| Of course they would be vindicated; they would just lose
| military contracts afterwards. In a way that's not in any way
| related to this affair of course.
| bombcar wrote:
| Boeing successfully (for awhile) cooperated in perpetuating
| "the pilots were holding it wrong) with the 737 MAX.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Boeing is part of the US government.
|
| I do not believe this story is true, although I do not dismiss
| it.
| jeffbee wrote:
| 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.
| imglorp wrote:
| 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.
| ipsin wrote:
| 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?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > 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.
| Gamecollector wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > 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_.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| A tragedy. But why the cover-up? The amount of money to settle
| honestly was finite. Sure a fair amount, but worth going as far
| as they did? Is there more to this? Or just group-think gone
| wildly bad?
|
| Edit / adding
|
| The arc of my concern is, if these organizations / companies
| would do this for this (relatively small) amount of money, what
| happens - to us - when the stakes are 10x or more higher?
| scorpios77 wrote:
| bombcar wrote:
| This is one of those conspiracies that always seemed probably
| true, based on my cursory examination of the evidence.
|
| Or the other way, assume a weapons test went horribly wrong; what
| would the result be?
| thunderbird120 wrote:
| 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.
| KidComputer wrote:
| Only if it was frag warhead, it could have been a continuous-
| rod warhead.
| WalterBright wrote:
| 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.
| Gamecollector wrote:
| 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."
| wbl wrote:
| 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.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| 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.
| WalterBright wrote:
| A 747 has plenty of wrong places that if hit would be
| curtains. It is not designed to resist battle damage. It
| is designed to resist failure of individual components.
| yucky wrote:
| >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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That theory falls apart instantly. The NTSB housed the 95%
| reconstructed fuselage and used it for training for more
| than two decades.
| Gamecollector wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
| trasz wrote:
| FBI and CIA could easily "unrecover" parts of evidence with
| those marks.
|
| ("The IAMAW strongly criticized the FBI's conduct during the
| investigation, including the undocumented removal by FBI
| agents of wreckage from the hangar where it was stored", from
| the Wikipedia link above.)
| hyperbovine wrote:
| > Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
|
| This is what seals it for me. Sadly, so much time has
| elapsed, and the world has turned to such shit, that _we have
| multiple other incidents to compare to_. Not just MH17, but
| also PS752, and many others that did not receive as much
| attention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_sho
| otdown_inc...). TWA800 looks nothing like these.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Test missiles often have dummy or instrumented warheads.
| You would not expect it to look anything like.
|
| And while normal warheads typically try to narrowly miss to
| maximize fragmentation, the SM-2 is quite unique in that it
| is specifically designed with a contact fuze as
| fragmentation doesn't work very well for many of its
| intended targets.
| bombcar wrote:
| What if it was skin-to-skin impacted by an unarmed missile?
| thunderbird120 wrote:
| 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.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| >> 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
|
| Please explain this assertion. It makes no sense (at
| least to me).
| thunderbird120 wrote:
| It's exceptionally difficult to make a large airliner
| explode like a gas station in a 1980s action movie by
| hitting it with an inert missile-sized body. You could
| certainly cause damage which would cause it to eventually
| crash but TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air, which is
| different.
| bombcar wrote:
| I'm not entirely sure how a loose wire in a fuel tank can
| cause an explosion but a loose missile in the same tank
| cannot.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 95% of the wreckage was recovered and painstakingly
| reconstructed in a hangar, then kept for 25 years (and
| notably, used as a training aid for NTSB investigators
| during that time). Barring some sort of "huh, this looks
| like something went _in_ rather than _out_ ", that's a
| fairly hard theory to push.
| WalterBright wrote:
| 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?
| WalterBright wrote:
| My dad flew F-80s in the Korean War. The F-80 had a nasty
| characteristic. If you flew it too fast, it would pitch
| up, and the sudden aerodynamic forces would rip the wings
| off. Unfortunately, the engine was more than powerful
| enough to do this in level flight, so the pilot had to be
| keenly aware of this at all times.
|
| (The solution was swept wings, exemplified by its
| successor, the F-86.)
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| 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.
| woodruffw wrote:
| 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?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and may be completely
| mistaken. But nevertheless, they _are_ evidence.
|
| 'Evidence' doesn't imply 'proof'.
| woodruffw wrote:
| 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.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I responded to the claim _" there is literally zero
| evidence for it"_ by pointing out that there is
| _circumstantial_ evidence, and eyewitness accounts.
| growse wrote:
| The problem is that this _circumstantial_ evidence
| contradicts actual hard evidence on the wreckage.
| Gamecollector wrote:
| > 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.
| tyingq wrote:
| >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.
| thunderbird120 wrote:
| 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 magnitude more likely to
| occur.
|
| TWA 800 broke apart as a result of a major overpressure
| event. The particular mode of in-flight failure observed
| in TWA 800 is very difficult to cause by poking a single
| missile sized hole anywhere in the aircraft. Not
| theoretically impossible, but difficult to the point that
| it's not a reasonable explanation. You have to take the
| combined probability of 2 very unlikely events rather
| than just 1.
| tyingq wrote:
| That's helpful, though comparing a (perhaps) 1900kg
| missile that's 53cm/21in in diameter with a ~1000degC
| exhaust temp to a bullet isn't quite right.
| ruddct wrote:
| 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 the
| date of the TWA crash
|
| * Missile test hits TWA jet. Instead of the NTSB running the
| investigation (like normal), the CIA and FBI are immediately put
| in charge
|
| * CIA/FBI confiscate records, run PR campaign claiming the crash
| was "NOT A MISSILE", mislead the families and general public
| about the incident
|
| * Missile tests continue post-crash
|
| Damning if true, to say the least.
|
| [0]
| https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Cou...
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| I distinctly remember how very soon after the crash, the TV
| announced that the DOD put out a statement that there were no
| ships nearby and the plane wasn't hit by a missile. Before
| anyone accused anyone of anything. It seemed a bit too
| suspicious for that to be among the first things on the news.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Eh, you're aware there's always knowledgeable people tracking
| activities and just because there's no immediate discussion
| in public doesn't mean those watchers arnt questioning.
|
| Ergo, this is a useless factoid.
| woodruffw wrote:
| 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.
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| I'd be highly skeptical of every claim that an intelligence
| agency puts forward, as their job is to manufacture whatever
| reality they are ordered.
|
| 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.
| They'll gladly manufacture evidence that leads to the deaths
| of more than 100k+ Americans; altering or destroying evidence
| to cover up the death of hundreds is a normal workday.
|
| Any piece of evidence that has been in their custody or
| produced under their direction is circumspect by definition.
|
| > These radar tapes were confiscated by the FBI immediately
| after the crash of TWA 800. According to records obtained in
| the FOIA Litigation, they show an object "impact" TWA 800,
| which directly contradicts the FBI's, CIAs, and NTSB's public
| conclusions that what caused the incident was "NOT A
| MISSILE."
| jonnybgood wrote:
| > 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.
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| No, the CIA was not wrong about Saddam.
|
| It knew internally that the regime was not producing
| weapons, and communicated that clearly to Bush,
| repeatedly.
|
| Bush decided that he could force the CIA to manufacture
| evidence, so he installed political operatives that
| forced the CIA author reports relying on a source they
| knew was lying.
|
| The answer to both questions is that you need to accept
| that an intelligence agency is not a person nor an
| objective, fact-finding institution.
|
| They are an organization created and dedicated to
| advancing the interests of their executives, in the case
| of the US the president.
|
| They are not bound by objective truth, nor do they have
| any duty to be truthful to anyone besides the president.
| They've spied on congress, hacked the senate networks,
| and outright lied in televised sworn testimony to
| congress whenever they deem that democratic oversight is
| beneath them - and I'm talking about the CIA of the
| 2010's, not to mention the pre-church 1970's CIA which
| outright murdered Americans.
|
| They are an organization that exists to serve the
| interests of a single person, the idea that what they say
| has any relation to objective reality is laughable.
| They'll say and do whatever they think serves their
| interest, whether it is true or false is completely
| irrelevant to their process.
|
| You cannot assume any information or evidence that has
| been touched by them to be true or false - their aim is
| to manufacture evidence for any reality they want,
| regardless of objective reality.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > 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 those tapes from the Navy
| would be willing to come forward after these years and
| explain why they did it that.
| woodruffw wrote:
| 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.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The SM-2 has direct-hit capability. If it did directly
| hit the fuselage without the NTSB being briefed on its
| capabilities, it could easily be mistaken.
| Gamecollector wrote:
| > overwhelming evidence
|
| Well yes, of course it would look overwhelming if all the
| contradictory evidence and testimony was buried. Not to
| mention any evidence they fabricated to support their cover-
| up.
|
| You're really missing the main point of the lawsuit.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I'm not missing that. My point is that the actual evidence
| is pretty threadbare, and vaguely gesticulating about a
| conspiracy does not actually conjure stronger evidence.
|
| Is it possible a missile really did blow up TWA 800? Sure.
| But I am not convinced by arguments that are effectively
| appeals to my latent distrust for the CIA, much less
| arguments that boil down to fill-in-the-dots conspiracy
| pattern matching.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| As someone who lived on Long Island at the time, I can tell
| you that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of eye witnesses
| from both the beach and the water that claimed to have seen a
| missile fly up and hit the plane. There was explosive residue
| consistent with a missile found on on the wreckage of the
| plane. One of the lead investigators thought it was a
| missile, and he was shuffled out of the investigation.
| jliptzin wrote:
| Don't know why you are being downvoted, I am also from Long
| Island and remember the same accounts at the time
| woodruffw wrote:
| 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.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| The one's going up and the other's coming down.
| woodruffw wrote:
| 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.
| jrs235 wrote:
| 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.
| woodruffw wrote:
| 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.
| csharpminor wrote:
| They're not just claiming circumstantial evidence. The
| plaintiff says they have FOIA documents describing
| confiscated Navy radar tapes that show an object striking TWA
| 800.
|
| Damning if true, but a lot hinges on documents we haven't
| seen.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| A radar that was under test. Could it be clutter or ghost
| track? Was it detected independently by other systems?
| woodruffw wrote:
| That would indeed be damning if true! I suppose we'll see
| if and when those are made public.
| dontknowwhyihn wrote:
| It seems pretty damming that the evidence was withheld in
| the first place.
| woodruffw wrote:
| 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.
| onionisafruit wrote:
| Those documents would be circumstantial evidence because
| they only show that the author claimed that there were
| radar tapes showing something hit TWA 800.
|
| If the radar tapes still exist and can be presented as
| evidence, that would still be circumstantial evidence
| because they only show what the radar measured. The meaning
| of those measurements require interpretation to come to a
| conclusion that a missile hit TWA 800.
|
| I'm not saying this would not be strong evidence, just that
| it would be circumstantial evidence and not direct
| evidence.
| dontknowwhyihn wrote:
| It would directly contradict the claim that a fire caused
| the crash
| mike_d wrote:
| 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.
| bitexploder wrote:
| Expert witnesses always agree with whomever hired them.
| Just a point to consider.
| naniwaduni wrote:
| The real filter is, of course, on being _able to hire_
| credible expert witnesses who agree with you.
| onionisafruit wrote:
| I'm sure they do. I wasn't trying to imply they don't
| have good evidence. I was only taking issue with the
| description that it isn't circumstantial and secondarily
| the misconception people have that circumstantial
| evidence is weak evidence.
|
| The only direct evidence in this case is eye witness
| testimony, and the government has done a pretty good job
| of undermining that with their typical "your lying eyes"
| argument. So this will be a battle of circumstantial
| evidence.
| Gamecollector wrote:
| > If the radar tapes still exist
|
| Read the lawsuit, they have the tapes.
| baryphonic wrote:
| Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, evidence by
| implication. Direct evidence is that which is directly
| asserted, like eyewitness statements, recordings, or
| recovered items.
|
| Almost all of the evidence the NTSB accumulated for TWA 800
| is circumstantial evidence, apart from things like the flight
| recorders, the eyewitness statements and physically
| recovering the aircraft. Even the proverbial phrase "smoking
| gun" would be _circumstantial_ evidence of a murder, not
| direct proof.
|
| The NTSB's circumstantial evidence is quite thorough,
| including literal experiments the Board performed. It's
| mostly quite strong, and it explains the nearly-irrefutable
| direct evidence (e.g. cockpit recordings, the state of the
| recovered instruments at the time of the accident).
|
| Also, direct evidence can sometimes be the most unreliable.
| Eyewitness statements, for example, are notoriously flawed,
| as our memories are not perfect hard disk dumps, but are
| malleable. Even in this case, it's possible that the FBI &
| CIA or even the NTSB itself "poisoned" the direct testimony
| of the hundreds witnesses on shore, at sea or even in the
| air. (My own bias is that I have much more respect for NTSB
| investigators.)
|
| The NTSB's report is nearly persuasive to me, other than the
| ignition source. Regardless, I do think the NTSB's
| recommendations & subsequent FAA action have made air travel
| safer as a result of their work (again, almost all of it
| circumstantial).
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-destruction-of-...
| some_random wrote:
| 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.
| leetrout wrote:
| From the paperwork:
|
| 45. Two other eyewitnesses, Air National Guard pilots,
| Captain Christian Baur and Major Frederick "Fritz" Meyer,
| similarly stated that they witnessed events that indicated a
| missile struck TWA 800. 46. On the day TWA 800 went down,
| Captain Baur and Major Meyer were flying in a Black Hawk
| helicopter near the area of the TWA 800 incident. Captain
| Baur recalled seeing an object with a "rocket type motor . .
| . moving quick" toward TWA 800. After the crash, Captain Baur
| flew to the area and conducted a search and rescue.
| jeffbee wrote:
| 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.
| tgflynn wrote:
| > None of that is new.
|
| What appears to be new is the claim that they have FOIA
| documents describing radar tapes that show something
| hitting the plane.
|
| > Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before
| and would know what one looks like.
|
| I think the two Air National Guard officers cited in the
| parent comment likely had seen missile launches before.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| Pretty sure plenty of people have seen missiles on the
| evening news at some point in their lives.
| jonnybgood wrote:
| Missile launches perhaps, but not missiles in flight.
| barbacoa wrote:
| 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.
| jeffbee wrote:
| 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.
| 13of40 wrote:
| 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 imagine 40 people giving
| the same mistaken testimony. On the other hand, mass
| hysteria is a thing, so who knows.
| closewith wrote:
| > 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.
| phkahler wrote:
| Sure, if it was a patriot missile? And since it obviously
| hit the wrong target who says the range was long enough
| to reach engine burn out. The deniers here are just
| making shit up.
|
| Sometimes the government and its contractors would do
| better to own their mistakes, take the financial hit, and
| move on. Yet here we are 25 years later still dealing
| with it and burning credibility.
| [deleted]
| jeffbee wrote:
| The witness accounts of the supposed missile cited in the
| official account all describe the missile as ascending,
| but to fit the theory of this lawsuit it would have been
| fired from 120 miles away - let's just ignore that this
| is far out of the effective range of the rocket in
| question - and would have appeared to have been
| travelling horizontally to observers on the ground.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-
| aircraft missiles...
|
| How many exploding, breaking-up 747s, though?
| salawat wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Quite simply, "that looks like a missile" and "that _is_
| a missile" are not the same. Especially from 20+ miles
| away.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| > Quite simply, "that looks like a missile" and "that is
| a missile" are not the same. Especially from 20+ miles
| away.
|
| It could be superman.
| 13of40 wrote:
| I don't think we ever had the training budget for that.
| [deleted]
| fortran77 wrote:
| > Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before
| and would know what one looks like.
|
| I'm very skeptical of these claims, but many, many people
| --including people on Long Island--have seen missiles.
|
| I've seen many, and I've seen them get diverted out of
| the air by anti-missile systems, and I've seen them
| strike the ground near me. (This is all from spending at
| least 4 month/year in Israel over the past 59+ years.)
| synu wrote:
| I've now seen hundreds of missiles striking their targets
| thanks to the Ukraine war. It looks pretty much exactly
| like you would guess it looks like.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| In fact many of the witnesses were active duty military
| and military veterans who knew exactly what a missile
| looked like.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Just like in civilian life, most people in the military
| are truck mechanics, cooks, and suchlike. Imputing
| expertise upon such people is misdirection, just the same
| kind of misdirection this filing is using to impute
| authority on a person by citing him as "a physicist" and
| consistently referring to him as "doctor" out of context.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| 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 is not.
|
| They really do look and sound very different. I would
| expect someone who has seen and heard dozens of launches
| of that exact missile to be able to make it out quite
| easily. There are plenty of videos of that online and the
| difference is quite obvious. Especially someone who is
| used to this exact model of missile would be able to tell
| them apart.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
|
| > 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
|
| A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical
| for a bit with the entire nose missing.
|
| > They also make drastically different sounds, as one is
| supersonic and the other very much is not.
|
| People largely reported hearing an explosion, not a sonic
| boom.
| avh02 wrote:
| Of everything you said
|
| > A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical
| for a bit with the entire nose missing.
|
| Is doing some very heavy assuming.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It's not an assumption.
|
| Here's what a tail-heavy 747 does:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI
| woodruffw wrote:
| I don't know about "vertical", but the pitch-up theory is
| the NTSB's own, not the sole assumption of the person
| you're responding to.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| > 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
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Yes, you will still see it ascend over the horizon.
|
| You notice something out to sea. It's a lit object rising
| up into the air. There's then an explosion. This
| describes both "missile hits plane" and "burning plane
| flying upwards explodes".
|
| > No, it can't.
|
| I mean, tell that to the NTSB, who didn't have much
| objection to the CIA's theory. Or the world's community
| of aviation engineers, who a) weren't part of the
| conspiracy and b) didn't riot over something you're
| claiming is obviously impossible.
|
| Essentially, it did this, but at a much higher starting
| speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI
|
| > In the unlikely event that it can keep from stalling...
|
| Yes, it would stall. If you want to stall a plane, one of
| the easiest ways ways is to _pitch up sharply_.
|
| > It wouldn't be able to pitch up for more than a few
| seconds before spinning wildly or disintegrating from
| aerodynamic forces.
|
| Yes, that's the ka-boom part of what was seen. There's an
| animation based on the reconstruction at
| https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo that demonstrates this,
| exactly as you describe - pitch up, flip over,
| disintegrate.
|
| > Sonic booms sound just like explosions.
|
| Then we agree that "people said it sounded like a
| missile" is not meaningful.
| rascul wrote:
| > 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.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| That specific base was home to a missile testing center,
| where dozens were shot.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Missiles don't really look any different to what you'd
| think it would. They look just like very big fireworks
| until they burn out (and then they are basically
| invisible, just like fireworks).
| icehawk wrote:
| What exactly differentiates a missile from any other sort
| of rocket, that someone who hadn't seen a missile before
| would not know what it looks like?
| jonnybgood wrote:
| A missile in flight looks like a small aircraft from the
| ground.
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| 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 naive to anyone with even a passing familiarity
| with American history.
| thfuran wrote:
| Whereas the lynchpin of your argument, inasmuch as there is
| one, is "pfff, who needs evidence when you can have
| allegations instead".
| tremon wrote:
| Rather, the linchpin of their argument is "a public
| explanation given by the CIA carries less weight than no
| explanation at all".
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| dontknowwhyihn wrote:
| It sounds to me like some legal, social media PR is happening
| in this case.
| dTal wrote:
| And why was it a suspected terrorist attack?
| growse wrote:
| > And why was it a suspected terrorist attack?
|
| Because when a plane explodes with zero warning, or
| indication of fault, it's the first thing people suspect.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| https://www.state.gov/1993-world-trade-center-bombing/
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings
|
| Because terrorism exists. If there are reports that an
| aircraft suffered from an explosion while in flight what
| would you think?
| Gamecollector wrote:
| > they were put in charge because it was a suspected
| terrorist attack.
|
| Good thing the US government doesn't have a long history of
| using terrorism as an excuse to expand its own power beyond
| all reasonable limits.
|
| Oh wait...
| pxmpxm wrote:
| Exactly which part of this is new evidence? What you wrote is
| the basis of the original conspiracy theory, that NTSB
| rejected.
|
| Also we have multiple recent events of a commercial jet being
| shot down by a contemporary AA system, in each of those the
| causality is pretty obvious.
|
| eg: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENykmLaXkAAGslH.png
| raldi wrote:
| I don't understand the New Jersey connection; the plane went
| down quite far from the NY/NJ border:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#/media/File:TWA...
| ok_dad wrote:
| There's a naval weapons station right to the southwest of
| that track, about 50 miles away maybe. A navy SM-2 missile
| has an unclassified range of 90 nautical miles. It's likely
| that they would have been testing some variant of this
| missile for vertical launch, perhaps with some new phased
| array radar experiments and such. Up to the 90s, the navy was
| still using rail launched missiles and traditional radar
| emitters and the article talks about ships several years out
| that can't be used for these tests, which I assume are thee
| first of current AEGIS ships.
| aliqot wrote:
| drstewart wrote:
| Uh, what?
| candlemas wrote:
| I was always curious about how so many witnesses saw a streak of
| light shoot up to the plane which then exploded. I was never
| convinced by the video the CIA released that explained what those
| witnesses actually saw was a trail of burning jet fuel going away
| from the plane.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
| tremon wrote:
| 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 climbed any more than a few meters before
| stalling.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| If it were that obvious, cover-up would be impossible.
| You'd have had hundreds of aeronautical engineers screaming
| to everyone who'd listen.
| growse wrote:
| > 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.
| absolutelynobo wrote:
| This is not a good-faith comment. This is incredibly
| dismissive without providing any supporting information.
| Do better.
| growse wrote:
| 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.
| csharpminor wrote:
| Yeah the fact that it was _the CIA_ releasing the video always
| seemed like a red flag to me. Why were they even involved in
| the investigation? Why didn't those statements come from the
| FAA?
| Gamecollector wrote:
| - Missile system being tested in the area
|
| - Dozens of witnesses who report seeing missiles in the weeks
| before and after the crash
|
| - Multiple witnesses including Blackhawk pilots flying nearby
| who saw a missile hit the plane
|
| - FBI and CIA take over and freeze out the NTSB
|
| Yeah I'd say there were a few red flags lol
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That's readily answerable.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800
|
| > At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the
| possibility that international terrorists might have been
| involved, assistance was requested from the Central
| Intelligence Agency (CIA).
|
| > Why didn't those statements come from the FAA?
|
| They wouldn't normally; without any potential of criminal
| activity, they'd come from the NTSB.
| csharpminor wrote:
| So why did the CIA produce a video about the fuel tank
| exploding, when that is something clearly within the
| purview of the NTSB? Why did they continue to devote
| resources when it was established that it was not a
| terrorist attack?
|
| Aviation incident analysis is not one of the CIA's core
| competencies, but propaganda is.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Incident analysis - especially where explosives are
| concerned - is absolutely something the CIA does
| regularly. (As is _causing_ such incidents.) If I asked
| the CIA to determine if something was enemy(ish, in this
| case) action, I 'd expect to get a fairly detailed report
| explaining why or why not back.
|
| I'm skeptical until they provide some details on the FOIL
| documents received.
|
| The NTSB worked for four years and released a report, as
| expected.
| bombcar wrote:
| Wouldn't the CIA first ask if you _needed_ it to be or
| not be enemy action?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Sure, if you come to the CIA with "we need you to fake a
| report", they'll likely fake a report. In that scenario,
| though, I strongly suspect the 95% reconstructed fuselage
| wouldn't have been permitted to be a NTSB training aid
| for two decades afterwards.
| bombcar wrote:
| How many other air remains had such done to it? 25 years
| seems a long time.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| MH17 was similarly reconstructed.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/mh17-aircraft-wreckage-
| viewed-...
|
| Modern laser scanning makes retaining the original long-
| term less important, apparently.
| cronix wrote:
| It sounds more like "take over" than "assistance."
| [deleted]
| krolden wrote:
| So this tells us its OK to lie as long as 200 people die and
| you can tie up the evidence for a couple decades.
|
| I'll remember that when I'm teaching my kids its bad to lie
| about stealing an extra cookie. Thanks CIA, etc
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| 1. You should never use the CIA as a moral example for your
| children.
|
| 2. With respect to lying about hundreds of people dying, is
| that really a surprise to you? Just a few _possible_ examples
| off the top of my head.
|
| RMS Lusitania, claimed to be carrying tens if not hundreds of
| tons of undeclared high explosives, which would have made it
| a 'legitimate' target for the u-boat that sank it. This is
| officially denied, but the Royal Navy has since endeavored to
| destroy the wreck and warn divers away from investigating it.
|
| K-219, a Soviet ballistic missile sub, sank in early October
| 1986. Later that month USS Augusta, an American attack
| submarine, went in for repairs to a smashed radar dome. The
| US Navy denies any connection between the two.
|
| K-129, another Soviet ballistic missile sub, sank in 1968.
| The US Navy figured out where it was before anybody else,
| claiming to have found it using sonar buoys and Bayesian
| search techniques. A few days after K-129 sank, USS Swordfish
| went into port for repairs after a supposed collision with
| sea ice. The US Navy denies any connection between the two.
|
| MS Estonia was a ferry that sank in 1980 when the front
| loading doors failed. Allegations that the ferry was being
| used to smuggle military hardware were denied by everybody,
| then the wreck was deliberately buried under thousands of
| tons of gravel so that nobody can inspect it.
|
| 1988, the US Navy shoots down Iran Air Flight 655. The US
| Navy claims it was self-defense because their Aegis cruiser
| misidentified the Airbus A300 as an Iranian F-14.
| thriftwy wrote:
| Unfortunately, if the USA may repeatedly hit-and-run
| Soviet/Russian submarines it sounds like a worthy tactic
| instead of an accident. Blame should be on the
| Soviet/Russian side for failing to counter.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| If there were collisions, I think they were probably
| accidents. For one, deliberate collisions would risk the
| loss of the American submarine too. They weren't built
| for ramming.
|
| Secondly, the circumstance of an accidental collision
| seems very believable. Such collisions would not have
| been freak accidental encounters; the main mission of US
| attack subs at the time was to tail Soviet ballistic
| missile subs very closely and not be detected. The Soviet
| submarine commanders had some inkling of this, and
| responded by making erratic maneuvers to "clear their
| baffles" (essentially, look behind themselves, where
| their sonar was otherwise blind.) Trailing an
| unpredictable submarine _very_ close is inherently risky.
| I think the blame falls on the circumstance of the Cold
| War itself, which compelled both sides to believe their
| actions were necessary.
| detaro wrote:
| And it has happened to others that almost certainly
| weren't trying to kill each other: In 2009, a French and
| a UK ballistic missile sub collided
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomph
| ant...
|
| not to mention quite a few more incidents of subs ramming
| surface vessels, which should be even easier to avoid.
| bombcar wrote:
| Also allowing the Soviets to claim an undersea accident
| vs "you totally rammed our sun you idiot" allows them to
| save face and also prevents escalation.
| orangepurple wrote:
| People still believe the Pearl Harbor attack was an
| inevitable occurrence or a radar detection and communications
| problem almost 100 years later. President Roosevelt told
| General Marshall to send a message to the Hawaiian
| commanders: "Don't interfere with Japan's overt act of war.
| The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt
| act."
|
| Maybe in 100 years the questions and evidence presented in
| the 5 hour documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor
| (2013)" will be answered and/or justified.
| [deleted]
| Sebguer wrote:
| Can you source that quote?
|
| The closest I can find that made it to actual commanders
| is:
|
| "If hostilities cannot repeat not be avoided the United
| States desires that Japan commit the first overt act. This
| policy should not repeat not be construed as restricting
| you to a course of action that might jeopardize your
| defense."
|
| Which is very different from the conspiratorial intent
| you're implying.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Yep, I believe that's the exact quote. The US started
| putting impossible demands on Japan to suffocate them
| economically and militarily and when it was obvious that
| Japan was pushed to the breaking point the attack on
| Pearl Harbor was "allowed" to justify the ensuing war
| back home.
|
| Interestingly I see a lot of parallels in the war in
| Ukraine right now. The US and EU started arming bordering
| countries and applying extreme economic sanctions on
| Russia in rapid succession and "everyone" was surprised
| that the invasion occurred. Now everyone sees Russia as
| the overt oppressor. Mission accomplished?
|
| https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-
| japans-...
| nfriedly wrote:
| > The US and EU started arming bordering countries and
| applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid
| succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion
| occurred.
|
| I think you're getting things out of order there - the
| economic sanctions came _after_ the invasion.
|
| Don't forget that Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014;
| that also was met with sanctions.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Lets indulge this - if that was the plan, youd hope they
| would be better prepared for Russia shutting off the gas
| pipelines. If they didnt switch to renewables and
| nuclear, at least they would have full gas storage and
| LNG terminals and contracts in place?
|
| Instead, they were caight with their pants down
| yongjik wrote:
| > The US started putting impossible demands on Japan to
| suffocate them economically and militarily ...
|
| This is the same historical revisionist nonsense floated
| by Japanese right wing to claim that Japan was somehow
| "forced" to attack America and WW2 was a just war of
| defense.
| alamortsubite wrote:
| > The US and EU started arming bordering countries and
| applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid
| succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion
| occurred.
|
| Precisely what sanctions did the US and EU levy before
| Russia invaded Ukraine?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Japan had plenty of oil and energy to sustain peaceful
| operations. They "needed" more oil to wage their land war
| in China and naval conquest across the Pacific. They
| tried negotiating with the Dutch to get oil from the
| Dutch East Indies. When these negotiations failed, they
| hatched a plan to take that oil by force. The subsequent
| oil embargo against Japan was a response to that. The
| reason they picked a fight with America was because the
| American occupied Philippines was located directly
| between Japan and the Dutch East Indies. They knew that
| to take the Dutch East Indies they would need to take the
| Philippines as well, so they decided to destroy the US
| Navy first.
|
| Internet commenters like to make a big deal out of the
| oil embargo, saying that America twisted Japan's arm and
| forced them into a war. This is not true. Japan's arm was
| twisted by their own imperial ambition which demanded
| that oil. If they never had that ambition they would not
| have needed that oil in the first place, nor would they
| have been slapped with an oil embargo.
| macintux wrote:
| Or maybe neighbors were armed because Russia has a long
| history of invading them.
| thriftwy wrote:
| 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.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| 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.
| thriftwy wrote:
| 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.
| macintux wrote:
| Last time Russia was invaded: the time they helped a
| genocidal maniac try to conquer Europe, 80 years ago.
|
| Last time Russia's neighbors were invaded by them: well,
| obviously, now.
| thriftwy wrote:
| That genocidal maniac is who unites the EU today. If you
| no longer blame Germany for Hitler you can't in any kind
| of good faith blame Russia for Soviet Union's pact with
| Hitler.
| macintux wrote:
| I'm fine blaming the current genocidal maniac: Putin.
| fermigier wrote:
| 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 find it much more comfortable to
| believe that humanity is the only force capable of imagining an
| act of such malice, closing our minds to the knowledge that the
| unthinking universe could just as easily conjure those 54
| terrible seconds of existential agony. Believing that that agony
| was the product of a human mind allows us to indulge our fantasy
| that someone is in control, saving us from the disturbing thought
| that perhaps we, too, are merely passengers aboard a pilotless
| airplane hurtling toward an uncertain zenith."
| CentralHarvest wrote:
| Eh, I'd say the vast majority of people find it much more
| comforting to embrace the "mere banality of fate" explanation
| than to even entertain the idea that an errant missile test
| _could_ be covered up by putting intelligence agencies in
| charge of the investigation -- let alone that it actually
| _was_.
| duxup wrote:
| Disinterested parties perhaps, but folks who the event
| touches them emotionally... they want reasons.
| Gamecollector wrote:
| > 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.
| growse wrote:
| > > 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.
|
| It's completely relevant, because it characterises the
| motivations behind the filing of a time-wasting, straw-
| clutching lawsuit by those desperate to believe some
| conspiracy.
|
| The singular problem with any of these endeavours is that
| they completely fail to even attempt to show how their
| theories account for the actual damage and crack patterns
| seen on the wreckage pulled out of the sea. We have a very
| good, consistent working theory for how the observed damage
| came to be, so if anyone's going to take an alternative
| theory seriously, it has to also account for that.
|
| > 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.
|
| The new evidence doesn't show this. It suggests it may be a
| possibility, but that possibility contradicts other, hard
| evidence.
| Gamecollector wrote:
| > straw-clutching
|
| If that's how you characterize the plaintiff's recent
| acquisition of Navy radar tapes (previously seized by the
| FBI) that show a missile hitting the plane and then
| spiraling away I have to seriously question your ability to
| objectively evaluate the facts of the case.
| growse wrote:
| If you knew anything about radar, you'd understand that
| the chasm between what would be needed to show what you
| think it shows, and what it actually shows is pretty
| vast.
| busterarm wrote:
| Government disinformation board staffers are working overtime on
| this board, I see...
| [deleted]
| WalterBright wrote:
| 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.
| fsociety999 wrote:
| 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 suspended from the
| investigation, Kunz permanently. Stacey was arrested. And
| Hughes was denounced by the FBI's Kallstrom for his
| participation in a "kangaroo court of malcontents," namely a
| U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| This is always the way it is. "It would be impossible to
| cover up, people would talk." "People did talk." "Those
| people were lying."
| puffoflogic wrote:
| Same thing happened more recently: "If the COVID vaccines
| caused myocarditis and other serious adverse effects, we'd
| know about it because people would report them. No one has
| reported anything so COVID vaccines are safe." "Here's
| $LARGE_NUMBER reports of adverse effects." "Those are all
| lies."
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| Plenty of people did talk, including investigators.
|
| https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-film-feeds-con...
| theflyingelvis wrote:
| I remember thinking it was odd that there weren't any
| airworthiness directives issued for the center fuel tank.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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,
| for existing airplanes.
| theflyingelvis wrote:
| Right. But, recommendations are not airworthiness directives.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| What airworthiness directive should they have issued?
| Mitigation systems for this issue are now required, but
| "shut down air travel until they're in place" would not
| have been feasible, especially as the issue wasn't limited
| to the one aircraft type.
| crazytony wrote:
| 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.
| theflyingelvis wrote:
| 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.
| stewvsshark wrote:
| Great write up/summary of the crash: https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo
| zeristor wrote:
| Why now?
| pmarreck wrote:
| I'm from Long Island and clearly remember this. This is a pretty
| shocking possibility.
| fsociety999 wrote:
| Pretty funny to look at this description on Wikipedia:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theo...
|
| > TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories are discredited alternative
| explanations of the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 (TWA
| 800) in 1996.[1] The NTSB found that the probable cause of the
| crash of TWA Flight 800 was an explosion of flammable fuel/air
| vapors in a fuel tank, most likely from a short circuit.
| Conspiracy theories claim that the crash was due to a U.S. Navy
| missile test gone awry, a terrorist missile strike, or an on-
| board bomb.
|
| Now ask yourself, what else is the Government lying about? It
| will be interesting to see if the truth about 9/11 ever comes
| out.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| I wonder what Pierre Salinger would have to say about this if he
| were alive today.
| BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 wrote:
| If there was a missile test that went wrong, there would be a
| considerable number of people involved.
|
| Even if the authorities swore everybody to secrecy, they can't
| prevent a retiree from making a deathbed confession.
| djmips wrote:
| I feel you underestimate the bonds of duty and social pressure
| to keep things under wraps.
| alex_sf wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theo...
| Shorel wrote:
| Avianca Flight 203, the one Pablo Escobar blows up in the TV show
| Narcos, was probably an engine failure.
|
| https://reportajes.elespectador.com/avianca-203/?outputType=...
|
| As usual the official story and some details don't match, and the
| plane engines misterously disappeared from the crash site,
| preventing further inspection.
|
| The FBI was involved.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Wow, how does discovery work when there are legit natsec
| concerns?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I'm not sure what the legitimate national security concern
| would be for "we accidentally shot down an airliner 26 years
| ago".
| consumer451 wrote:
| IANAL, far from it, but normally the other party gets emails
| and other communications.
|
| How does that work when everything is classified?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > How does that work when everything is classified?
|
| Well, they're - vaguely - claiming to have found a smoking
| gun in FOIL requests.
| CentralHarvest wrote:
| "We have to protect all the people who were involved in the
| accident and coverup, some of whom may now hold important
| positions of power." I mean, they are still using "national
| security" as an excuse not to declassify JFK files nearly 60
| years after the fact.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It's entirely likely some of the remaining JFK files - a
| big batch got released under Trump, and another under Biden
| - are victims of over-classification. It's a systemic
| problem in the government.
|
| It's also fairly likely some of the remaining classified
| docs include "we asked our mole at the Russian embassy to
| check into it discreetly" and "spy satellites checked to
| see if Russia was quietly mobilizing in advance" sort of
| scenarios likely to remain indefinitely secret.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| It's also possible that some of the JFK files might
| implicate an influential American ally, with whom JFK had
| a dispute concerning their nuclear weapons program.
| eastern wrote:
| What are legit natsec concerns now? How about saying yeah it
| happened, we're sorry and we're paying a USD 100mil each to the
| surviving families as a token of our regret?
| consumer451 wrote:
| I didn't think I was going out on limb in assuming that the
| details and limitations of a naval defense weapon were
| probably something to guard.
|
| Please note that I am not defending anyone here...
| waynecochran wrote:
| "The filing states claims for negligence"
|
| Accidently shooting down an airplane w a missile is "negligence?"
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Negligent homicide? Sure.
|
| Doing it deliberately would be murder.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| If you are legally intending to fire a missile, but not
| intending to hit a plane, what else would it be?
| waynecochran wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That'd be a negligent discharge, and if they died, a
| negligent homicide.
| waynecochran wrote:
| I would think it would be at least reckless homicide.
| IANAL.
| jp57 wrote:
| 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?"
| throwoutway wrote:
| From the docket, the claim is that it was from land not from a
| naval warship:
|
| > Although the SPY-ID(V) would later become a key component
| aboard the next wave of Navy destroyer ships, in 1996 the only
| option with the hardware and computing power sufficient to
| operate the SPY-ID(V) was a New Jersey land-based testing site
| called the Combat Systems Engineering and Development Site
| ("CSEDS").
| busterarm wrote:
| 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.
| jp57 wrote:
| The ship was at sea, so presumably the full ship's
| complement? That's a bit over 300 people for an Aegis
| destroyer.
|
| Her point was that the accident wouldn't be knowledge that
| could be kept confined to the bridge/CIC and soon everyone on
| board would know about it.
| busterarm wrote:
| But the claim in the suit isn't that the missile was fired
| from any ship, but from a land base in New Jersey.
|
| Navy ships compatible with these systems were still 5 years
| out...
|
| If you're referring to the naval radar scans, only the
| people present on the bridge (and really only a handful of
| those...) would need to participate in any coverup, and
| that's only if the official account differs significantly
| from what was recorded. If the official explanation is
| plausible enough based on the data, which it seems to be,
| then you don't need any participation from the ship at all.
| nabakin wrote:
| Except the test didn't happen at sea. It happened on land at a
| testing site. See 64+ of the lawsuit [0]
|
| [0]
| https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Cou...
| GlenTheMachine wrote:
| Important, if true.
| colechristensen wrote:
| If this were true, why aren't they suing for the extraordinary
| coverup actions? Surely a whole lot of people up to the president
| should have been aware of this.
| bdowling wrote:
| The coverup may be a crime, but it's not a claim a civil
| plaintiff can recover damages for. If the defendant destroyed
| or hid evidence, however, the judge could order a negative
| inference against the defendant.
|
| The other problem is the statute of limitations. But that
| should toll if the defendants hid their liability and the suit
| really couldn't be brought until now.
| lbotos wrote:
| Interesting claims from the lawsuit linked:
|
| "However, instead of allowing the National Transportation Safety
| Board ("NTSB"), the agency tasked with investigating all domestic
| aviation incidents, to lead the investigation of the TWA 800
| incident, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI")took charge.
| The FBI also enlisted the assistance of the Central Intelligence
| Agency("CIA"). Indeed, the FBI essentially froze the NTSB out of
| the investigation. The FBI removed all copies (original and
| duplicates) of Navy radar tapes from the Navy, placing them out
| of the NTSB's reach, and refused to allow the NTSB to conduct
| eyewitness interviews or review the FBI's records that indicated
| the true cause of the TWA 800 crash.
|
| Eyewitnesses who were interviewed by the FBI recall being
| threatened by the organization. For example, one eyewitness
| recalls being told to keep quiet about the "rocket" she saw in
| the sky or risk her citizenship application being denied. Despite
| this, eyewitnesses have consistently maintained that they saw
| something arcing toward TWA 800 before the plane erupted into
| flames and fell from the sky. For example, one eyewitness
| testified that she saw a "rocket go up" and explode, and then saw
| TWA 800's flaming wreckage fall from the sky. Two other
| eyewitnesses, Air National Guard pilots, Captain Christian Baur
| and Major Frederick "Fritz" Meyer, similarly stated that they
| witnessed events that indicated a missile struck TWA 800. On the
| day TWA 800 went down, Captain Baur and Major Meyer were flying
| in a Black Hawk helicopter near the area of the TWA 800 incident.
| Captain Baur recalled seeing an object with a "rocket type motor
| "moving quick" toward TWA 800. After the crash, Captain Baur flew
| to the area and conducted a search and rescue. Captain Baur's co-
| pilot, Major Meyer, testified that he recognized a "flak"
| explosion at the site of the TWA 800 explosion, which is what
| military anti-air explosives create.
|
| Despite this evidence, the CIA concocted materials to discredit
| eyewitnesses who could confirm that TWA 800 had been downed by
| some kind of projectile. These materials included a video and
| animation that was displayed during a nationally-televised FBI
| press conference that attempted to reconcile the eyewitness
| testimony that the plane was struck by a projectile with the U.S.
| Government's official position that the crash was caused by a
| defect in the plane's center fuel tank.
|
| Despite outwardly proclaiming that the cause of the TWA 800
| explosion was, in the CIA's words, "NOT A MISSILE," several
| internal government communications (that have only come to light
| in the recent FOIA litigation) indicated that a missile was
| involved."
|
| ---
|
| Obviously these documents are going to be attempting to paint the
| case in favor of the plaintiff, but seems "strange".
| aceazzameen wrote:
| I remember a local evening news interview with the Air National
| Guard crew on the same or next night after the incident. I
| remember at least one of them saying something about the
| possibility seeing a missile. At the time I thought it was a
| pretty big deal for a helicopter crew member to say that on the
| news. I always found it odd that I didn't hear more about that
| specific account over the coming days/weeks. That stuck with me
| for some reason.
| jrockway wrote:
| What always surprises me is how bad people are at covering up
| the cover up. Why deny access to radar tapes? Just make fake
| tapes that say what you want.
| bombcar wrote:
| Making fakes is really really hard in actuality. There's
| always things you forgot to fake correctly. Easiest to limit
| or destroy.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Making fake tapes creates additional risk of cover up
| discovery.
|
| The best cover up involves the least lies.
| MrPatan wrote:
| That sounds like work.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why have I
| never heard of this?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _Why have I never heard of this?_
|
| That's on you, it's been a popular theory for many years, since
| the very beginning. It's one of the most popular government
| coverup stories there is.
| Sebguer wrote:
| Tbf, the implication in the filing is that the plaintiffs
| weren't aware of the possibility until last year.
| kodt wrote:
| Eyewitnesses have been saying they saw a "rocket" fly
| towards it since the event but this filing indicates there
| is additional evidence of this known to the government.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Isn't there a statute of limitations? 1996 was 26 years ago.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Homicide is typically one of the things that doesn't have a
| statute of limitations.
|
| In some scenarios, SOL also starts from the _discovery_ of the
| crime /tort, not the committing of it.
| bombcar wrote:
| Also I don't know if civil suits would be subject to statues of
| limitation.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Civil torts definitely (can) have statutes of limitation; for
| example, you can only be sued for bad debt for a few years.
| dangero wrote:
| "the statute of limitations runs from the date the litigant
| obtains actual knowledge of the facts"
| puffoflogic wrote:
| Which will (eventually) place the defendants here in the
| position of arguing that the plaintiffs should have known
| that the coverup was a lie.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-25 23:02 UTC)