GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-18-2013, 19:57   #1
Mr981
Senior Member
 
Mr981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: N. Central OH
Posts: 2,103
Send a message via Yahoo to Mr981
Report claims new cause for the TWA #800 crash in 1996 which killed 230

Former NTSB investigators claiming they were under a gag order to go along with the official cause (fuel tank explosion) of the crash, when they believed all along it was caused by explosions outside the aircraft.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18...laim-original/

Could Pierre Salinger have been right all along?
Mr981 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 20:02   #2
Dalton Wayne
CLM Number 239
Epic mustache
 
Dalton Wayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Location classified
Posts: 12,966
Send a message via MSN to Dalton Wayne Send a message via Skype™ to Dalton Wayne
I have said all along it was a missile, so have many eye witness
__________________
Regards
DW
As Stephen F. Roberts so famously said speaking with a Christian apologist "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Dalton Wayne is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 20:14   #3
Tiro Fijo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,031
Let's see what Slick Willie has to say since it happened on his shift.

Tiro Fijo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 20:29   #4
Mr981
Senior Member
 
Mr981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: N. Central OH
Posts: 2,103
Send a message via Yahoo to Mr981
When some of the guys that were on the investigation--6 of them--say that the official cause was BS, the notion that there might be something going on here other than a tin-foil hat conspiracy starts to gain credibility. We'll see where this goes..
Mr981 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2013, 12:30   #5
RWE
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: KY
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
Let's see what Slick Willie has to say since it happened on his shift.

He'll say it was GW's fault....
RWE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 21:19   #6
bunk22
Senior Member
 
bunk22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton Wayne View Post
I have said all along it was a missile, so have many eye witness
Often, the eye witness reports are not trust worthy at all. There is zero proof of a missile. If it were, what type? Fired from what? Certainly not a US Naval ship, can't hide that at all, from the crew, from the inventory. The missile theory is a tin foil, conspiracy idiotic theory.

This:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
The problem, is that I am objective.


It wasn't a MANPAD, and the only system in the neighborhood that could have made that shot, was a USN Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruiser, and if she'd fired a missile that night, there would have been about 364 crew members who'd have known exactly what happened.

Six guys, out of how many investigators, came up with this, and they waited till they retired to spill the beans?


No, they're looking to cash in. If they'd really known something, they'd have quit their jobs and said it long ago.
__________________
-Glock Gen 4 G17/G19; Gen 3 G17
-Sig P226 Navy/220 Elite/M11-A1D/1911 TACOPS/M400
-XDM 45/Walther PPX M1


Last edited by bunk22; 06-18-2013 at 21:21..
bunk22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 09:01   #7
Dennis in MA
Get off my lawn
 
Dennis in MA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Taunton, MA
Posts: 52,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunk22 View Post
Often, the eye witness reports are not trust worthy at all. There is zero proof of a missile. If it were, what type? Fired from what? Certainly not a US Naval ship, can't hide that at all, from the crew, from the inventory. The missile theory is a tin foil, conspiracy idiotic theory.

This:
Yup. Eyewitness accounts are the worst accounts. Read The Invisible Gorilla.

On Sept 11, I was listening to the radio and some arrogant D-bag called in from some hirize apt. that said he saw the first plane hit and it was clearly a large non-commercial aircraft. Small personal jet type thing. He was a pilot and knew what it looked like.

The thing STREAKED OVER HIS HEAD IN MANHATTAN, HE WAS A PILOT AND STILL GOT IT WRONG!

Eyewitness testimony stinks. Your brain does not take a linear movie of events that you can later recall. That stuff only happens in the movies.
__________________
The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
Dennis in MA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 01:06   #8
ShallNotBeInfringed
NRA Business Al
 
ShallNotBeInfringed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NRA Benefactor Life Member Nebraska
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton Wayne View Post
I have said all along it was a missile, so have many eye witness
It was not one locked on missile, it was two. Warheads did not detonate, but went through the plane, tearing it open.

Sent from my VS950 4G using Ohub Campfire mobile app
__________________
19 21 Cutaways 19 19C 20 20SF 21 21C 23 23C 32 32C 22LR 460 Glock Armorer
Nebraska Concealed Carry Instructor, 32 years CC Experience1981-2013 Retired FFL1991-2001
NRA Benefactor Life NRA CRSO NRA instructor RSOi CPi PPITHi PPOTHi RTBAVi
ShallNotBeInfringed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 19:33   #9
nipperwolf
Senior Member
 
nipperwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IN
Posts: 8,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShallNotBeInfringed View Post
It was not one locked on missile, it was two. Warheads did not detonate, but went through the plane, tearing it open.


One of the comments that was posted by a NTSB official that didn't get blocked was ["quote]We have an incoming hole, and an outgoing hole"[/quote]

The Okie Corral

Good read.
__________________
'Assault is a behavior, not a device'

Quote:
We've gone from Socrates, to Snooki.
Ducky, NCIS
nipperwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 05:07   #10
Mayhem like Me
Semper Paratus
 
Mayhem like Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 15,152
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by nipperwolf View Post


One of the comments that was posted by a NTSB official that didn't get blocked was ["quote]We have an incoming hole, and an outgoing hole"
The Okie Corral

Good read.[/QUOTE]


May be a good read but a missle won't put a hole in and a hole out.

They explode before they hit showering the target with explosive shock wave and the shrapnel .
So they would have seen shrapnel damage coming in and taking out an engine then most likely the fuel in the wing that engine was on .
__________________
How do you establish intent?
Well when a naked man is chasing a woman down an alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he's not collecting for the red cross...Inspector H. Callahan
Mayhem like Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 01:21   #11
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton Wayne View Post
I have said all along it was a missile, so have many eye witness
A lot of eyewitnesses are wrong, especially when they don't really know what they are seeing and speculate.

Remember when eyewitnesses claimed that the Chinese launched a SLBM off the coast of CA a couple three years ago? Turns out they were wrong. It was an aircraft contrail.
__________________
Death twitches my ear. "Live," he says, "I am coming."
Virgil, Minor Poems

Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.
427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 13:51   #12
Brian Lee
Drop those nuts
 
Brian Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Up a tree.
Posts: 7,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
A lot of eyewitnesses are wrong, especially when they don't really know what they are seeing and speculate.
And this is especially true of aircraft accidents of all types, when the witness is a non-flyer.

Over the years I can recall quite a few times that I've seen footage on TV of an airplane crash that was caught on film, then heard the media interviews with the non-pilot witnesses on the scene who saw it happen but have not seen it replayed on film yet. When I saw the film myself, my own interpretation of what I saw was often totally different from what the "witnesses" think they saw.
Brian Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 04:35   #13
walt cowan
Senior Member
 
walt cowan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: absurdistan
Posts: 9,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton Wayne View Post
I have said all along it was a missile, so have many eye witness
over 100+.
__________________
the nsa was the first to read this post. eric was the second.
walt cowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 14:58   #14
happy seal
Senior Member
 
happy seal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton Wayne View Post
I have said all along it was a missile, so have many eye witness

My MIL saw this and swears on her life there was a flame that caught up to the plane. Before it blew.
__________________
Be carefull, think first!
Support NRA.

"Off to the Salt Mine, My Friend"
happy seal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 15:50   #15
G23Gen4TX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy seal View Post
My MIL saw this and swears on her life there was a flame that caught up to the plane. Before it blew.
Missiles don't make a trail of flames. Gas leak does.
G23Gen4TX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 16:34   #16
ArtyGuy
Senior Member
 
ArtyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy seal View Post
My MIL saw this and swears on her life there was a flame that caught up to the plane. Before it blew.
Last week a solar powered plane landed at Dulles Airport. People swear they saw a UFO. They played the recorded videos on the news. It was classic. One thing that was clear as day with the videos--- nobody saw the "same thing" yet they all were looking at the same thing. I don't find it even remotely odd that people have no clue what they are looking at and piece things together (differently) to try and make sense of what they are witnessing.
__________________
The King puts the balls where the Queen wants them.
ArtyGuy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 02:19   #17
sns3guppy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,759
Quote:
Interesting to have a 747 pilot with a different take.
If you have an honest conversation with nearly any 747 crew member, you'll get the same "take." As I said, I don't know a single crew member who believes it was a CWT failure. It wasn't.

Quote:
I also find it interesting that a group of people who have no trouble talking about murpheys law when it comes to their sidearm and mechanical failure can't accept the possibility of mechanical failure when it comes to an aircraft.
You've got that very wrong. Crews spend their entire professional lives training for mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, and other failures on board. It's just this particular failure that's alleged to have happened, didn't happen.

Quote:
Rims?

When the 747 takes off, it retracts the landing gear.
Does this put the rims in proximity to the tank that exploded?
"Rims" aren't what heat up on the landing gear. The brakes heat. The wheels heat and with them the brake assemblies, which are each monitored with independent temperature sensors. The 747 develops significant brake temperatures simply by taxiing, due to the weight on the wheels and tire sidewall flexing. Brake temperatures are closely monitored.

During a taxi and takeoff at JFK, insufficient brake temperatures are developed to be of any significance in this case. Even exceptionally hot brakes, however, don't pose a danger with the gear retracted, and in a worse case scenario, the crew may lower the gear for cooling in the slipstream. Brake temperature was not an issue in this case.

Quote:
Also, a pack outlet, is not hotter than your exhaust plume, there's not much chance of two big fat, close together turbines being bypassed to hit some avionics outlet vents by a first gen missile. They would fly right to the hottest spot. If they had been hit, it would have been more like the DHL flight.
Again, this belies your lack of understanding of the 747 and it's heat signature. I operated that aircraft for a number of years in and our of Afghanistan on a very regular basis. Understanding the aircraft, it's exposures, and threats has been a crucial part of operating that aircraft in that environment, and a missile threat is a very real part of operating there.

The DHL strike at Bagdhad was very different, with a different missile.

From beneath the 747, the primary heat signature is NOT the engines. It's the packs.

As for the explosion reportedly caused by the use of the boost override jettison pumps in the center wing tank, the theory is bunk as the switches were OFF and the tank wasn't in use. Those switches aren't mistaken for other fuel switches on the engineer panel; they have their own lights, and they operate at at twice the pressure and flow as other pumps in other tanks. Their use is NOT part of the takeoff or climb profile or fuel feed configuration when not burning off the CWT.

Without the pumps in use, a pump overheat and subsequent explosion wasn't possible, which is nice to know but not necessary because the tank didn't explode based on the pump overheating.

Note that the fuel feed configurations mandated by the current Airworthiness Directive for the 747 address the issue by keeping the fuel pump submerged when using fuel from the CWT. If not using fuel, the issue is irrelevant.

Quote:
So yes, EVERYONE on a ship, would have known they fired a missile.
It wasn't a military vessel, and everyone on the boat did know they fired a missile, because that was their reason for being there.

Last edited by sns3guppy; 06-21-2013 at 02:20..
sns3guppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 02:59   #18
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by sns3guppy View Post

As for the explosion reportedly caused by the use of the boost override jettison pumps in the center wing tank, the theory is bunk as the switches were OFF and the tank wasn't in use. Those switches aren't mistaken for other fuel switches on the engineer panel; they have their own lights, and they operate at at twice the pressure and flow as other pumps in other tanks. Their use is NOT part of the takeoff or climb profile or fuel feed configuration when not burning off the CWT.

Without the pumps in use, a pump overheat and subsequent explosion wasn't possible, which is nice to know but not necessary because the tank didn't explode based on the pump overheating.

Note that the fuel feed configurations mandated by the current Airworthiness Directive for the 747 address the issue by keeping the fuel pump submerged when using fuel from the CWT. If not using fuel, the issue is irrelevant.

The NTSB never claimed a pump overheat as the likely source if ignition. The source was not definitively identified but it was most likely a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system resulting in a spark inside the tank. Presence of air + fuel above its flash point + source of ignition.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2013, 14:43   #19
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 14,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton Wayne View Post
I have said all along it was a missile, so have many eye witness
People can believe whatever they want. People also believe the moon landings were faked and they have been probed by aliens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

Last edited by cowboy1964; 06-24-2013 at 14:48..
cowboy1964 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 20:02   #20
Restless28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Solsbury Hill
Posts: 16,259
Whatever. My halfsister's mother died on this flight. Why tin foil morons look for a conspiracy in everything is crazy.
Restless28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 20:05   #21
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless28 View Post
Whatever. My halfsister's mother died on this flight. Why tin foil morons look for a conspiracy in everything is crazy.
I'm sorry for your loss. But the possibility it was shot down can't be discounted.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 20:29   #22
FLIPPER 348
Happy Member
 
FLIPPER 348's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bend Oregon
Posts: 21,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless28 View Post
Whatever. My halfsister's mother died on this flight. Why tin foil morons look for a conspiracy in everything is crazy.


It does matter because 747s were busy flying since 1969 without center fuel tanks blowing up.
FLIPPER 348 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 23:49   #23
The Fist Of Goodness
Senior Member
 
The Fist Of Goodness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falling into Crime's Dinner Party.
Posts: 2,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLIPPER 348 View Post
It does matter because 747s were busy flying since 1969 without center fuel tanks blowing up.
Ramsey Yousef, the guy who tried to blow up the WTC in 1993, also planned and tested a plot to blow up multiple airliners over the Pacific in a plan called "BOJINKA". He devised an explosive device using PETN concealed in a toothpaste tube, and a detonator configured from a casio watch, and tested it on a flight in the Phillipines, where he was living at the time.

He planted the device under the seat he thought was directly over the center fuel tank, (but had studied the configuration on a slightly different model than the aircraft he was on) before leaving the plane. The device exploded and killed the passenger in the seat, but the plane was able to land safely.

I found that interesting considering it was the first of its kind (and apparently unable to be recreated in tests) accidental explosion in the center fuel tank of Flt 800. I have also read about the multiple witnesses that observed weather balloons or swamp gas rising at high speeds towards the aircraft over Long Island Sound; as well as the alleged component of a SAM, er, I mean weather balloon, fished out of the water by local fisherman and turned over to the FBI.

I am generally not a conspiracy theorist, but considering the dearth of airliners that have exploded in mid-air in my lifetime, I remain skeptical of the official explanation. I also found it interesting that George Stephanopolous inadvertently referred to FLT 800 as one of the few successful terrorist attacks under Clinton's watch during a post 9-11 interview (he then corrected himself, but maybe it was a slip).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

Last edited by The Fist Of Goodness; 06-18-2013 at 23:59..
The Fist Of Goodness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 00:10   #24
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,153
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fist Of Goodness View Post

I found that interesting considering it was the first of its kind (and apparently unable to be recreated in tests) accidental explosion in the center fuel tank of Flt 800. I have also read about the multiple witnesses that observed weather balloons or swamp gas rising at high speeds towards the aircraft over Long Island Sound; as well as the alleged component of a SAM, er, I mean weather balloon, fished out of the water by local fisherman and turned over to the FBI.

The thing is, eye witness testimony probably did see a streak of light ascending in the sky.

However, it was more than likely, the already burning aircraft. Climbing, after the nose broke/was blown free. Depending upon your angle, it can look like the airplane/light source is rapidly climbing, because its rolling, and turning and you don't have a good view.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 08:52   #25
The Fist Of Goodness
Senior Member
 
The Fist Of Goodness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falling into Crime's Dinner Party.
Posts: 2,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
The thing is, eye witness testimony probably did see a streak of light ascending in the sky.

However, it was more than likely, the already burning aircraft. Climbing, after the nose broke/was blown free. Depending upon your angle, it can look like the airplane/light source is rapidly climbing, because its rolling, and turning and you don't have a good view.
My comments on the missile sightings were somewhat (but not entirely) tongue in cheek, but I also believe they probably saw something. I don't have your background in MANPADS, but have heard that their capabilities are much more limited compared to larger AA weapons, and were most likely not the cause.

I think that if it was not accidental, the Ramsey Yousef theory is much more plausible.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Quote:
Don't forget that everything we know is being filtered through the media which is like playing a game of telephone with mentally challenged people in the middle.
The Fist Of Goodness is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
anti-conspiracy kooks, reynolds heavy duty, truthers lol
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:44.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,206
390 Members
816 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42