TWA Flight 800 Findings
06-19-2013, 01:09 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 343
I don't believe the airplane was shot down, but I do believe it was destroyed by foul play. It is odd that in the millions of hours flown by the Classic fleet up until that time--in identical fuel configuration--that no hint of such trouble had been seen before.
06-19-2013, 01:43 PM
#12
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,134
Originally Posted by EasternATC
I don't believe the airplane was shot down, but I do believe it was destroyed by foul play. It is odd that in the millions of hours flown by the Classic fleet up until that time--in identical fuel configuration--that no hint of such trouble had been seen before.
Yeah, I know the DC-10 was plagued with other issues that happened on multiple aircraft. But not the one the UAL had.
06-19-2013, 03:25 PM
#13
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,269
Originally Posted by EasternATC
I don't believe the airplane was shot down, but I do believe it was destroyed by foul play. It is odd that in the millions of hours flown by the Classic fleet up until that time--in identical fuel configuration--that no hint of such trouble had been seen before.
There's a first time for everything...the 747 was just turning 30 about then. Who knows how many similar incidents were prevented down the line by changed operating procedures and inerting systems?
06-19-2013, 03:51 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Airbus 319/320 Captain
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by rickair7777
There's a first time for everything...the 747 was just turning 30 about then. Who knows how many similar incidents were prevented down the line by changed operating procedures and inerting systems?
06-19-2013, 04:08 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Seat: Vegan friendly faux leather
Posts: 983
Originally Posted by RhinoPherret
Saw an article about this on CNN etc. Appears nothing really being offered in this shlockumentary as proof it was a malicious act. Theory is the word of the day.
How about this theory: The releases being put out about this documentary are more like pre-hype press releases pushing the documentary itself. My “roll my eyes and raise my brows” response goes on full alert anytime documentaries like this are produced. Zero interest in it for me. Of course though, conspiracy theories sell big time, bring in some easy money, and get all the bait fish out there in a spinning frenzy.
How about this theory: The releases being put out about this documentary are more like pre-hype press releases pushing the documentary itself. My “roll my eyes and raise my brows” response goes on full alert anytime documentaries like this are produced. Zero interest in it for me. Of course though, conspiracy theories sell big time, bring in some easy money, and get all the bait fish out there in a spinning frenzy.
I remember exactly where I was when watching the news reports at the time... it was such bizarre confusion, and after Lockerbie everybody assumed it was a bomb. Not surprising that some still cling to that theory, but as others said, keeping mum a conspiracy would be darn near impossible. There are a lot of Edward Snowdens in the world for both better and worse.
06-19-2013, 07:13 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 480
Originally Posted by rickair7777
So they committed a crime and then created a classified compartment to cover it up after the fact?
So exactly what classification compartment covers shooting down a civilian airliner? Why didn't they use that compartment when we shot down the Iran Air flight?
Who is "they" and how do you keep a crew of 300+ quiet? Those sailors are regular guys and girls...the vast majority would do the right thing. Also, anybody who's spent any time in the military knows there are always a few disgruntled junior folks who are in for one term, hate it, can't wait to get out, and would love nothing better than to stick it to their bosses and the system.
The idea of a friendly shootdown is tin-foil hat lunacy. The idea of a hostile shootdown is in improbable in the extreme due to the limitations of man-portable systems and the fact that the bad guys have no truck-launched or fixed SAM systems located in CONUS
Also they never found in evidence of damage from an external HE blast.
So exactly what classification compartment covers shooting down a civilian airliner? Why didn't they use that compartment when we shot down the Iran Air flight?
Who is "they" and how do you keep a crew of 300+ quiet? Those sailors are regular guys and girls...the vast majority would do the right thing. Also, anybody who's spent any time in the military knows there are always a few disgruntled junior folks who are in for one term, hate it, can't wait to get out, and would love nothing better than to stick it to their bosses and the system.
The idea of a friendly shootdown is tin-foil hat lunacy. The idea of a hostile shootdown is in improbable in the extreme due to the limitations of man-portable systems and the fact that the bad guys have no truck-launched or fixed SAM systems located in CONUS
Also they never found in evidence of damage from an external HE blast.
06-19-2013, 09:04 PM
#17
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,269
Originally Posted by JohnnyG
Oh, I'm not saying I believe anything wacky happened to this plane. I'm only saying that classification has been used to cover up accidentally harming people in the past.
Classification has impeded investigations, particularly civil investigations, but generally the classification already exists for legitimate (or at least well-intentioned) reasons. Someone asks for info, which happens to be classified, they are told no (correctly) and now it's a "cover up".
Certain components within the government certainly may have enjoyed collateral benefit from the routine classification of info which turned out to be controversial down the road, but it would be very difficult to create a classification solely to cover something up. For one thing it would be illegal, and for another only the people at fault stand to benefit...anybody else with knowledge who was NOT at fault would risk their career, pension, and possibly freedom by collaborating to cover something up. People with nothing to gain but lots to lose won't play along, certainly not all of them.
06-19-2013, 09:43 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by EasternATC
I don't believe the airplane was shot down, but I do believe it was destroyed by foul play. It is odd that in the millions of hours flown by the Classic fleet up until that time--in identical fuel configuration--that no hint of such trouble had been seen before.
In the end though, like you said, it comes down to what people want to believe and feel, not necessarily what the facts and evidence point to. Sometimes we really don't want to believe or deal with what the facts point to...
06-20-2013, 08:25 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by block30
TWA Flight 800 investigators break silence in new documentary, claim original conclusion about cause of crash is wrong | Fox News
A group of whistleblowers, including a number of aviation experts, have come forward in a new documentary to claim that the official explanation for the crash of TWA Flight 800 was wrong and a gas tank explosion did not bring down the flight off the coast of Long Island 17 years ago.
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.
Flight 800, a Boeing 747, had just taken off from JFK airport with 230 people aboard on July 17, 1996 enroute to Paris when it exploded and crashed off the coast of nearby East Moriches, Long Island, killing everyone on the plane.
A group of whistleblowers, including a number of aviation experts, have come forward in a new documentary to claim that the official explanation for the crash of TWA Flight 800 was wrong and a gas tank explosion did not bring down the flight off the coast of Long Island 17 years ago.
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.
Flight 800, a Boeing 747, had just taken off from JFK airport with 230 people aboard on July 17, 1996 enroute to Paris when it exploded and crashed off the coast of nearby East Moriches, Long Island, killing everyone on the plane.
The article linked below seems to suggest they are concentrating on that exact theory.
Former TWA Flight 800 crash investigators want federal government to re-examine case - The Washington Post
I'm curious too the nature of the *new information* not available to the original investigation.
Personally I don't think there is anything here - but I'm glad that they are open to looking at any TRULY new information.
06-20-2013, 09:34 AM
#20
Bracing for Fallacies
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Thanks for the update, FLYR, looks like they are "going there." Not sure I have that channel.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
