TWA 800

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Speed-Flyer

You need some sanity...

How is that war on terror working for ya?

I suppose those that warned that this predicament would happen a decade ago are insane too.

LOL

Trillions of dollars, fuck knows how many lives and over a decade with a coalition consisting of the strongest most funded military force in the world and terror prevails...

The war on terror2 (too) is about the start and the last one is still in full swing.

Talk about full retard, and you have the audacity to call those that question the motive insane...

Pure hypocrisy.

Bit of difference between the "tin foil hat" conspiracy theories and the "What the fuck did those idiots con us into?" questions.

Fake moonlandings, TWA 800 shot down, Sept 11th was a plot by the US government (and the Pentagon crash was faked), ChemTrails, Kennedy killed by the CIA or the Cubans or the Mob, Alien technology from Roswell at Area 51, and on and on.

Pure and unadulterated crap. Anyone who looks at that stuff with any openmindedness, critical thinking and common sense will see it for what it is.

Secret CIA prisons where they torture suspects? Abuses by US soldiers at a Baghdad prison? NSA spying on US citizens? BATF secretly allowing drug cartels to purchase guns in the US and get them into Mexico?

All were "whistleblown" or simply leaked out because there were too many people that knew about it.

Going into Iraq based on lies? Ridiculously optimistic estimates of costs in both dollars and lives? Foolish belief that a US installed government would be welcomed and work out?

Yup. Mostly because those in power were after bigger things. Like Cheney's PNAC buddies and oil company cronies after Iraqi oil.

They pulled off a hell of a con job, and in a perfect world would be held accountable.
But I doubt that will happen.

But those are 3 different arguments about 3 very different things.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[sfzombie13 307]

pure crap? as was the idea that the earth orbited the sun, once. and slavery, and etc... what is crap today will be truth tomorrow, or however long it takes to learn the truth, if it ever is. just because you don't agree with it, i suppose that means that it didn't happen? just write it off it that helps you to sleep at night.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

sfzombie13

pure crap? as was the idea that the earth orbited the sun, once. and slavery, and etc... what is crap today will be truth tomorrow, or however long it takes to learn the truth, if it ever is. just because you don't agree with it, i suppose that means that it didn't happen? just write it off it that helps you to sleep at night.

Not exactly "just write it off."

More of a "look at the issue, weigh the evidence, look at what the promoters of each side have at stake, look at what the promoters of each side say about other things, and make a rational decision based on the whole picture."

Take TWA 800 (you know, the original theme of this thread).

There were a number of eyewitnesses that swore they saw an upward trail before the explosion. Makes the "shot down" theory sound more plausible.

But it doesn't hold up.

The wreckage didn't show any indications of impact, or any indication of explosives (other than the leftover traces from the dog exercise), the radars didn't show any indication of other things in the air or behavior of the plane consistent with a shoot down.

Then study eyewitness testimony. It's accuracy (not very good), how easy it is to get someone to "remember" the wrong thing simply through the power of suggestion, the general overall problems with it.

A careful and thorough examination of the facts show that there was a fuel tank explosion.

So it's a lot more than "just writing it off."

But some people either can't or won't do that.

So they continue to believe that the US never landed on the moon, or that the contrails up in the sky are laced with dangerous chemicals or that alien lizards are really running the government.

Or that CReWdogs in Florida are UFOs.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[BillyVance 34]

wolfriverjoe

Or that CReWdogs in Florida are UFOs.

They were! All the dumbasses calling 911 had no idea what they were seeing in the night skies.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[champu 1]

wolfriverjoe

There were a number of eyewitnesses that swore they saw an upward trail before the explosion. Makes the "shot down" theory sound more plausible.

But it doesn't hold up.

The wreckage didn't show any indications of impact, or any indication of explosives (other than the leftover traces from the dog exercise), the radars didn't show any indication of other things in the air or behavior of the plane consistent with a shoot down.

Then study eyewitness testimony. It's accuracy (not very good), how easy it is to get someone to "remember" the wrong thing simply through the power of suggestion, the general overall problems with it.

A careful and thorough examination of the facts show that there was a fuel tank explosion.

And it's worth noting that between the time that the eyewitness accounts came out and the time that they put a substantial portion of the plane back together again and examined it, the people that were "asking questions" and saying "hey maybe this thing was shot down or bombed or something" were not written off as tin-foil hatters. In fact it was a lot of people wondering what the heck happened.

It's perfectly healthy to want to investigate such a speculation. What's not healthy is looking what the FBI and NASA and everyone else concluded after countless man-hours of combing over everything and saying "nah, bs, they're all in on it."

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

That's very true.
Those witnesses were taken at face value, and the claims were investigated.

But none of them held up in the face of real evidence.

Which isn't terribly unusual.

An eye witness to James Dean's fatal car crash still insists that Dean wasn't driving.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The good old "I know what I saw and nothing will convince me otherwise."

Instead of "well, I could swear that's what I saw, but I know how unreliable that sort of thing can be, so I must be wrong."

Not terribly unusual.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

How is that war on terror working for ya?

Usually I can't stand it when people say what I'm about to say, but in this case it is absolutely accurate - you're a sheep. You've swallowed what the conspiracy evangelists are peddling hook, line and sinker, and as I said already you're using their stock, predictable attacks to avoid having to question your acceptance of their paranoid fantasies. You are afraid of the truth.

I don't need to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theories in order to justify the War on Terror because I don't support the War on Terror. I dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theories because they're insane.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[airdvr 197]

wolfriverjoe

***pure crap? as was the idea that the earth orbited the sun, once. and slavery, and etc... what is crap today will be truth tomorrow, or however long it takes to learn the truth, if it ever is. just because you don't agree with it, i suppose that means that it didn't happen? just write it off it that helps you to sleep at night.

Not exactly "just write it off."

More of a "look at the issue, weigh the evidence, look at what the promoters of each side have at stake, look at what the promoters of each side say about other things, and make a rational decision based on the whole picture."

Take TWA 800 (you know, the original theme of this thread).

There were a number of eyewitnesses that swore they saw an upward trail before the explosion. Makes the "shot down" theory sound more plausible.

But it doesn't hold up.

The wreckage didn't show any indications of impact, or any indication of explosives (other than the leftover traces from the dog exercise), the radars didn't show any indication of other things in the air or behavior of the plane consistent with a shoot down.

Then study eyewitness testimony. It's accuracy (not very good), how easy it is to get someone to "remember" the wrong thing simply through the power of suggestion, the general overall problems with it.

A careful and thorough examination of the facts show that there was a fuel tank explosion.

So it's a lot more than "just writing it off."

But some people either can't or won't do that.

So they continue to believe that the US never landed on the moon, or that the contrails up in the sky are laced with dangerous chemicals or that alien lizards are really running the government.

Or that CReWdogs in Florida are UFOs.

You don't think it's a bit odd that the 747 had been in use for almost 30 years and this one model has an explosion of the center fuel tank? And the entire 747 fleet wasn't grounded following such a discovery?

From Wiki;

Quote

Donaldson disputed the CWT fuel-air vapor explosion scenario, stating that "In the history of aviation, there has never been an in-flight explosion in any Boeing airliner of a Jet-A kerosene fuel vapor/air mixture in any tank, caused by mechanical failure."[40] Eyewitness, debris field, metallurgical, and victim injury evidence were all cited by Donaldson as proof of the missile-attack scenario.[40] Donaldson acknowledged James Sanders' theory of an accidental shoot-down, and did not rule out U.S. Navy involvement; however, he viewed circumstantial evidence of a terrorist attack "more compelling".[40]

I'm not convinced one way or the other but there are a lot of very intelligent folks close to the investigation that think something was odd about the way it was handled. And it doesn't take a whole group of people to change the outcome of an investigation; the right person with the right access can do a bunch of damage.

Back in the day I was sure it was not a terrorist act or goof by the Navy. These days I'm thinking the possibility exists.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,380]

>You don't think it's a bit odd that the 747 had been in use for almost 30 years and this one model has
>an explosion of the center fuel tank?

No. Some wear is cumulative.

"You don't think it's odd that an airplane flew for 40 years and only THEN had corrosion problems?"

>And the entire 747 fleet wasn't grounded following such a discovery?

The NTSB came out with some pretty strong recommendations, including inerting fuel tanks and using ground air during fueling. The FAA thought the recommendations would be too expensive/onerous. (However, they did institute inspections of the wiring involved to reduce the odds of a recurrence.)

> And it doesn't take a whole group of people to change the outcome of an investigation;
>the right person with the right access can do a bunch of damage.

Exactly. One person who knew what "really" happened could blow the lid off any such investigation. Since no one had good evidence that contradicted the NTSB that didn't happen.

[Calvin19 0]

I read this entire thread and I am very disappointed. OP wanted to discuss TWA 800, not stir up another 9/11 thread.

Nothing is more entertaining than conspiracy theories. Everything about them is interesting. From the stories the 'theorists' believe to the tactics they use to recruit to the psychology of the theorists themselves.

Flight 800 is a very heavy read and illuminates a lot in the phenomenon. NTSB said the center wing tank exploded and killed everyone onboard. They identified a problem with hardware and procedure and recommended a change in existing 747 operations. A change was made that will remove the risk of future CWT explosions in future 747 flights. It was expensive to implement but they did it anyway to maintain and improve the safety of air travel. That is what happened. People who believe something different have nothing to offer besides entertainment.

-SPACE-

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

airdvr

You don't think it's a bit odd that the 747 had been in use for almost 30 years and this one model has an explosion of the center fuel tank? And the entire 747 fleet wasn't grounded following such a discovery?

From Wiki;

Quote

Donaldson disputed the CWT fuel-air vapor explosion scenario, stating that "In the history of aviation, there has never been an in-flight explosion in any Boeing airliner of a Jet-A kerosene fuel vapor/air mixture in any tank, caused by mechanical failure."[40] Eyewitness, debris field, metallurgical, and victim injury evidence were all cited by Donaldson as proof of the missile-attack scenario.[40] Donaldson acknowledged James Sanders' theory of an accidental shoot-down, and did not rule out U.S. Navy involvement; however, he viewed circumstantial evidence of a terrorist attack "more compelling".[40]

I'm not convinced one way or the other but there are a lot of very intelligent folks close to the investigation that think something was odd about the way it was handled. And it doesn't take a whole group of people to change the outcome of an investigation; the right person with the right access can do a bunch of damage.

Back in the day I was sure it was not a terrorist act or goof by the Navy. These days I'm thinking the possibility exists.

I'm willing to believe that it was a "one in a million" shot.

A "perfect storm" if you will. Just the right fuel/air mixture in the "empty" tank, just the right spark from the frayed wires.

It hadn't happened before because age was a factor in the damaged wiring.

I don't think it would be entirely unreasonable to say that "it would never happen again, so changes aren't necessary."

But there's no way that would have been accepted by the public and the "powers that be."

And the changes put in place give us a much better safety margin.

I can't believe that it was a bomb or a shoot down because there was no evidence of either of those.
And if it had been, I believe that evidence would have been found.

Keep in mind that they recovered something like 95% of the wreckage.
They did a lot of tests involving the penetration of the aluminum skin. They found significant differences between the holes left from high speed (high explosives) and low speed (fuel explosion) penetrations.

Link:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a9158/3-reasons-to-doubt-the-twa-flight-800-conspiracy-theory-15629315/

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[turtlespeed 212]

airdvr

I like turtles

Awwe!
Shucks

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[airdvr 197]

Read the comments? I like these ones.

1. BLAST HOLES
Your claim of no high-velocity blast holes being found in the wreckage is incomplete reporting, as not all of the wreckage was tested by the NTSB. Much was confiscated by the FBI and never returned. This negates the need for a massive cover-up and reduces it solely to an FBI cover-up, which is exponentially more likely.

2. RADAR
Missiles have a similar radar profile as military aircraft equipped with stealth technology: they're practically invisible. So, an absence of radar evidence of the missile(s) is irrelevant to an educated argument.

Besides, the damning radar evidence showed debris leaving the aircraft at speeds of no less than Mach 4 (2,880 mph), a direct contradiction of NTSB assertions of a low-velocity explosion originating from within the fuel tank.

3. FUEL TANKS
I'm puzzled by this third point, as it only reinforces the ambiguity of the NTSB's findings ("...investigators were never sure what sparked the explosion in the first place"), and does absolutely nothing to refute ample amounts of credible evidence pointing to exactly what sparked the explosion.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DanG 1]

Quote

Besides, the damning radar evidence showed debris leaving the aircraft at speeds of no less than Mach 4 (2,880 mph), a direct contradiction of NTSB assertions of a low-velocity explosion originating from within the fuel tank.

Pieces large enough to be seen on radar were accelerated to Mach 4 by the explosion? Sorry, not buying it.

- Dan G

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Well, the idea that "the FBI confiscated much of the wreckage" is fairly ridiculous.
The FBI took control of the investigation because of the initial beliefs that it was a terrorist act. That's SOP.

The actual wreckage, the pieces of the plane, were assembled in a hangar. There's pictures of it all over the web. I don't see any indication that any is missing.

I'm not aware of any SAMs that are "stealthy." They are radar guided. Anyone being shot at can easily detect that they are being targeted (if they have the right equipment on board).

They are big, round and metal. Most tests include radar tracking. I'm not a real expert, but I don't think normal radar would have any problem getting a return off them.

I took a quick look and couldn't find anything. If you can find different, I welcome correction.

The phrase "low speed" explosion is a relative term.

High explosives are incredibly fast. DetCord goes at 26000 fps (that's twenty-six thousand feet per second)
That's around 18000 mph.

As was noted in the previous link, truly "high speed" impacts actually melt the metal as they punch through.

And they were never able to find the exact piece of frayed wire that they could prove provided the spark. We're talking scientific level of proof, not evidentiary. Not "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt."
Absolutely for certain that it was that piece of wire.

But they found evidence of frayed wires, and they found frayed wires in other planes.
So they are certain enough.

Another link. Interestingly, the guy behind the new film reportedly never raised these questions during the investigation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2013/06/22/latest-twa-800-conspiracy-theory-how-likely-is-it/

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[champu 1]

wolfriverjoe

I'm not aware of any SAMs that are "stealthy." They are radar guided. Anyone being shot at can easily detect that they are being targeted (if they have the right equipment on board).

They are big, round and metal. Most tests include radar tracking. I'm not a real expert, but I don't think normal radar would have any problem getting a return off them.

I took a quick look and couldn't find anything. If you can find different, I welcome correction.

The idea that SAMs are somehow naturally stealthy in terms of radar returns is bogus.

While I can't say with certainty that no one has ever tried to design one, the idea of a purpose-built "stealth SAM" is exceedingly dumb for a couple reasons. 1) For a SAM to be effective it has to go from zero to several Mach in the right direction in a very short period of time. This involves extremely conspicuous thermal and radar emissions, so you're not going to effectively hide what you're doing. 2) For reasons which are numerous and hopefully obvious, trying to defeat a SAM using a method that requires tracking it with your own radar is a losing battle. So you're not going to improve your probability of a successful intercept.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo