10 Years Ago Today

[Otter]

Was it by Commander Donaldson? He did his own investigation and made a taped simulation of the scenario.

No...it was Jack Cashill

 

[Bruzilla]

The only people who believe that a missile brought down the plane are people who watch too much TV. They're the ones who probably also believe that a US MK-48 torpedo somehow found the forward torpedo room of the Kursk and detonated the submarine.

Anti-aircraft missiles just do not have a warhead that's big enough to punch into an aircraft and detonate resulting in a catastrophic explosion. The warheads are just big enough to explode, turn the missile into shrapnel, and hopefully destroy the structure of the aircraft by shredding or punctures, especially the control surfaces, and cause the plane to depart controlled flight and crash. There are two types of missiles, radar-guided and heat-seeking. A radar-guided missile (the only one that can be guided) requires a transmitting radar to guide it, and there's no way in Hell you can radiate a fire-control radar off the coast of the US and not have it detected. I was on watch at NAS Brunswick, ME when TWA 800 went down, and there were no reports of any fire-control radars being detected. Also, there's no fire control radar that can be loaded up in a small boat and transmitted. That leaves heat-seekers, and heat-seekers chase their targets. A shoulder-launched heat-seeker like the SA-7 or Stinger could reach and detonate an engine, which could cause a 747 to go down if the wing was substantially damaged, but there would have been plenty of time for the pilots to report what had happened. TWA 800 completely exploded in a flash, and there's just no missile that could do that.

It really doesn't matter who saw what since there's no way any known SAM could go up and completely detonate a 747 and there is no radar-guided missile that is targeted with an undetectable radar.

 

[MMDad]

...much of an explosion there.

Plus, 'numerous' would imply, to me, that they'd fix it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/14/twa.main/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

They haven't.

That was the ignition sorce, not the damage.

NTSB:

The evidence indicates that an explosion in the left wing fuel tank destroyed the structural integrity of the wing. Had this explosion occurred in flight, it would have resulted in the catastrophic failure of the wing and the airplane would have crashed.

Sound familiar yet?

This accident illustrates that ignition sources continue to exist and fuel tank explosions continue to occur in both wing and center wing fuel tanks despite the corrective efforts of government regulators and industry. The Safety Board continues to believe the best protection against fuel tank explosions is to eliminate the flammable conditions inside the fuel tanks through design changes such as nitrogen-inerting systems (NTSB Safety Recommendation A-96-174).

Next we can debate the feasibility of hitting an aircraft at that altitude with a shoulder fired missle. Or was it the P-3 that shot it down? Or was it a Navy cruiser?

Did you know that an airplane didn't really hit the Pentagon? I saw it on a website. Must be true. It was a missile with landing gear.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bruz...

TWA 800 completely exploded in a flash

That's not what the CIA's animation says. They say, in fact, that once the initial explosion happened, why, that plane rose 3,000 more feet before the catastrophic event.

I seen it on the TV.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Um hello! It was us in the US Navy that shot it down. Duh.

 

[Bustem' Down]

That's not what the CIA's animation says. They say, in fact, that once the initial explosion happened, why, that plane rose 3,000 more feet before the catastrophic event.

I seen it on the TV.

That's because when the nose fell off the plane, it had an increased amount of lift due to the lack of weight.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

That was the ignition source, not the damage.

NTSB:



Sound familiar yet?



Next we can debate the feasibility of hitting an aircraft at that altitude with a shoulder fired missle. Or was it the P-3 that shot it down? Or was it a Navy cruiser?

Did you know that an airplane didn't really hit the Pentagon? I saw it on a website. Must be true. It was a missile with landing gear.

...from what the TV said, a Stinger would have gone after an engine, right? So, that's out. The TV also said the radar blip was too fast to be a P3 and one, or at least a transponder from one, wasn't recorded in range, so, no good there. It, the TV, did suggest that a missile with a dummy warhead used in the training exercises that the TV said were going on in the area, may have accidentally hit the plane and then caused the fuel tank explosion.

As for the Pentagon, I know someone who was there. They're pretty sure the real big round thing they touched was an airplane engine, so, you're on your own there.

As for the eyewitnesses of 800, I'm sure they all watch, like me, to much TV and aren't anywhere near qualified to comment on such things as people like yourself who don't watch TV and know all the real facts. So, I defer to your understanding of the world as it is. I'll go back to the TV now and quit bothering you with inconvenient facts. It makes much more sense that it's only happened to a 747 once and they never fixed it, the more I think about it, anyway.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I did hear one story that it was a spark in the fuel tank caused by RF energy from the SPY-1 radar of an aegis cruiser.

 

[Larry Gude]

The point was...

That's because when the nose fell off the plane, it had an increased amount of lift due to the lack of weight.

...that it didn't just blow up all at once as Bruz suggested. Or, at least, that's what the TV says.

The TV also had some folks who, the TV said, are in the know of such things, that it would be aerodynamically impossible for the plane to do what the CIA says it did.

That's just the TV, of course.

 

[Bustem' Down]

...that it didn't just blow up all at once as Bruz suggested. Or, at least, that's what the TV says.

The TV also had some folks who, the TV said, are in the know of such things, that it would be aerodynamically impossible for the plane to do what the CIA says it did.

That's just the TV, of course.

Well, if it's on TV or the internet then it must be true.

I'd like to see the AA missle that could completely blow up an aircraft of that size. All they are designed to do is damage beyond the ability to fly. Hell, they're not even design to hit skin to skin.

 

[MMDad]

That's not what the CIA's animation says. They say, in fact, that once the initial explosion happened, why, that plane rose 3,000 more feet before the catastrophic event.

I seen it on the TV.

You're right about that part, Larry. NTSB agrees that the plane continued to climb.

The explosion didn't blow up the plane, it caused structural failure. Once the airframe was weakened, the section forward of the wings broke off and fell. The rest of the aircraft continued to climb until it stalled and fell. Imagine being in the back: you would probably live until you hit the water.

Now here's where Bru's point gets important: it had to be a heat seeker. They hit engines. Completely different failure mode. As soon as it hit, the engine would explode. There is no evidence that an engine was hit.

As far as this being an FBI vs. NTSB investigation: The same thing happens for any accident where there could be a crime scene. Car accidents, train accidents, and pipeline accidents. It's not NTSB's job to fight crime. Their job is to improve safety. They should never interfere with the criminal aspect of any investigation.

 

[Larry Gude]

It's interesting to me...

Well, if it's on TV or the internet then it must be true.

I'd like to see the AA missle that could completely blow up an aircraft of that size. All they are designed to do is damage beyond the ability to fly. Hell, they're not even design to hit skin to skin.

...that you folks who know exactly what happened keep quoting things that I, with my doubts, haven't said.

So, it's impossible that a NAVY ship locked 800 up and hit it with a dummy warhead which then caused the fuel tank to rupture and then explode? So, we can eliminate that one, yes?

 

[Bustem' Down]

...that you folks who know exactly what happened keep quoting things that I, with my doubts, haven't said.

So, it's impossible that a NAVY ship locked 800 up and hit it with a dummy warhead which then caused the fuel tank to rupture and then explode? So, we can eliminate that one, yes?

Nine out of ten times, the SM-2 doesn't actually "hit" the target. It gets close and the explodes sending all kinds of nastiness into the target. So, with a dummy warhead, if that scenario actually happened, it probably would have just flown by. Also, the Navy would never actually target a ComAir track.

 

[MMDad]

I did hear one story that it was a spark in the fuel tank caused by RF energy from the SPY-1 radar of an aegis cruiser.

Can you imagine silencing the crew of a cruiser? You know that most of the crew knows exactly where the ship is located, so everyone could find out. All it would take is one disgruntled sailor to run to the press, and the story is blown. Yep, silence that many sailors, even the disgruntled ones. Really feasible.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Can you imagine silencing the crew of a cruiser? You know that most of the crew knows exactly where the ship is located, so everyone could find out. All it would take is one disgruntled sailor to run to the press, and the story is blown. Yep, silence that many sailors, even the disgruntled ones. Really feasible.

It would last till they hit port and got a beer. LOL

 

[MMDad]

Also, the Navy would never actually target a ComAir track.

Of course not. The Vincennes never would have done that.





J/K I know what you're saying, and I know what really happened with IranAir.

 

[Larry Gude]

From what my...

You're right about that part, Larry. NTSB agrees that the plane continued to climb.

The explosion didn't blow up the plane, it caused structural failure. Once the airframe was weakened, the section forward of the wings broke off and fell. The rest of the aircraft continued to climb until it stalled and fell. Imagine being in the back: you would probably live until you hit the water.

Now here's where Bru's point gets important: it had to be a heat seeker. They hit engines. Completely different failure mode. As soon as it hit, the engine would explode. There is no evidence that an engine was hit.

As far as this being an FBI vs. NTSB investigation: The same thing happens for any accident where there could be a crime scene. Car accidents, train accidents, and pipeline accidents. It's not NTSB's job to fight crime. Their job is to improve safety. They should never interfere with the criminal aspect of any investigation.

...beloved TV and web tell me, there isn't anyone credible claiming a heat seeker did it because it would, as you say, gone after a heat source, the engine exhaust, and that didn't happen, right?

As for the FBI, if it was so obvious to everyone after 6 months or so that it was not a crime scene, why did they run it until the bitter end?

As for NTSB improving safety, have all the airlines been given a pass on implementing NTSB's suggestions?

I don't know if they lived until impact or not but I did calculate that they would have had about what, a minutes worth of processing what was going on if going 270 knots to near zero rather suddenly didn't knock them out. That would suck.

This is the US. Where's the law suit? Where's Boeing coming out with new whatever to prevent this from ever happening again? Where's the payment to families for suffering and loss?

It's not so easy to accept having some 100 people claiming to see a light going up to simply be dismissed. Especially when the government simply says they were mistaken.

 

[Larry Gude]

Why is that so hard...

Can you imagine silencing the crew of a cruiser? You know that most of the crew knows exactly where the ship is located, so everyone could find out. All it would take is one disgruntled sailor to run to the press, and the story is blown. Yep, silence that many sailors, even the disgruntled ones. Really feasible.

..to believe if anywhere from 100-250 people claiming to have seen a light going up were simply dismissed?

So, there was no NAVY ships in the area with the capability to do it? No military airplanes?

Is it truly just a catastrophic, one of a kind accident for the 747 that isn't worth fixing?

 

[Bustem' Down]

...beloved TV and web tell me, there isn't anyone credible claiming a heat seeker did it because it would, as you say, gone after a heat source, the engine exhaust, and that didn't happen, right?

As for the FBI, if it was so obvious to everyone after 6 months or so that it was not a crime scene, why did they run it until the bitter end?

As for NTSB improving safety, have all the airlines been given a pass on implementing NTSB's suggestions?

I don't know if they lived until impact or not but I did calculate that they would have had about what, a minutes worth of processing what was going on if going 270 knots to near zero rather suddenly didn't knock them out. That would suck.

This is the US. Where's the law suit? Where's Boeing coming out with new whatever to prevent this from ever happening again? Where's the payment to families for suffering and loss?

It's not so easy to accept having some 100 people claiming to see a light going up to simply be dismissed. Especially when the government simply says they were mistaken.

I was watching some show and there were changes implemented. That center fuel tank is no longer allowed to be left empty on short flights so there there is not a build up of vapors. There were some other things too, but I don't remember, it was a year ago I saw the show.

 

[Bustem' Down]

..to believe if anywhere from 100-250 people claiming to have seen a light going up were simply dismissed?

So, there was no NAVY ships in the area with the capability to do it? No military airplanes?

Is it truly just a catastrophic, one of a kind accident for the 747 that isn't worth fixing?

Most US warships operating off the coast at that time were not armed.