TWA Flight 800 - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - TWA Flight 800 (Page 2 of 8)

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:07:34 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The air/fuel mixture in the tank had to be between the LEL & UEL (lower & upper explosive limits) and sufficient energy had to be delivered from an arcing/intermittent connection within the fuel cavity to light it up. Not saying it couldn't happen, but unlikely, and coupled with the numerous eyewitness reports (and purported ignoring of those reports by the investigative team) it taints the findings.

As for the missile theory, it was at the outer envelope of the Stinger, and within the range of the Mistral, the latter of which is interesting as the authorities found an abandoned Mistral in Maryland two years earlier...

Both of those missles are infared, and quite small.

1. the missles would hit the engines, not the fuselage
2. they could damage the plane to the point that it would crash, but a small shoulder launched missle is not going to cause a 747 to blow up in mid-air

At speed, can the missile make a last-millisecond choice which of the 5 hot spots to aim for, or just go for the central hottest spot? It's going pretty fast and we are talking 90's technology or earlier.

Lockerbie proved the ability of a small explosive to destroy a 747

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:09:12 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe the plane was shot down. Too many credible and competent witnesses saw the missile, too much was done by the .gov after the incident that smacks of coverup, and it has been proven that an electrical spark could not have detonated the fuel cell in the jet. Something to do with air/fuel ratios.

Dave

Too high for a shoulder launched missle, and any infared missle would have gone for the engines, not the fuselage. I've seen a DHL cargo plane get hit by a missle, the missle damaged one of the engines, the plane turned around and landed.
Too many people would know the truth if a missle hit TWA 800. How many people would have to know the truth? Couldn't happen. We're talking hundreds of investigators who would know the truth, yet all of them would have to keep quiet. Wouldn't happen.

The DHL plane was at a much lower altitude, closer range = higher resolution, so not surprised that it picked one of the engines - at extreme range, it is aiming for a constellation of 5 targets (the 4 engines + the vents underneath and would have to make a last minute decision to pick a specific engine... not sure a (non-human guided) missile from the mid 90's is smart enough to do that... so it aims for the middle (which is also "hot") and kapow.

As I said before, doesn't work that way. The seeker head would pick a heat source, it isn't going to guess where the aircraft is based on a grouping of heat sources. The Sidewinder always goes for an engine.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:10:23 AM EDT

[#3]

There have been tests and actual warplane damage where a stinger or similar MANPAD flew straight up the tailpipe of a fighter, a twin engined one at that. It didnt hit in the middle, it went for one only.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:10:50 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Lastly, a stinger is a very small heat seeking missle. I would believe a stinger hit if one of the engines popped off from the impact. Not the center fuel tank. IR missles dont work like that, esp the baby stinger.

A Stinger is not just heat seeking, It also can lock onto in the UV range. A Stinger has something
Called TAG & TAB, Second the aircraft would be out of the range ring profiles for the Stinger
At 13,000 feet, especially for an outgoing target.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:12:16 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Lastly, a stinger is a very small heat seeking missle. I would believe a stinger hit if one of the engines popped off from the impact. Not the center fuel tank. IR missles dont work like that, esp the baby stinger.

A Stinger is not just heat seeking, It also can lock onto in the UV range. A Stinger has something
Called TAG & TAB, Second the aircraft would be out of the range ring profiles for the Stinger
At 13,000 feet, especially for an outgoing target.

Good to know. Now this makes the missle theory even harder to swallow.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:13:58 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

At speed, can the missile make a last-millisecond choice which of the 5 hot spots to aim for, or just go for the central hottest spot? It's going pretty fast and we are talking 90's technology or earlier.

Yes, it can, it generally picks the hottest heat source it can see.

Also, the warhead is designed to ignore heat sources outside of certain temperature ranges. That's to lessen the chance a flare decoy will attract the missle or go after the sun. The eariler SA-7 missle just went after the hottest heat source, it was easy to trick with flares. Of course the SA-7 was made in the '60s. The SA-14 has an improved guidance system that will filter out flares.

The missle is designed to go after the engine.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:13:59 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:

My dad was on the AIM-9 Sidewinder design team. He helped design the seeker guidance head on the missle. I just asked him, he said it goes directly for a heat source, no error correction, nothing. In his words, the Sidewinder sees a hot engine and goes for the hot engine. It focuses on only one heat source. He also says that the Sidewinder would have gone for an engine, and not some little vent on the underbelly of the aircraft.
Can't say about the Stinger or Mistral, but I suspect they are designed the same way.

At a distance (at launch) I doubt the missile is capable of distinguishing the 4 engines, it just sees something "hot" up there and steers towards it. As it nears the target, resolution increases and it now "sees" multiple targets, how it decides which one to go after is likely classified (although flares are used to throw it off the trail) Given 4 equally hot sources (747 engines) and a hot pack (of unknown temperature) in the middle, and a missile approaching from an unknown angle, how does one determine which "hot" target it would select?

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:16:43 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Not a missile guidance system designer, that said, if a missile "saw" a hot target at a distance, it would likely aim for the center of it (error detection correction being based on the strength of the signal) as it nears the target, can it react quickly enough to pick one of the constellation of hot targets within the envelope?

The missile would lock onto the hottest point and follow the hottest point as it got closer. So even it was aiming at a blob it would seek the hottest point as it approached the aircraft and got definition. Too many airliners have been shot at by shoulder launched IR seeking missiles. They don't go for centerline.

I have been fooled by a flare. I thought it was a surface to air missile. How was I fooled? Because I didn't see the whole incident. Like someone said, no one looks at an aircraft during ordinary flight. Your attention is only drawn to the aircraft when something goes wrong. Your mind is a wonderful thing, and it excells at trying to piece together puzzles. Have you ever gotten the email where every word is intentionally misspelled? You can read it anyway because your mind puts together the pieces. In this case, the minds of the eyewitnesses tried putting together the pieces of the puzzle without having seen the whole incident and therefore did not have all the information leading to an inaccurate conclusion.

The forensics show the blast was internal to the aircraft. If you wanted to argue a bomb, in checked luggage, brought it down, I would find that scenario FAR more likely.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:17:03 AM EDT

[#9]

My personal opinion - sabotage. There was a 'prophetic word' about this where the person saw some type of green liquid which was deliberately introduced into one of the plane's hydraulic systems which caused a catostrophic failure.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:17:05 AM EDT

[#10]

What the TAG is, Target Adaptive Guidance, Hence the missile can meet the aircraft in
flight, Not just chase it like a normal heat seeking missile.
TAB is Track Angle Bias, it is what is uses to accomplish it.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:17:25 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
unfortunately eyewitnesses are absolutely useless after about 5 minutes.

+ gazillion.

Second, if they all saw a shooting and claimed the guy had a "machine gun," you would ALL be screaming about asshats and the fact that they didn't know a clip from a mag. But you're fine with them declaring they know what the terminal end of an AAM looks like?

I couldn't have put it better myself, but don't bother trying to bring up facts in this thread.

There are some very bright people on this board. Science, philosophy, mathematics, the list of subjects where many experts can be found goes on and on.

Threads like this however, help me to remember that you should never underestimate stupid people in large groups.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:18:09 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Also, and EVERYONE I ask this question of ignores it, WHY would all those people be looking at an uninteresting aricraft, so far away as to be a collection of formation lights, at EXACTLY the same time, but BEFORE anything happenned.

Easy. It's New York city. Millions of people present. Odds are, several hundred, maybe several thousand are going to be looking out at the ocean at a particular vector at any given point in time.

It was night.

A missile, or what appears to be a missile or fireworks going up is going to catch your eye. When a really big explosion follows, that's going to be something you remember.

Some of these witnesses were familiar with the problems with witness testimony and immediately wrote their observations down.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:18:58 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
There have been tests and actual warplane damage where a stinger or similar MANPAD flew straight up the tailpipe of a fighter, a twin engined one at that. It didnt hit in the middle, it went for one only.

Honeywell pissed off the Navy with their Sidewinder missle tests. My dad was at the tests done by the Navy. They were shooting at drones (I believe he said old F4 jets if I remember right) and they were not supposed to kill the targets, they fired a missle with no warhead at the drones and if the missle got close enough, it was considered a kill. The Sidewinder was designed to detonate near the target, damaging the plane in the blast. Their test Sidewinders hit the target drones engines three times out of three, and even though there was no warhead, it damaged the drones and they crashed. The Navy lost three drones that day. Even the test missles hit the engines, even though it was only designed to get close enough to count. And this was in the early 80s using 1970s technology.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:19:22 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The air/fuel mixture in the tank had to be between the LEL & UEL (lower & upper explosive limits) and sufficient energy had to be delivered from an arcing/intermittent connection within the fuel cavity to light it up. Not saying it couldn't happen, but unlikely, and coupled with the numerous eyewitness reports (and purported ignoring of those reports by the investigative team) it taints the findings.

As for the missile theory, it was at the outer envelope of the Stinger, and within the range of the Mistral, the latter of which is interesting as the authorities found an abandoned Mistral in Maryland two years earlier...

Both of those missles are infared, and quite small.

1. the missles would hit the engines, not the fuselage
2. they could damage the plane to the point that it would crash, but a small shoulder launched missle is not going to cause a 747 to blow up in mid-air

At speed, can the missile make a last-millisecond choice which of the 5 hot spots to aim for, or just go for the central hottest spot? It's going pretty fast and we are talking 90's technology or earlier.

Lockerbie proved the ability of a small explosive to destroy a 747

You are wrong give it up.

Lockerbie was internal and the exlposive was much larger than a shoulder fired SAM.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:32:24 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The air/fuel mixture in the tank had to be between the LEL & UEL (lower & upper explosive limits) and sufficient energy had to be delivered from an arcing/intermittent connection within the fuel cavity to light it up. Not saying it couldn't happen, but unlikely, and coupled with the numerous eyewitness reports (and purported ignoring of those reports by the investigative team) it taints the findings.

As for the missile theory, it was at the outer envelope of the Stinger, and within the range of the Mistral, the latter of which is interesting as the authorities found an abandoned Mistral in Maryland two years earlier...

Both of those missles are infared, and quite small.

1. the missles would hit the engines, not the fuselage
2. they could damage the plane to the point that it would crash, but a small shoulder launched missle is not going to cause a 747 to blow up in mid-air

At speed, can the missile make a last-millisecond choice which of the 5 hot spots to aim for, or just go for the central hottest spot? It's going pretty fast and we are talking 90's technology or earlier.

Lockerbie proved the ability of a small explosive to destroy a 747

You are wrong give it up.

well that's an intelligent response.

Lockerbie was internal and the exlposive was much larger than a shoulder fired SAM.

Nonsense.

Details of the Lockerbie device

Ten years ago this week a suitcase was loaded into a Pan American cargo container at Frankfurt International airport.

It was an ordinary suitcase, but there was nothing ordinary about its contents. Inside the suitcase was a Toshiba portable radio/cassette player. Like most of its counterparts, the imposing case had quite a lot of empty space.

Inside the case a larger-than-normal battery was wired to a barometric sensor (the bellows unit from an aneroid barometer), a small device concealed under the cassette-play motor. This in turn was set to start a timer, which in turn was wired to a detonator.

In the space where there should have been a loudspeaker, there was shallow cone of silver foil, filled with about 350 grammes of Semtex plastic explosive.

As for the Stinger

The 3 kg (6.6 lb) blast-fragmentation warhead is triggered by a proximity and time-delayed impact fuze. Minimum effective range is quoted as 200 m (660 ft).

As for "it always aims for the engines..."

The Stinger has two major advantages over the older FIM-43 Redeye. The first is the second-generation cooled conical-scan IR seeker, which offers all-aspect detection and homing capability. Therefore, the Stinger can be used on approaching aircraft, before these had a chance to drop their short-range ordnance or begin ground-strafing. The second new feature of Stinger is its integrated AN/PPX-1 IFF system, which is an obvious advantage in a scenario where both friendly and enemy forces are operating aircraft. In flight, the missile's seeker head and guidance electronics can follow a target manoeuvering at more than 8g. In the immediate vicinity of the target, the guidance logic will be biased so that the missile homes on a particularly vulnerable part of the target (e.g. the cockpit of an aircraft, instead of the center of its IR signature, the jet exhaust).

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:35:10 AM EDT

[#16]

About twice a year this silly subject reappears here.

The Navy did not shoot down TWA 800. At the time, I was working with the Navy captain running the technical investigation.

While it might have been possible, depending on the geometry of the potential missile engagement, a successful MANPADS attack is MOST unlikely. A missile attack would have left easily detectable forensic evidence from the warhead and its effects upon the aircraft. I don't remember hearing about any such evidence.

There is NO source on the aircraft hot enough to guide the missile other than the engines. One MANPADS missile would take out one engine. The 747 has four such engines and it is a pretty robust plane.

Far more likely that it was an internal explosion.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:37:12 AM EDT

[#17]

Here's a theory of mine....

The plane temporarily wasn't allowed to ascend further due to a passing overhead flight....

There was a USN plane dropping flares "In the area" for missle excercises. I specifically remember seeing and hearing this on the live news coverage when it happened.

Suppose the plane wasn't hit by a missle from underneath, but a flare dropped from above ?

I don't know much about target flares, but I suppose they would be large enough to damage an airframe if struck at several hundred MPH.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:41:44 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
snip

350 grams huh? Wow, I stand corrected.

However, it still was NOT a missile.

If a Stinger offset forward, in order to attack a cockpit of a fighter-bomber, the explosion would have been forward of the wing, not centerline.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:43:42 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Here's a theory of mine....

The plane temporarily wasn't allowed to ascend further due to a passing overhead flight....

There was a USN plane dropping flares "In the area" for missle excercises. I specifically remember seeing and hearing this on the live news coverage when it happened.

Suppose the plane wasn't hit by a missle from underneath, but a flare dropped from above ?

I don't know much about target flares, but I suppose they would be large enough to damage an airframe if struck at several hundred MPH.

Do you really think a flare would cause a plane to explode? If a flare hit a plane from above, supposing it doesn't get swept away by the air flow, it would hit and then pass over the fuselage. It would not cause an explosion.

Besides the P-3 that was conducting exercises in the area was at a much lower altitude, and IIRC was conducting ASW exercises with a submarine out of Groton, CT.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:44:55 AM EDT

[#20]

didn't flt 800 result in a massive revamping of the electric/fuel system in 747's??? it was an accident.

man, no poll???

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:46:56 AM EDT

[#21]

I have no problem believing it's an accident. I just wonder why the government classified what the SEAL divers pulled up from the wreckage.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:47:40 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
snip

350 grams huh? Wow, I stand corrected.

However, it still was NOT a missile.

If a Stinger offset forward, in order to attack a cockpit of a fighter-bomber, the explosion would have been forward of the wing, not centerline.

Whatever happened, happened forward of the wing.

Look at the debris diagrams and see if you concur

It may have been a missile, might have been a smuggled explosive, or even the fuel tank theory, I find that the actions of the investigators brought more doubt than clarity to the whole deal.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:48:29 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
I have no problem believing it's an accident. I just wonder why the government classified what the SEAL divers pulled up from the wreckage.

Could have been another one of Ted Kennedy's cars...

(ETA: The .gov and courts classifying & restricting stuff lends more credence to the notion that "we ain't gettin the whole story here...")

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:52:55 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I have no problem believing it's an accident. I just wonder why the government classified what the SEAL divers pulled up from the wreckage.

Do you have a reliable source that states that SEALs did the diving on the wreck? That type of work is normally done by Navy salvage divers. They are NOT SEALs.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:55:05 AM EDT

[#25]

The seats. The seats with the red dye on them. has anyone not heard this theory?
here is a detailed report

US military training missiles use a colored dye type substance in the place of a warhead to indicated strikes on a target.
Source on the recovery team reported unofficially that when they were fishing out pieces of the wreckage, they recovered a row of seats from the center area of the plane, just above the area where a missile would have hit to cause the aircraft to break up the way it did, in full flight. The seats had distinctive dye marks on them, I belive it was red dye.

The seats were still bolted to a section of decking, and some of those recovered were stained with (red) dye. This row of seats was confiscated by the FBI as soon as it hit dry land. It was never seen again. When asked about it, NTSB stonewalls and has denied all knowledge of such a receovery.

This fits in well with the missing Air traffic control video tape from the Naval Air station, the one that disappeared and has never resurfaced, and the air traffic ontroller who saw the radar image than later recanted his story.

That's the way I heard it. I believe we shot it down accidentally with a naval training missile, then covered it up. But I'll bet any amount that the evidence will never resurface, and those in the know will never come forward. Even those freelance investigating this have been harrassed by Gov't agencies.

That's what I believe, though nothing will ever be proven short of major disclosure.

The seats that had the dye residue

Excerpt: The findings (source)

The red residue is not seat glue. The elemental analysis proves this.

2. The samples given to Dr. Bassett by the NTSB were not the same material analysed by James Sanders but based on Dr. Bassett's own analysis, as reported in the NTSB report on TWA 800, was seat glue tinted with a red dye.

3. The NTSB, in claiming that Dr. Charles Bassett's lab work linked the red residue analysed at West Coast Analytical Services with 3M seat glue, has lied. Dr. Bassett's report proves there is seat glue on the seats, and red dye on the seat glue.

The NTSB lied. There is no other way to put it.

So what does it mean, that the NTSB lied about the residue, and tried to rig Dr. Bassett's tests by dying samples of seat glue with a red dye? That there is a cover-up? Of course.

But looking beyond the obviousness of the NTSB's deception, that deception tells us much about what happened to TWA 800.

Had the red residue been something that actually belonged on the 747, such as tomato sauce from an inflight meal, or even the residue from some material already on the 747 that burned during the crash, the NTSB would have just said that. There would have been no need for a lie.

Therefore, the fact that the NTSB felt it was necessary to lie about the red residue proves that it was not normally part of the 747.

The red residue was not a normal part of the 747!

So where did it come from?

From the fact that the residue is mostly found along rows 17, 18, and 19 of the reconstructed aircraft, it's clear that the residue was placed there prior to the actual breakup of TWA 800. Had the residue appeared on the wreckage post-breakup, the traces would appear at random locations along the whole aircraft.

Airlines take great pains to keep the interiors of their aircraft as clean as possible. The coverings on the seats are held in place with velcro for easy removal and replacement. Had there been a red stain across three entire rows of seats on TWA 800 prior to the take-off, the seat covers would have been replaced, and records kept which the NTSB would have been able to use to explain away the residue without having to lie about it. Therefore, the red residue on rows 17, 18, and 19 appeared after the plane had left the ground.

So, even ignoring the tests by West Coast Analytical that showed the red residue to be consistant with the combustion products of a military missile, we now have these facts.

1. Three rows of seats became tainted with a strange red residue after TWA 800 left New York and before the plane actually broke apart.

2. By virtue of the NTSB's deceptions regarding the nature of the red residue, as documented in the NTSB's own report, the red residue is not a substance normally found on the 747.

Therefore, the red residue proves some other object had to come into contact with TWA 800 prior to the crash.

And the fact that the NTSB felt it was necessary to lie about it proves they know what it was!

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:59:40 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no problem believing it's an accident. I just wonder why the government classified what the SEAL divers pulled up from the wreckage.

Do you have a reliable source that states that SEALs did the diving on the wreck? That type of work is normally done by Navy salvage divers. They are NOT SEALs.

when I watched it on the news it was Navy salvage divers, not SEALS. SEALs are not trained for heavy deep salvage operations.

Anyone else think it is odd that they would use ONLY Navy divers and not any commercial diving assets available? Unless there was something they did not want civilians to see?

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:59:59 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's a theory of mine....

The plane temporarily wasn't allowed to ascend further due to a passing overhead flight....

There was a USN plane dropping flares "In the area" for missle excercises. I specifically remember seeing and hearing this on the live news coverage when it happened.

Suppose the plane wasn't hit by a missle from underneath, but a flare dropped from above ?

I don't know much about target flares, but I suppose they would be large enough to damage an airframe if struck at several hundred MPH.

Do you really think a flare would cause a plane to explode? If a flare hit a plane from above, supposing it doesn't get swept away by the air flow, it would hit and then pass over the fuselage. It would not cause an explosion.

Besides the P-3 that was conducting exercises in the area was at a much lower altitude, and IIRC was conducting ASW exercises with a submarine out of Groton, CT.

Methinks missle target flares are a little more than common road hazard flares...

As far as "bouncing off the fuselage" ? How fast could the plane have been going ? 300 ? 400 ? 500MPH ???
ANY object of a substantial size would do SERIOUS damage at that speed. As far as the explosion ?
What happens when a tank of fuel is burst near a white hot object ?

I'm not claiming to know jack $hit about this stuff.... Just throwing some speculation into the thread...

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:00:02 AM EDT

[#28]

Somthing traveled upward and hit it, thats my first hand account.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:02:56 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no problem believing it's an accident. I just wonder why the government classified what the SEAL divers pulled up from the wreckage.

Do you have a reliable source that states that SEALs did the diving on the wreck? That type of work is normally done by Navy salvage divers. They are NOT SEALs.

when I watched it on the news it was Navy salvage divers, not SEALS. SEALs are not trained for heavy deep salvage operations.

Anyone else think it is odd that they would use ONLY Navy divers and not any commercial diving assets available? Unless there was something they did not want civilians to see?

Navy divers are free, ie no cost. They were onboard the ARS that responded anyway. Why pay for something that you already have?

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:07:06 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip

350 grams huh? Wow, I stand corrected.

However, it still was NOT a missile.

If a Stinger offset forward, in order to attack a cockpit of a fighter-bomber, the explosion would have been forward of the wing, not centerline.

Whatever happened, happened forward of the wing.

Look at the debris diagrams and see if you concur

It may have been a missile, might have been a smuggled explosive, or even the fuel tank theory, I find that the actions of the investigators brought more doubt than clarity to the whole deal.

You'd have better luck selling the smuggled explosive theory. Except the investigators found no explosive residue on the wreckage.

You say it "may have been a missile" it was not. Even with your Stinger offsetting forward theory, the circumstances of the wreckage do not match a missile intercept. (BTW, if the missile offset forward, as in to kill the cockpit of a fighter-bomber, what a MANPAD is designed to counter) it would have not been a contact explosion, you would have had shrapnel all along the wing and the forward part of the body. The evidence on the wreckage does not support that. The evidence supports an internal explosion. Which would back up a bomb on board theory, except they never found explosive residue.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:09:09 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no problem believing it's an accident. I just wonder why the government classified what the SEAL divers pulled up from the wreckage.

Do you have a reliable source that states that SEALs did the diving on the wreck? That type of work is normally done by Navy salvage divers. They are NOT SEALs.

when I watched it on the news it was Navy salvage divers, not SEALS. SEALs are not trained for heavy deep salvage operations.

Anyone else think it is odd that they would use ONLY Navy divers and not any commercial diving assets available? Unless there was something they did not want civilians to see?

Navy divers are free, ie no cost. They were onboard the ARS that responded anyway. Why pay for something that you already have?

True, but in the past non-military commercial assets have been used for NTSB crash recovery efforts.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:09:24 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no problem believing it's an accident. I just wonder why the government classified what the SEAL divers pulled up from the wreckage.

Do you have a reliable source that states that SEALs did the diving on the wreck? That type of work is normally done by Navy salvage divers. They are NOT SEALs.

when I watched it on the news it was Navy salvage divers, not SEALS. SEALs are not trained for heavy deep salvage operations.

Anyone else think it is odd that they would use ONLY Navy divers and not any commercial diving assets available? Unless there was something they did not want civilians to see?

At the time (before they could knew "it wasn't terrorism") I would think that Navy divers could be relied upon to keep mum about anything they found.

From the manual for trawling operations, specifically page 3

Seems whatever they were looking for they wanted to keep out of the news...

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:09:31 AM EDT

[#33]

Hmmm...

Looky here:

Targeting missle flares

Apparently, flares are strapped to missles, then used as targets...

This puts missles, flares, white hot magnesium, etc... ALL in the same airspace...

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:09:57 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
[Methinks missle target flares are a little more than common road hazard flares...

I know exactly how big they are.

As far as "bouncing off the fuselage" ? How fast could the plane have been going ? 300 ? 400 ? 500MPH ???
ANY object of a substantial size would do SERIOUS damage at that speed. As far as the explosion ?
What happens when a tank of fuel is burst near a white hot object ?

Except you have it bouncing off the top of the aircraft, where the fuel tanks aren't located. A strike on the wing would have resulted in different wreckage.

I'm not claiming to know jack $hit about this stuff.... Just throwing some speculation into the thread...

Might as well, there are enough BS theories here.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:10:55 AM EDT

[#35]

I don't know if it was a missle or not, but I second whoever said if anyone believes the fuel tank theory is dumb enough to buy a Olyarms rifle or whatever... I agree with 'em.

There was just simply too many non-standard things that went along with the whole event compared to other crashes.
The witnesses, whether credible or not, there were so many of them and so many saying the same thing, and they were never brought to light by the NTSB or anyone. That was odd.

The NTSB recreation of the flight with the fuel tank exploding and the thing climbing up and coming down was not very plausible by any means. It looked more like they made the animation to fit whatever evidence they had, and not as if they used the evidence to fit the event. That was odd.

The fact that there was no immediate grounding of all similar aircraft for a period long enough to inspect them... that was odd.

The fact that after all the other terrorist attacks we had in the 90's, and how they were downplayed by the administration of that time, does it strike anyone as far fetched at all that a terrorist attack was not possible, if not probable?

Compared to other crashes, there was too much out of whack with this. The 9/11 attacks, if you look at all the kook theories, they are really pullin' hard for evidence. The Pentagon still shot camera, the supposed fuel tank on the bottom of one of the plans which was total BS, etc. It was such kook theory stuff.

For TWA800, you didn't need to look hard for evidence to see something was not as we were told. Everything pointed to it.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:11:00 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
I believe it was shot down.

By who? I don't know.

But fuel tanks don't just explode like that. Even with the tank reading empty on the gauges there is still residual trapped fuel in the tank, which would make the fuel/air ratio too rich for a spark to ignite it.

747s have flown for decades without a fuel tank blowing up. Also, I don't recall hearing of a worldwide inspection of the fleet to check for the condition that allegedly caused the explosion.

My gut says that Boeing should have challenged NTSB findings that said their airplane was unsafe in any way.

That leads to something else that stuck in my mind:

Not too long after this Boeing was buying McDonnel Douglas, which was a HUGE merger. One would think that with a deal on that scale there would be a lot of FTC hearings and such.

The deal went through like the skids were greased. Was that the reward for Boeing not making a stink over the NTSB's findings?

ETA: Was thinking of different crash/scenario

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:13:23 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
The air/fuel mixture in the tank had to be between the LEL & UEL (lower & upper explosive limits) and sufficient energy had to be delivered from an arcing/intermittent connection within the fuel cavity to light it up. Not saying it couldn't happen, but unlikely, and coupled with the numerous eyewitness reports (and purported ignoring of those reports by the investigative team) it taints the findings.

As for the missile theory, it was at the outer envelope of the Stinger, and within the range of the Mistral, the latter of which is interesting as the authorities found an abandoned Mistral in Maryland two years earlier...

You are right on the money. This one -was- a coverup, to save the Clinton Administration from the political fallout and the Airline Industry from collapse. Nearly 200 folks saw something shoot up from the ground toward the plane, some ex-military who knew what missiles look like. Remember that Janet Reno was in power at the time, and did whatever Clinton told her, whether it was ethical or not.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:23:23 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip

350 grams huh? Wow, I stand corrected.

However, it still was NOT a missile.

If a Stinger offset forward, in order to attack a cockpit of a fighter-bomber, the explosion would have been forward of the wing, not centerline.

Whatever happened, happened forward of the wing.

Look at the debris diagrams and see if you concur

It may have been a missile, might have been a smuggled explosive, or even the fuel tank theory, I find that the actions of the investigators brought more doubt than clarity to the whole deal.

You'd have better luck selling the smuggled explosive theory. Except the investigators found no explosive residue on the wreckage.

I'm not "selling" any theory, except that the agencies involved were less than forthcoming in their investigation, and produced a farce of a video showing a noseless aircraft climbing 3000 feet. I have no idea what brought the plane down, but I don't blindly accept the official line on this one. There was a gentleman (Sanders) who obtained some of the seating material for independent test which did "find something" and he was crucified by the government.

Any good Engineer is not afraid to have his analysis challenged. The .gov is behaving in a "how dare you question us" mode, and that insincerity (although not uncommon) might belie a little more. If they are confident in their findings, they should have openly submitted samples for independent analysis.

You say it "may have been a missile" it was not.

Neither you nor I can say either it was or was not with certainty (unless you personally were involved with bringing it down by some other means)

Even with your Stinger offsetting forward theory, the circumstances of the wreckage do not match a missile intercept. (BTW, if the missile offset forward, as in to kill the cockpit of a fighter-bomber, what a MANPAD is designed to counter) it would have not been a contact explosion, you would have had shrapnel all along the wing and the forward part of the body. The evidence on the wreckage does not support that. The evidence supports an internal explosion. Which would back up a bomb on board theory, except they never found explosive residue.

I have not claimed it was a Stinger (go back to earlier posts), rather I cited information proving that a MANPADS can carry a significantly greater payload than that which brought down Pan Am 103. It may have been a Mistral, it might have been something else (missile or non-missile) altogether.

There is a powerful incentive to find "anything but terrorism" in any accident, as the success of terrorism implies the inability of government to be in control (that which it fears more than all) and presents a legitimate threat to economic stability of the industry and potentially country, if large enough. Look at the deal that happened at LAX a few years back, immediately they claimed "it's not terrorism" but as was meekly admitted months after the story was off the front page, it was.

I will not say with certainty that TWA 800 was terrorism, but I will not accept that it was not, until a few more questions are answered.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:26:53 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe it was shot down.

By who? I don't know.

But fuel tanks don't just explode like that. Even with the tank reading empty on the gauges there is still residual trapped fuel in the tank, which would make the fuel/air ratio too rich for a spark to ignite it.

747s have flown for decades without a fuel tank blowing up. Also, I don't recall hearing of a worldwide inspection of the fleet to check for the condition that allegedly caused the explosion.

My gut says that Boeing should have challenged NTSB findings that said their airplane was unsafe in any way.

That leads to something else that stuck in my mind:

Not too long after this Boeing was buying McDonnel Douglas, which was a HUGE merger. One would think that with a deal on that scale there would be a lot of FTC hearings and such.

The deal went through like the skids were greased. Was that the reward for Boeing not making a stink over the NTSB's findings?

In 1993 a KC-135 burned to the ground after one if its center wing pumps ignited the fuel vapors in the tank.

Yep,and two really poor troops,in a lapse in judgement,fueled a HEMITT,while grounding to a chain link fence,blew itself to smithereens. Did alot of fueling big jets,center tank was,for the most part,empty(centers are the LAST to be fueled),yet,the vapors are more than enough to be exploded by spark. BTW,was this a B-747-131? If so,they were rather old,and ol' TWA wasn't doing too good at that point.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:33:19 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Google "Plane crashes in Everglades, oxygen tanks sparked and blew up, killing everyone and scattering debris for a few miles".
Doesnt necessarily have to be the fuel tanks that blew up.

Nothing blew up or exploded on the Valuejet flight (disclaimer: I used to work for Airtran, the company that bought Valuejet afterwards) and the aircraft was intact when it hit the ground.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:38:54 AM EDT

[#41]

What's so obviously wrong with the plane gaining altitude after losing the nose? A little help here for those of us who aren't aeronautical engineers.

It seems to make sense to me. The plane loses weight on the front, causing the front to rise. Then it eventually stalls and drops to the water.

I see nothing wrong with the fuel tank theory. There were 50 gallons of fuel in the center tank. The air packs under the tank only needed to raise the temperature in the tank to 90-something degrees to make the mixture flammable. A test on a simialar plane showed the temp raised well over that -- about 120, IIRC. All it needed was a spark.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:41:21 AM EDT

[#42]

The video straight from NTSB

Just last month, an Engineer who didn't buy the official line took the FBI to court over foreign material plus more stuff the agency has been unwilling to release:

Sephton v. FBI pivots on one essential category of evidence as well. Specifically, Sephton wants the FBI to share the forensic information derived from the foreign objects embedded in the bodies of the 230 people killed in the crash. What the FBI has been telling Sephton for the last five years is that its agents can find virtually none of the forensic details about these objects, although released documents make clear that the FBI logged in hundreds of unidentifiable objects as evidence relating to the initial explosion.

More than four months later, nearly a year and a half after his initial request, the FBI sent Sephton 14 pages of records. Nowhere among them was any of the forensic data Sephton had specifically requested. Instead, the FBI sent him vague descriptions of the type of investigations undertaken by the NTSB and the FBI.

The saving grace of these documents was the acknowledgement of at least one key fact: FBI agents had not only secured the foreign objects found in the bodies, but they had also had them analyzed. Sephton learned that the FBI's New York office was "aware that all foreign matter found in or on the victim body was/were highly scrutinized by FBI bomb techs," that samples taken from simulated missile tests were compared "to actual fragments found in victim bodies," and, most tellingly, that the "investigation is continuing to identify FB's [foreign bodies] of unknown origin. "

it gets better...

It would take more than a year and a change in administration before the FBI declassified a meaningful forensics report. The report, an analysis of spectral data recorded by the Brookhaven National Lab, revealed that 20 pieces of 0.2-inch-diameter-round shrapnel had been removed from at least one of the victims' bodies.

The report noted that these pellets had been tested because of their "dissimilarity in appearance with TWA 800 debris." As to their source, the analysts could only conclude "unknown origin." For whatever reason, the FBI still refused to reveal whether other victims were similarly injured.

So they are pulling shrapnel of unknown origin that cannot be matched up with anything from the plane and comparing it to missile tests?

ETA: A retired UA pilot is the one going after the government on the climb video, the Engineer is focusing on a different area

Lahr's ongoing case in the Los Angeles District Court pivots on the calculations used by the National Transportation Safety Board and the CIA to postulate a 3,400 foot post-crash climb by the nose-less 747. This contrivance was critical in that it allowed the authorities to explain away the testimony of the 270 eyewitnesses who saw an ascending object strike the plane.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:41:44 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Google "Plane crashes in Everglades, oxygen tanks sparked and blew up, killing everyone and scattering debris for a few miles".
Doesnt necessarily have to be the fuel tanks that blew up.

The air tanks didn't blow up, they caught fire and burned. The fire destroyed the control cables of the plane, so the pilots lost control. I don't recall anything about anysignificant amounts of debris scattered over any wide area. The plane nosedived right into the swamp and made a crater.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:54:19 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
snip

I think we can be 99% certain it was not a missile based on the blast origen, the kinematics of the problem, known missile performance envelops, and wreckage. The training round dye crap was amusing though in its absurdity.

I understand your point; however, you were pushing the missile angle pretty hard.

I think, if there was a conspiracy or terrorist attack, the most likely theory would be a bomb, probably in the checked luggage. There wasn't much screening in 1996. As you CORRECTLY point out, it doesn't require that much explosive, and it was a known method.

That being said, the lack of explosives residue leads me to the old Sherlock Holmes mantra, "Once the impossible is discounted, whatever is left, no matter how improbable is the truth." No explosives residue rules out missile and bomb. There is only one thing left.

Posted: 12/29/2005 10:56:40 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Google "Plane crashes in Everglades, oxygen tanks sparked and blew up, killing everyone and scattering debris for a few miles".
Doesnt necessarily have to be the fuel tanks that blew up.

Nothing blew up or exploded on the Valuejet flight (disclaimer: I used to work for Airtran, the company that bought Valuejet afterwards) and the aircraft was intact when it hit the ground.

Yeah, my bad.

I was thinking of something else.

I remember the oxygen tanks catching on fire and thought they exploded. Was thinking of a different crash where blew up and scattered debris.

Posted: 12/29/2005 11:05:48 AM EDT

[#46]

Admiral_Crunch was on the money about the aircraft pitching up after the seperation of the nose. The Center of Gravity would have shifted further aft, and without any change in horizontal stab or elevator position, the aircraft would have pitched up. Also, this decrease in weight from loss of the nose would have led to a net gain in thrust, and adding thrust tends to make an aicraft pitch up.

As for the missile showing up on radar, most civilian radars don't rely on "skin paint" for objects to show up as a "blip" on their screen. They use aircraft transponder codes. If anyone was using a skin paint radar at the time and watching their screen, I doubt a missile would have been noticable. The radar cross section of a missle is very tiny (depending on type of missile). Let alone trying to track a very fast moving object, it just seems highly doubtful.

CALLING RODENT! CALLING RODENT! CALLING RODENT!

Have any more input on a heak seeking missiles? We'd love to know what you could share.

IMO, a missile bringing down TWA Flight 800 is a false theory. Is it so hard to imagine there was a mechanical problem/failure that resulted in an explosion causing catastrophic damage?

Posted: 12/29/2005 11:24:50 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
snip

I think we can be 99% certain it was not a missile based on the blast origen, the kinematics of the problem, known missile performance envelops, and wreckage. The training round dye crap was amusing though in its absurdity.

I understand your point; however, you were pushing the missile angle pretty hard.

I think, if there was a conspiracy or terrorist attack, the most likely theory would be a bomb, probably in the checked luggage. There wasn't much screening in 1996. As you CORRECTLY point out, it doesn't require that much explosive, and it was a known method.

That being said, the lack of explosives residue leads me to the old Sherlock Holmes mantra, "Once the impossible is discounted, whatever is left, no matter how improbable is the truth." No explosives residue rules out missile and bomb. There is only one thing left.

I agree on the principle of Occam's Razor, although that presupposes we have been getting good info from TPTB, and that's where I have a bit of an issue, especially after the animation which is a source of contention and dismissals from pilots and the purported residue which the authorities claimed "was glue"

The official story twist and turns and contorts itself to comply with the facts that are known (wreckage maps, for example) which is counter to Occam - it may be what really happened, but it seems like a stretch, and the .gov looked awfully hard to find a non-terrorist explanation. Adding in that the people running the show were former lobbyists & fundraisers, does little to add to the ultimate credibility of their findings.

Posted: 12/29/2005 11:28:19 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Navy divers are free, ie no cost. They were onboard the ARS that responded anyway. Why pay for something that you already have?

Military resources can cost some big bucks. Nothing is free.

Posted: 12/29/2005 11:33:53 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
As for the missile showing up on radar, most civilian radars don't rely on "skin paint" for objects to show up as a "blip" on their screen. They use aircraft transponder codes. If anyone was using a skin paint radar at the time and watching their screen, I doubt a missile would have been noticable. The radar cross section of a missle is very tiny (depending on type of missile). Let alone trying to track a very fast moving object, it just seems highly doubtful.

May not have shown up for the operator, but it would have shown up on the tapes.

Posted: 12/29/2005 11:39:07 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Navy divers are free, ie no cost. They were onboard the ARS that responded anyway. Why pay for something that you already have?

Military resources can cost some big bucks. Nothing is free.

You pay the Navy divers even if they aren't diving. You're really paying for the ship to operate at sea. Depending on the ship's schedule the taxpayer was probably going to pay for those underway days anyway.

So in reality, it probably didn't cost any more, or little more, than it would have to operate the divers and the ship for training, which is what they would have been doing had they not been conducting real ops.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - TWA Flight 800 (Page 2 of 8)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us