Airline Pilot Sues NTSB

[LAZYB]

Um, sure...

ok avbug, I'm going to bite.

If it was shot down how come the blast pattern originated inside the aircraft, yet there was no evidence of explosive residue?

And for all you conspiracy lovers... what good would it do the government to cover this up? Especially if it was done by a foriegn group. Hell, if it was shot down by foreigners we would all enjoy kicking their a$$es up and down. Its the american way!

Skeezer

...like when Israel attacked one our ships, USS Liberty.
Did LBJ Cover For Israel?

Keep on believing...

Not everything is in the FOIA!

 

[RJFlyer]

"First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America"! New book by Jack Cashill and James Sanders

some plausible scenarios & casts "mucho" doubt on the "investigation" undertaken.

I started reading that book, couldn't finish it because it is so poorly written, and jumps to conclusions with little fact to back up those conclusions. I didn't have an opinion one way or the other when I started reading it, but came away thinking the authors were full of crap. They may be right, but they don't make a very compelling argument. This "article" is actually much better-written than the book.

 

[LAZYB]

Didn't say it was a good book...

I started reading that book, couldn't finish it because it is so poorly written, and jumps to conclusions with little fact to back up those conclusions. I didn't have an opinion one way or the other when I started reading it, but came away thinking the authors were full of crap. They may be right, but they don't make a very compelling argument. This "article" is actually much better-written than the book.

...or well written. I would never buy it, but it was in the library.

But it does provide factual reports, conflicting information from the "investigation", eye witness info, etc.

You're lucky you didn't finish it. Towards the back they have a lot of their conjecture and supposition...

 

[surfnole]

And for all you conspiracy lovers... what good would it do the government to cover this up?

Plenty of good. We stay out of a war, markets stay calm, no security fears for the great unwashed masses.

 

[abev107]

Plenty of good. We stay out of a war, markets stay calm, no security fears for the great unwashed masses.

Good job surfnole...There are believers and non-believers, just for the sake of going along with or against what brought down TWA 800.

I believe it was brought down by an sa-16 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/sa-16.htm , launched from an "unknown target" (boat) off the coast of Long Island. But hey that's just me.

Consider this:George Stephanopoulos said (An excerpt from an interview with ABC's Peter Jennings) after the downing of TWA800 : "In my time at the White House it was used [speical room in the White House] in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, in the aftermath of the TWA Flight 800 bombing, and that would be the way they would stay in contact through the afternoon."

TWA Flight 800 bombing? - Surely a slip of the tongue, right?

Senaor John Kerry (MSNBC, Chris Matthews): "You know, we've had terrorism for a long time now. We've had the Achille Lauro, the Munich Olympics, the pipe bomb at the Olympics in Atlanta, the TWA 800, the bombing of embassies, and it's not going to disappear overnight."

Of course, just slips of the tongue. But incase you have greater interest, or would like more information, visit twa800.com .

 

[EagleRJ]

Plenty of good. We stay out of a war, markets stay calm, no security fears for the great unwashed masses.

The government was rightly concerned that the flying public would be freaked out by having a 747 shot down by terrorists on American soil. It would have decimated the airline industry, the markets would have tanked, and the economy would have stumbled. Although the public was to be freaked out anyway just over five years later, Slick Willie figured it would be better if we were kept happily in the dark.

Now we have a president who takes a decidedly more hands-on approach to dealing with terrorists around the world, and Saddam Hussein is one of the first to fall.

What's interesting is: before Saddam fell from power, the biggest national holiday in Iraq was July 17th, the anniversary of the Baath party's rise to power.

It also happens to be the same day that TWA 800s center fuel tank spontaneously exploded.

 

[darling pretty]

One of the more interesting threads I've read on here, but no one has yet been able to answer my question. If it was indeed a terrorist missile attack, NOT a accidental Navy misfire, why has no group ever claimed responsibility.

The guys that state the reason it was covered up would be the collapse of the economy, etc. Exactly the things that happened after 9/11. But terrorists like to create terror, and if they had indeed managed to shoot down a US airliner over US airspcae, then I believe that they would be shouting from the mountain tops to the world to watch what they did. If we all believe that it was a center tank explosion, no terror and we all keep flying, no economic problems. Hardly the result they were going and working and spending lots of money on doing.

Another thought about the US NAVY accidentally launching a missile, I am a Army veteran and even though I have met some shady characters in the military, there is no way an entire cruise ship of soldiers would keep quiet about an accident that took so many lives. These crewman are not mindless robots without feelings and could not in good conscience not tell the truth.

If anyone can explain away my points, I would love to hear it.

 

[skeezer]

Darling pretty, my thoughts exactly.

Someone asked how I knew about the blast pattern and that other stuff. Read the NTSB report and you will see all that stuff. Now, you can discount this and say it was a coverup if you like, and I cannot disprove you. Just like I cannot disprove that there are underpants knomes that come into my appartment and steal my shorts every few weeks.

Peace!

Skeezer

 

[EagleRJ]

Two groups DID claim responsibility, although after the attack. I don't remember who.

You're right that it would be impossible to keep the tragedy of an accidental shootdown confined to hundreds or thousands of sailors on board a ship.
Additionally, all of the surface to air missiles in Navy inventory are very large missiles with very large warheads, and the effects would have been undeniable.

It's also possible that the military had recieved intelligence of an attack, and tried to prevent it, but failed. Thus the reports of warships in the area, etc.
I can see the logic for trying to protect the public from the truth, but now, it's time for the government to come clean. The American public has seen worse, and we can take it.

 

[mar]

Think logically

Personally I'm convinced TWA800 was shot down.

I don't by whom or why but look at it this way:

They say flight 800 sat on a very hot tarmac with the packs running and a near empty center fuel tank.

The combination of the heat and fuel vapor with a stray spark caused the explosion.

Now.

If there is truly a design flaw in the 747 (and I believe this would qualify as such) then dontcha think there would be other similiar explosions from an airframe that's over 30 years old?

For example, the 737 rudder has a design flaw and there are many documented cases of uncommanded rudder deflection.

The F16 had a wire chaffing problem with several documented accidents.

Even the SST had at least a couple punctured fuel tank problems.

I don't believe for one second the 747 is unsafe.

That airplane was shot down and the investigation was covered up. I don't try to emotionalize the issue with politics or drama.

I just look at it logically.

 

[avbug]

It would have decimated the airline industry

That word gets used a lot, out of place. Decimate doesn't mean to wipe out, destroy, lay waste to, or otherwise, obliterate. It means to kill every tenth person, company, object, etc. If the airline industry is decimated, then one in ten companies is put out of business, destroyed, damaged, whatever. Not the industry at large.

Throughout history, certain military leaders have relied upon decimation to motivate troops. Following a failure on the battlefield, every tenth man was killed. Hannibal, I believe, was known for this, among others.

The Concord had more than a few puncured tanks. Something like 20. And I believe over 40 cases of losing large rudder sections enroute. That the aircraft didn't come apart inflight or suffer a catastrauphic loss years sooner is a grand mystery.

 

[Singlecoil]

Re: Think logically

If there is truly a design flaw in the 747 (and I believe this would qualify as such) then dontcha think there would be other similiar explosions from an airframe that's over 30 years old?

It is my understanding that another 747 did blow up in similar circumstances. In fact it was off the line right adjacent to TWA 800. It was owned by the government of Iran when it happened, as was TWA 800. It mysteriously exploded one night due to undetermined causes.

What about the fuel guages in the cockpit of TWA 800? Wasn't there a voice on the CVR saying something to the effect of, "Look at those crazy fuel guages." As if the guages were fluctuating, perhaps an indication of arcing or some other anomaly.

 

[skeezer]

Re: Think logically

If there is truly a design flaw in the 747 (and I believe this would qualify as such) then dontcha think there would be other similiar explosions from an airframe that's over 30 years old?

Other Boeing aircraft have blown up just sitting on the tarmac due to a fuel tank explosion. Does that necessarily mean that aircraft type was flawed? No, sh*t happens sometimes and the laws of nature and physics take over.

Skeezer