Twa 800

[FN FAL]

It was not a large Navy vessel that had many sailors and crew on board, it was launched from another point.

So, it wasn't a Frigate?

 

[USMCmech]

IT WAS A MISSILE!!! I could get arrested for leaking this out, but my friend works in the FBI and TOLD ME a DAY AFTER the crash it was a missile!

No way could you be arrested for disclosing a government cover up. Unless you signed a non disclosure agreement for some high level national security information you wouldn't even be charged. It's called freedom of speach and press.

So tell us what your freind who works at the FBI heard from their freind who knew a guy on the investigation team.



The fuel tank explosion is hard to swallow, but a missle impact is even more skecthy. I specifically asked one of the stinger techs wether or not he thought TWA 800 was shot down by a MANPAD. He replied that even with prior notice and planned he didn't think he could make that shot. Certianlly anybody who was untrained and standing on a rocking boat off Long Islan couldn't.

FYI the stinger rocket motor burns out at aprox 12,500, keitetic energy can carry it a bit higher. A hit at 13,500 would be the equivilant of a bullzeye at 1,000 yards with a rifle.

edit: I ckecked and Wilkipedia said that the max altitude was 12,500. Not nessacerally that the rocket motor burns up to that altitude.

 

[FN FAL]

The fuel tank explosion is hard to swallow, but a missle impact is even more skecthy. I specifically asked one of the stinger techs wether or not he thought TWA 800 was shot down by a MANPAD. He replied that even with prior notice and planned he didn't think he could make that shot. Certianlly anybody who was untrained and standing on a rocking boat off Long Islan couldn't.

FYI the stinger rocket motor burns out at aprox 12,500, keitetic energy can carry it a bit higher. A hit at 13,500 would be the equivilant of a bullzeye at 1,000 yards with a rifle.

So it was a Frigate?

 

[AC560]

I heard that all the Jew's in the world were called the day of the flight and told not to fly TWA that day as well.

 

[Captain Oveur]

It was an explosion in the center fuel tank....sorry, conspiracy theorists.:nuts:

 

[Flightjock30]

I CLEARLY posted a link that contains a recorded conversation between a Pakistan International 747 and a Boston Center Controller. The Pakistan pilot states clearly that he saw a projectile (he calls its a firecracker-like object) streak from left to right at 16,000 and it continued to climb! The last words heard on the recording by an anonymous pilot is "firecrackers dont go up to 16,000!"

 

[ms6073]

FYI the stinger rocket motor burns out at aprox 12,500, keitetic energy can carry it a bit higher. A hit at 13,500 would be the equivilant of a bullzeye at 1,000 yards with a rifle.

My experience with the older Redeye system was that the missile motor burns for only a brief period of time (< 6 seconds) as the missile accelerates/climbs and while it may still be accelerating, after the motor burnout, it is gliding and dissipating energy. The newer FIM-92A which superseded the older Redeye, has an initial boost phase which accelerates the missile to Mach 2.2 within 2 seconds. Top-speed at motor burnout can be as high as Mach 2.6 but if no target is hit after 17 (± 2) seconds, the missile self-destructs.

 

[Chairman]

Great book,

Called "Night Fall"

Although fictional dicsucces many of the acpects of the accident and investigation.

 

[CL60]

Nightfall

DeMille theorized that a kinetic missile, (which would leave no explosive evidence), fired from a surface vessel brought down the aircraft. His research also stated that another aircraft, (an El Al flight), just a few minutes behind the TWA flight and was the intended target. Although fictional in nature, the story is supported with good research and does bring many questions to mind. Especially regarding the eyewitness accounts of trained observers.

 

[EagleRJ]

A guy at my home field is an NTSB investigator, and for what it's worth, he mentioned something about sun reflection angles being perfectly conducive to illusory optical phenomena (i.e. a 'missile') at the time of the explosion.

The aircraft took off at 8:16pm local time, and the explosion occurred at 8:30pm. Local sunset was 8:20pm. The sky was still light, but the sun was already below the horizon. I don't know of any optical phenomena that could be caused by the sun after sunset.

If it was a missile, why would whoever shot it wait until the plane was at 13k'?

Why would terrorists hit the World Trade Center so early in the morning, before many people had arrived at work? No one ever said they were good planners.
Their target, another 747 that departed at around the time of both TWA 800 and the Pakistan flight that reported the missile, was probably TWA 884. Destination: Tel Aviv.

My experience with the older Redeye system was that the missile motor burns for only a brief period of time (< 6 seconds) as the missile accelerates/climbs and while it may still be accelerating, after the motor burnout, it is gliding and dissipating energy. The newer FIM-92A which superseded the older Redeye, has an initial boost phase which accelerates the missile to Mach 2.2 within 2 seconds. Top-speed at motor burnout can be as high as Mach 2.6 but if no target is hit after 17 (± 2) seconds, the missile self-destructs.

Interesting.... I couldn't remember the timeout number.

Climbing vertically at Mach 2.2, if my math is correct, works out to a climb rate of approximately 160,000 FPM. So assuming a combined boost/coast time of 17 seconds, the missile could be up over 40,000' by the time it times out and self-destructs. Even during the coast phase, it is still actively tracking the target, and would have no problem keeping a slow-moving 747 centered in its seeker head.



The subject of TWA 800 has always ticked me off. As much as I disliked Bill Clinton, I agreed with his decision to cover up this attack. He rightly knew that acknowledging a terrorist attack on an airliner
would panic the flying public and throw the airline industry into financial ruin. Even though that happened anyway five years later, I think it was the right call at the time.
Now, however, it's time to come clean about what happened on that day. The American people have now seen worse, and we owe it to the families of those lost to make the real cause public.

 

[LAZYB]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 <----Scroll to the (highlighted in blue) #8 in the text and make sure your speakers are on. This is the Pakistan Airlines 747 conversation between ATC and them that night that took action to avoid a missile it saw streak just ahead of it from left to right. This made news! But it lasted only for a day or two.

Good link.

I think that it's easily better than 50\50 that the 747 did not fall from the sky because of a fuel tank explosion, and was most likely shot down. :bomb:

 

[Singlecoil]

I think it just blew up.

What we do know is that 2 747's have blown up in mid-air (not counting the Lockerbie terrorist bombing). Both of those 747's were 747-131's, both were owned by TWA, both were then leased to the government of Iran. One blew up in 1976 while being operated by the Iranians. The other was subsequently returned to TWA and blew up 20 years later as flight 800.

In both cases, the flight crew were commenting on unusual instrument readings prior to the explosions. In the case of the Iranian plane, they were hit by lightning, started having generator problems, then apparently had a vibration in the power levers, problems with the autopilot, then flight controls, then it blew up. Look on page 8 here: http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR78-12.pdf
Can one conclude that a large current was flowing through the airplane in the time before it exploded? Probably.

In the case of TWA 800, the captain stated on the CVR:
[SIZE=-1]2029: 15 [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]CAM-1[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]look at that crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]2029: 23 [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]CAM-1[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]see that. [/SIZE]
That was made less than 2 minutes prior to the end of recording. Was a large current flowing through TWA 800 where it shouldn't have been from a short or something? I think it probably was.

I think the reason that so many in the aviation community cling to the missile theory is largely psychological. It is hard for any of us to accept that the planes we fly every day could one day just blow up due to no fault of our own or anyone else. It is much easier for us to believe that someone caused this, therefore it is unlikely to happen to us.

 

[Flightjock30]

In the case of TWA 800, the captain stated on the CVR:
[SIZE=-1]2029: 15 [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]CAM-1[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]look at that crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]2029: 23 [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]CAM-1[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]see that. [/SIZE]
That was made less than 2 minutes prior to the end of recording. Was a large current flowing through TWA 800 where it shouldn't have been from a short or something? I think it probably was.

I think the reason that so many in the aviation community cling to the missile theory is largely psychological. It is hard for any of us to accept that the planes we fly every day could one day just blow up due to no fault of our own or anyone else. It is much easier for us to believe that someone caused this, therefore it is unlikely to happen to us.

UMM actually no! Is it a common occurrence on older airplanes with those types of analog instruments to have flickering indications from time to time. My buddy is a retired UAL 747-200 Captain...he stated it was not unusual for that to happen from time to time.

 

[FN FAL]

I think it just blew up.

...I think the reason that so many in the aviation community cling to the missile theory is largely psychological. It is hard for any of us to accept that the planes we fly every day could one day just blow up due to no fault of our own or anyone else. It is much easier for us to believe that someone caused this, therefore it is unlikely to happen to us.

Faulty design or faulty maintenance is still fault...I think you're confusing intent with negligence.

 

[Guitar rocker]

I actually saw a program on TV (either 60 min or dateline) not long ago that claimed that EMI (electromagnetic interference) was the culprit that brought down TWA 800. I think they were way off but whatever. I have also heard that there were a few people on that plane that had some damaging testimony that would hurt Slick Willy............. If such were the case, these folks didnt get a chance to testify much like Vince Foster didnt either. An interetsing point to ponder. If yah think it's far fetched, watch a video called, "The Clinton Chronicles."