"I'm not sure you understand the implications of this phrase."

I understand very well the implications of what I wrote; the data could well suggest an explosion in front of the aircraft that brought it down. The last data stream was inconvenient data so it was ignored and presented as data from an earlier flight when it was not possible for it to be any normal data stream from any flight.

It would be very easy to run a test and see what a small overpressurization would do to the airspeed, altimeter reading, and AOA sensor readings and proceed, or not, from there according to the findings.

I have worked with the NTSB as an industry representative on general aviation accidents for a number of years and often reviewed their reports at their request before final submission so I know they are capable of errors and mistakes like anyone else. I don't think they are intentionally covering up anything; I think they were pretty much browbeat into not really investigating the accident, deferring to the FBI. Several of the NTSB investigators felt they had to retire before requesting a reopening of the case to avoid reprisals. That does not reflect well on the current organizational culture of the Board.

 

Did you see the TV documentary "When Cars Attack" several years ago? Eye-opening revelations about Henry Ford's evil brother and his devilish invention, the hydrocelator. Could it be that automobile crashes are no accident.....??

 

So one airline pilot shared an opinion on TWA 800 and suddenly a conspiracy theory must exist and be true?

 

No. Darn I missed that one. Did Michael Moore produce it?

However, I did read an article by some enlightened individual that states "Thomas the Train" was actually created and backed by the American Association of Railroads to collapse the air freight industry and strengthen their "Freight Rail Works". See! All you freight haulers should fear the almighty "Thomas the Train".

Idle minds are so entertaining.

 

If any of you think tHe gov can run a conspiracy just pause for a moment and look at how they run everything else.

Fail from the get go.

Imagine the post office or public education running a conspiracy. They can't find their butt with both hands.

 

That's not what I meant. You are taking something and making it "fit" within the outcome you want. If you have a piece of information that leads you to say: "I don't know", then you don't know. You don't sit there and make it mean something. The NTSB comes out with accident reports that say "for undetermined reasons", because they are faced with similar situations on both the micro and macro scales. Just because we see something we can't explain doesn't mean that something extraordinary exists. This is why they do all the investigation, to determine the possible clues and facts, and determine which of these are dead ends and which are actual findings.

 

The board did not say, "We don't know" or more specifically they did not say, "We have a last line of data from the flight data recorder that we don't understand" which would be the responsible thing to say. Instead they blew it off and said that it belonged to an earlier flight which just is not possible given the parameters recorded. And it is not just the flight data recorder; there are enough flaws in this investigation to fill a large book. The NTSB board investigators, for example, performed a very,very small percentage of the witness interviews. Instead you had FBI agents with no aviation background interviewing former and retired military pilot witnesses with distinguished careers in aviation, many with combat experience in Vietnam. How can you have a dialogue and gain any insight when one party is completely unschooled in the subject? Why would you even try to do that when you have knowledgeable aviation investigators available? And it just gets worse from there.

 

You want to believe a missile brought it down. Did it ever dawn on you that the fuel tank explosion could generate the same data?
You do know There were a series of ADs about this very common problem on many aircraft?

 

That was all part of the cover-up, don't cha know!

 

The simple fact is that many other aircraft suffered from this exact same problem.

Lunatics deny there was any problem at all in design, despite vast evidence to the contrary.