Families of Flight 800 victims file suit.

a reply to: butcherguy

The only non-Aegis cruisers that US Navy operated in 1996 were the nuclear powered cruisers. Long Beach was a true cruiser, the others were destroyer or frigate upgrades. The USS Bainbridge was decommissioned July 13, 1996, California and South Carolina made it until 1999, but California was in WESTPAC, and South Carolina was just completing a maintenance availability period in July 96. Mississippi lasted until 1997, and Arkansas until 1998. Mississippi was preparing for deactivation, which occurred in September 1996. Arkansas was in WESTPAC from May until November 1996.

This business about fuel tank sparks and explosive fumes turned out to be a ruse. Huh; who'd have guessed. s

Since our in-house aviation expert is in the thread, I'd be curious what Zaphod's thoughts were at the time when the "official explanation" came out back then. I admit that back, just like now, I don't have a lot subject-matter expertise in the mechanics and engineering of jet fuel tanks and electrical system. However, I thought I remember some whispers of skepticism from the airline manufacturers and commercial pilots about the likelihood of a malfunction like this bringing down a jet liner, not to mention all of the eye-witness testimony from people on Long Island that say the missile streak through the sky.

I completely expect a similar lawsuit and forced disclosures (i.e. like prying teeth out a large, angry alligator) say, 20 years down the line, about COVID and our involvement in the labs at Wuhan.

By the way, there was a (IMHO) excellent episode of Art Bell's radio program devoted to the TWA Flight 800 coverup. It featured a researcher/journalist who did extensive digging into the flight and "accident", and was actually targeted with a vicious legal campaign by (duh-duh-DUH!) the FBI and friends. WOW, the FBI on the wrong side of the law, that (almost) never happens!

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened


its still WE the people....right?

Good old art, he was a gooden.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

We lost four or five KC-135s both in flight, and on the ground to fuel pump explosions. They were a different type of explosion (the fuel pumps themselves catastrophically failed), but a fuel tank explosion isn't beyond the realm of possibility in something like this. The 747-100 center wing fuel tank ran extremely hot (beyond the flash point of Jet-A), and they ran it empty on that flight. So it's definitely in the realm of possibility. I know there were eyewitnesses, but eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially in aircraft related incidents, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

There was a recent crash in Russia (recent as in within the last ten years) where eyewitnesses had it colliding with a helicopter, being on fire before impact, and breaking up prior to impact. The accident cause was pilot disorientation in bad weather, causing the aircraft to dive into the ground, fully intact, and not on fire. There were no other aircraft in the area at the time.

a reply to: MaxxAction

No the fuel tank explodes inward in some places and that plane didn't have one of its sides.

That wasn't really ever a conspiracy in my mind.

The first 2 hours of news can't be taken back. Consensus in eyewitness reports of the first 2 hours can't be taken back.

That one and all the 60's assassinations and psychological warfare MKUltra ones. Some conspiracies stand above others.

lawstreetmedia.com...

This reads like the Navy may have an excuse.

The filing states claims for negligence, wrongful death and survivorship, and against the contractor defendants, product liability for failure to warn and manufacturing defect. The complaint specifies that the contractor defendants’ missile defense system suffered from “system-specific software problems.”

The complaint lists “failure to accept changes in mislabeled data identifying a friendly aircraft as a hostile aircraft … excess messages overloading systems, causing system crashes and the loss of command and control resources during critical periods … improper track identification … and duplicate tracks distorting the joint tactical picture, denying vital information to battle managers and shooters,” as some of those shortcomings.

Reads like the Navy thought they targeted the drone. Feel bad for the specialist whose job it was to identify the target.

Just got a little bit more difficult to play fact checker.

a reply to: Degradation33

The fuel tank explodes out in all directions. It's an internal explosion that's going to blow the tank outward. MH17 shows what a missile impact would look like. We didn't see anything like that with TWA 800. With MH17 the impact areas were damaged by missile fragments, and there was damage outside the impact area. With TWA 800, apparently all the missile damage occurred in one very small area, all of which was either not recovered, or not reconstructed. A missile isn't outside the realm of possibility, but the damage is consistent with a fuel tank explosion, and no evidence of missile impact was shown in any of the released pictures.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well that kinda fact checking is still valid.

I just remember the late 90's version of this. Why arent they showing the entire reconstructed image? That was a common question. And I read something at one point about a section on the fuselage that showed an external explosion not concurrent with only fuel tank explosions.

I remember those being things that were flags in the early part of this conspiracy.

a reply to: Zaphod58
That’s great.
There was an article put out to debunk the Navy missile conspiracy theory that referred to an ‘Aegis Class’ cruiser. Such a class doesn’t exist. Aegis is a weapon system, so the debunker didn’t get basic facts right.

a reply to: Degradation33

They didn't reconstruct the entire aircraft. They never do. You can find images of everything that they did reconstruct, they just might not be close ups that give you a lot of detail. Generally they only reconstruct portions of the aircraft relevant to the investigation. In this case, it was the center fuselage into the aft fuselage that got most of the reconstruction. There was some reconstruction of the forward fuselage, but it wasn't complete, and only included the aft portion of the upper deck, behind the cockpit.

a reply to: MaxxAction

As they did so adroitly for 911, which will NEVER be exposed unless we ever have a real swamp cleaning.

a reply to: butcherguy

Aegis Cruiser is a commonly used term for the Ticos, just like Aegis Destroyer is used for the Burkes. Yeah, it's not correct, but it's become the commonly used term for them, similar to how other words have become the common use for things, but aren't correct.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I strongly respect your military background and aircraft knowledge, but per our previous discussion, this would appear to confirm my point that the "spark in the center fuel tank" BS, was just that, BS. You may have been under orders to cover up, and I understand your position. Thank you for your service

a reply to: M5xaz

I'm not under any orders from anyone. Everything I've said has come from and as my personal opinion on what happened. Lawsuits don't really mean much, and aren't exactly evidence. Previous lawsuits from plane crashes have been based on incorrect information. SilkAir 185 crashed in Sumatra in 1997. The NTSB ruled it pilot suicide, Indonesia ruled that they couldn't determine a cause. They looked at the PCU, because of earlier PCU reversals causing 737 crashes, but it passed the tests. The flight departed at 1537 local. At 1605, the CVR stopped recording. One school of thought is that the Captain left the cockpit, and took the opportunity to pull the circuit breaker. At 1611, the FDR stopped recording. At 1612, the aircraft began a vertical descent from 35,000 feet. At 12,000 feet the aircraft began to break up.

They recovered 73% of the aircraft, and found that the only model that fit was a pilot inputting a nose down command. They found the jackscrew for the horizontal stabilizer, which indicated a command from a control input was used to push the nose over. The NTSC chairman overrode the investigators and ruled it undetermined, reportedly because it would make Indonesians afraid to fly. The NTSB ruled that it was pilot suicide.

In 2004 several families sued Parker-Hannifin, claiming that the rudder PCU caused the accident. Under US law, the court couldn't hear the NTSB conclusions as evidence (USC 1154 states: (No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report), so they ruled that Parker-Hannifin had to pay the families $43.6M. The evidence clearly showed that there was no mechanical issue with the aircraft, but the lawsuit said there was, and they still had to pay. So lawsuits aren't really evidence of something else.

a reply to: Degradation33

I have no doubt it was an accident...

I had heard or read that the test of this system was seeing what it could do, in other words, the computer made the mistake of locking onto the wrong aircraft. It was supposed to be a drone, but for whatever reason, 800 was running late, and flying lower than it should have been. Horiffic way to die.

The problem isn't the accident, it's the cover up, and the implications thereof. If they will do this, is there anything they won't do?? Based on all that has taken place since WWII, I think the answer is no.

a reply to: MaxxAction

If they were doing anything that would result in the ship firing something, there would have been a NOTAM posted, and it would have been somewhere other than directly underneath the main corridor out of New York to Europe. It would have probably been off the West Coast near the Channel Islands, where the Navy has a missile range, or the Desert Ship at White Sands.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And yet, numerous eye witnesses watched it happen...

a reply to: MaxxAction

And yet, eyewitnesses have been insanely wrong at multiple crashes.

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: Degradation33

The problem isn't the accident, it's the cover up, and the implications thereof. If they will do this, is there anything they won't do?? Based on all that has taken place since WWII, I think the answer is no.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember an incident that happened back in 1988. A US navy warship shot down an Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf. Somebody on the ship panicked and thought they were being attacked, and fired without taking any steps to verify what the aircraft was.

Shamefully, the US Navy tried to insist that the civilian airliner was somehow at fault, and the media carried water for them for months before the US government finally accepted responsibility for the incident.

a reply to: Zaphod58

With pictures and video??

A hundred or so all telling the same story with very little variation? Having their cameras, videos, and film confiscated?

I understand "an" as in one eyewitness, or even 5 being wrong, but when so many were saying they saw the same thing, I don't buy that they were all just "seeing things."