New Documentary about TWA Flight 800, Watch it Now!

[woolfe9998]

Does not look like main ignition has started yet in that photo. Consider the Javelin, where ignition does not start until 10 yards or so after leaving the tube. Probably done to allow it to be fired from more confined spaces and to protect the launchee.

Anyway, in the documentary they discussed a test the Army performed with three different missiles using three different groups of people from different distances. It looks like it was performed during the day even, and if they are telling the truth, every person saw each missile.

Fair enough. I haven't watched the final third of it yet. I got fed up after they spun their theory about the aircraft tilting then soundbited a single witness who said he saw it that way. I'll probably watch the rest later on.

 

[davmat787]

Fair enough. I haven't watched the final third of it yet. I got fed up after they spun their theory about the aircraft tilting then soundbited a single witness who said he saw it that way. I'll probably watch the rest later on.

Don't close that tab!! They have apparently changed the PW so you won't be able to get back in if you close the page.

 

[woolfe9998]

Don't close that tab!! They have apparently changed the PW so you won't be able to get back in if you close the page.

Yeah, unfortunately I had already closed it and can't get back now.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Don't close that tab!! They have apparently changed the PW so you won't be able to get back in if you close the page.

So...they have a documentary on a conspiracy theory....and they password it. Doesn't strike me as being very smart.

 

[JTsyo]

I have to imagine at night you'd see it going up?

The wiki has a section on it.

After missile visibility tests were conducted in April 2000, at Eglin Air Force Base, Fort Walton Beach, Florida,[112] the NTSB determined that if witnesses had observed a missile attack they would have seen:
(1) a light from the burning missile motor ascending very rapidly and steeply for about 8 seconds;
(2) the light disappearing for up to 7 seconds;
(3) upon the missile striking the aircraft and igniting the CWT another light, moving considerably more slowly and more laterally than the first, for about 30 seconds;
(4) this light descending while simultaneously developing into a fireball falling toward the ocean.[111] None of the witness documents described such a scenario.[

They say the most likely thing is seeing fuel burning after the plane was destroyed

 

[lotus503]

Yeah, and I'll likely go ahead and read it. But how many viewers of that will have read it before or after? The documentarian knows that the typical viewer at most has wiki level background on this.

Ever seen a documentary where they interview one person who has viewpoint x, and then interview another with the contra-viewpoint to allow the viewer to decide? Well this isn't one of them.

It's nice that one side has their entertaining bit of cinema with dramatic music and emotional testimony, the sort of thing to persuade mass audiences. I bet that report is pretty long and dry reading. Wonder how many people get through it.

Too bad you got fed up and closed it, you missed the extensive list of people they tried to interview with counter viewpoints, like all of the people who were part of the original investigation and congressional testimony.

Pretty hard to present that side when no one from that side wants to participate.

 

[werepossum]

Given the strong possibility that a single stringer would fail to down a 747, you'd want to use multiples. Unlike sophisticated SAM equipment, terrorists could have any number of stingers. We supplied them in bulk to the Afghani resistance in the 1980's to help down Soviet attack copters, and IIRC these things are frequently sold by international arms dealers. A terrorist plot to down a 747 with a single stinger, if true, means a very foolish terrorist who just got it right on the money.

Also, I have to wonder how visible such a small missile would have been to all those witnesses. I submit that if this was indeed a missile it quite likely was a lot larger than a stinger.

Typically I'd expect such an attack to be at relatively low altitude, where the pilot has little time & altitude to recover before impact and the operator has maximum latitude in launch window. I also wouldn't expect a 747 to immediately break up from a single 3 kg warhead, considering that people carry space shuttles and fire howitzers from essentially the same air frame - although my expectations may have little resemblance to reality. LOL

TWA 800's flight profile would have made it very difficult to nigh impossible to hit with a Stinger. There are Russian made MANPADS that technically have the altitude to do it but hitting a climbing target already at altitude doing several hundred knots not necessarily in a favorable direction is reaching. Even still they are all IR guided so they'll go after the heat sources (engines) and you would be seeing clear damage on the engines and underside of wing.

I thought that as well, but I looked up the technical specifications. Stinger has ample ceiling and also has a seeker programmed to seek not the hottest heat source, but to evaluate the profile and strike in the center near the nose. I still don't think it was a Stinger, but I can see how it would be technically possible.

 

[Nintendesert]

Fair enough. I haven't watched the final third of it yet. I got fed up after they spun their theory about the aircraft tilting then soundbited a single witness who said he saw it that way. I'll probably watch the rest later on.

Why argue with people when you haven't even watched it? :thumbsdown:

 

[flexy]

The wiki has a section on it.

After missile visibility tests were conducted in April 2000, at Eglin Air Force Base, Fort Walton Beach, Florida,[112] the NTSB determined that if witnesses had observed a missile attack they would have seen:

(1) a light from the burning missile motor ascending very rapidly and steeply for about 8 seconds;
(2) the light disappearing for up to 7 seconds;
(3) upon the missile striking the aircraft and igniting the CWT another light, moving considerably more slowly and more laterally than the first, for about 30 seconds;
(4) this light descending while simultaneously developing into a fireball falling toward the ocean.[111]

This is pretty much what the witnesses in the film said.

Let me recap...they did a "missile visibility test" wanting to show that what the witnesses saw couldn't have been any sort of missile. However, according to the film, many (all?) witnesses who participated in the test could easily see and recognize those test missiles.

There are SEVERAL witnesses shown in the film which describe exactly any of the above poinst, so either the film is lying or the quote "none of the witnesses described such a scenario" is a blatant lie.

1) Several witnesses described "lights" ascending from the ground, some say possibly from ships. Some repeatedly pointed out in the film that the lights WERE ascending from ground-level and then towards the plane, and not as the FBI "suggested" that they saw the plane (or streaks of burning fuel) and mistook it for a missile.

Among the people who saw the missiles were also PILOTS and ex military, one in a small plane describing the "light" ascending...people who KNOW how a small missile would look like. Again, repeatedly witnesses said to have seen lights ascending and also with movements and in approach towards the plane which are in no way consistent with the idea they have mistaken the plane in any stage of the incident as a missile.

2) SEVERAL witnesses described in the film the light(s) not steadily ascending but disappearing, temporarily.

3) Several described multiple lights.

4) Lights descending and developing into a fireball <-- check here too

And..this is my personal thing I want to point out that many people describe the lights at some point moving "erratically" and then quickly accelerating once they seemed to have honed in on the plane.

I don't have military experience but I *think* this is how a small stinger type of missile would behave.

EDIT: I want to point out that I know very well about the reliability (or lack thereof) of witness accounts, in particular when it concerns out-of-the ordinary incidents, like such an incident. I can safely assume that only a very tiny fraction of people is competent to actually make a qualified assumption about what they actually saw (how many people are familiar with how a missile or RPG looks?)..since the general populace is HUGELY technically unsavvy, has no experience as an observer. Can the average Joe see "something" and mistake it for a missile? YES, ABSOLUTELY.

But it's not about one or two singled out witnesses who "saw something" but seeing the entire case as a whole, multiple witnesses plus findings which back that theory plus findings which back the speculation that some witnesses were actually silenced/threatened.

 

[K1052]

I thought that as well, but I looked up the technical specifications. Stinger has ample ceiling and also has a seeker programmed to seek not the hottest heat source, but to evaluate the profile and strike in the center near the nose. I still don't think it was a Stinger, but I can see how it would be technically possible.

TWA 800 was climbing out of the altitude envelope at the time and given the limited range of the Stinger you'd have to be on a boat almost directly under the flight path for it to be remotely possible. Some of the Russian MANPADS could possibly do it but I'm extremely skeptical this would have been doable with a Stinger.

Terminal guidance is supposed to take over in the last second to shift the aim point slightly in front of the exhaust for maximum damage to the power plant. It would not have sent the missile into the CWT.

 

[JTsyo]

This is pretty much what the witnesses in the film said.

Let me recap...they did a "missile visibility test" wanting to show that what the witnesses saw couldn't have been any sort of missile. However, according to the film, many (all?) witnesses who participated in the test could easily see and recognize those test missiles.

There are SEVERAL witnesses shown in the film which describe exactly any of the above poinst, so either the film is lying or the quote "none of the witnesses described such a scenario" is a blatant lie.

1) Several witnesses described "lights" ascending from the ground, some say possibly from ships. Some repeatedly pointed out in the film that the lights WERE ascending from ground-level and then towards the plane, and not as the FBI "suggested" that they saw the plane (or streaks of burning fuel) and mistook it for a missile.

Among the people who saw the missiles were also PILOTS and ex military, one in a small plane describing the "light" ascending...people who KNOW how a small missile would look like. Again, repeatedly witnesses said to have seen lights ascending and also with movements and in approach towards the plane which are in no way consistent with the idea they have mistaken the plane in any stage of the incident as a missile.

2) SEVERAL witnesses described in the film the light(s) not steadily ascending but disappearing, temporarily.

3) Several described multiple lights.

4) Lights descending and developing into a fireball <-- check here too

And..this is my personal thing I want to point out that many people describe the lights at some point moving "erratically" and then quickly accelerating once they seemed to have honed in on the plane.

I don't have military experience but I *think* this is how a small stinger type of missile would behave.

EDIT: I want to point out that I know very well about the reliability (or lack thereof) of witness accounts, in particular when it concerns out-of-the ordinary incidents, like such an incident. I can safely assume that only a very tiny fraction of people is competent to actually make a qualified assumption about what they actually saw (how many people are familiar with how a missile or RPG looks?)..since the general populace is HUGELY technically unsavvy, has no experience as an observer. Can the average Joe see "something" and mistake it for a missile? YES, ABSOLUTELY.

But it's not about one or two singled out witnesses who "saw something" but seeing the entire case as a whole, multiple witnesses plus findings which back that theory plus findings which back the speculation that some witnesses were actually silenced/threatened.

Things in the Wiki that discounted a missile attack:

None of the radars in the area picked up a missile. So either the missile had to be stealthy or the government cleaned it up after the fact.

None of the bodies had injuries or residue from an explosion. Not sure how that was the case if the fuel tank had blown like a fuel-air bomb.

Enough of the plane was recovered that it should be possible to see where the missile impacted. But no such point was seen.

 

[woolfe9998]

Why argue with people when you haven't even watched it? :thumbsdown:

I watched the first two-thirds and found it quite biased and manipulative. I'll reserve judgment on the final third until I see it.

 

[werepossum]

TWA 800 was climbing out of the altitude envelope at the time and given the limited range of the Stinger you'd have to be on a boat almost directly under the flight path for it to be remotely possible. Some of the Russian MANPADS could possibly do it but I'm extremely skeptical this would have been doable with a Stinger.

Terminal guidance is supposed to take over in the last second to shift the aim point slightly in front of the exhaust for maximum damage to the power plant. It would not have sent the missile into the CWT.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html

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). 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).

The Stinger (including Block I, the FIM-92A) is an all-aspect AD missile and has an intelligent guidance system which uses the entire IR image (or with block II, the IR & UV images) to determine the optimum point of impact. With a published operational ceiling of 3,800 m (12,500 ft) and range of 4,800 m (15,750 ft) this engagement was just within the Stinger engagement window. (I have seen published specifications showing a ceiling of 10,000 ft, but I believe that was based on the program requirement rather than the missile capabilities as militaries quite rightly don't like to give away their exact tactical limitations.)

On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that the operator would need to be very well-skilled and well-placed to hit an airliner at 12,000 ft, which argues against a terrorist strike. Even directly in the flight path, the engagement window would probably be only a few seconds. Stinger's visual targeting system makes it seem unlikely to me that a military operator would mistakenly target an airliner rather than a drone, and in any case I would think that any AD missile fired as part of a large naval exercise would have been a Sea Sparrow rather than a Stinger. And in 1996, the Stinger (of both flavors) was a mature, well-understood AD system not given to going rogue and re-acquiring other targets, especially when surface-launched. Plus, any AD missile other than an inert warhead or a kinetic energy missile should have left a lot of damage, making the cover up much more difficult. Given all that I think it's technically possible for one or more Stingers to have brought down TWA 800, but I'd need a lot of proof to believe it happened.

 

[werepossum]

Things in the Wiki that discounted a missile attack:

None of the radars in the area picked up a missile. So either the missile had to be stealthy or the government cleaned it up after the fact.

None of the bodies had injuries or residue from an explosion. Not sure how that was the case if the fuel tank had blown like a fuel-air bomb.

Enough of the plane was recovered that it should be possible to see where the missile impacted. But no such point was seen.

The official theory is that the center air tank exploded without sufficient force to destroy the plane, but with sufficient force to do enough damage to cause it to break up almost immediately. There was no explosion caught on the black box recorder, but there were sounds consistent with an aircraft breaking up in mid-air, so the explosion would have been technically contained within the fuel tank but with enough tank expansion to destroy the structural integrity of the air frame.

In theory this can't happen because the flash point of the fumes is too low absent a very high energy arc such as lightning, in which case a lot more damage occurs. But the official theory is that the air conditioning packs transferred enough heat to the fuel to make the fumes ignitable at voltages the plane could produce and that somehow such voltage got impressed on a pump or even a gauge circuit, and therefore an arc happened which ignited the fuel fumes. The investigators also took as evidence a reading that showed more fuel in the center tank than was present; however, if memory serves the ground crew disabled the pressure cut-off when filling that tank, which (to me anyway) argues that there was probably more fuel in the tank than they thought.

 

[K1052]

The Stinger (including Block I, the FIM-92A) is an all-aspect AD missile and has an intelligent guidance system which uses the entire IR image (or with block II, the IR & UV images) to determine the optimum point of impact. With a published operational ceiling of 3,800 m (12,500 ft) and range of 4,800 m (15,750 ft) this engagement was just within the Stinger engagement window. (I have seen published specifications showing a ceiling of 10,000 ft, but I believe that was based on the program requirement rather than the missile capabilities as militaries quite rightly don't like to give away their exact tactical limitations.)

On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that the operator would need to be very well-skilled and well-placed to hit an airliner at 12,000 ft, which argues against a terrorist strike. Even directly in the flight path, the engagement window would probably be only a few seconds. Stinger's visual targeting system makes it seem unlikely to me that a military operator would mistakenly target an airliner rather than a drone, and in any case I would think that any AD missile fired as part of a large naval exercise would have been a Sea Sparrow rather than a Stinger. And in 1996, the Stinger (of both flavors) was a mature, well-understood AD system not given to going rogue and re-acquiring other targets, especially when surface-launched. Plus, any AD missile other than an inert warhead or a kinetic energy missile should have left a lot of damage, making the cover up much more difficult. Given all that I think it's technically possible for one or more Stingers to have brought down TWA 800, but I'd need a lot of proof to believe it happened.

My understanding of the adaptive guidance is that it directs the missile away from the exhaust plume at the last second to the engine itself. There isn't enough hardware in a Stinger for it to make intelligent decisions optically about where the cockpit or other vital areas could be. The explosion would have basically left a signed note anyway when they find a wing and engine cowling parts riddled with shrapnel from a proximity blast.

 

[Darwin333]

I thought that too, that it would probably be a rather slow downing from fire given that a 747 has four engines and losing one is unlikely to cause a crash and almost certainly would not cause the aircraft to immediately break up. I do see a couple things I was wrong about though. I thought Stingers had proximity fusing, but on the Designation-Systems page it shows it also has delayed impact which would be very well suited to breaking up a plane, and that its seeker has logic to home in on the front of a plane where the cockpit maximizes the small warhead's destructive potential from the concentration of controls plus the pilot. Given the airliner's slow speed and lack of defensive maneuvering the proximity seeker would be unlikely to flip before the missile impacted, so I suppose it's a possible candidate.

Of course, a Stinger has a fairly short range for an AD missile, so it's less likely that one would be fired in error. And I don't think there are any sea-borne launchers, so the operator would have to manually aim, achieve lock, and fire. That puts us back to the government covering up an intentional strike, which seems somewhat unlikely. It also makes it unlikely that the aircraft was destroyed to kill a particular person or persons, since there wouldn't be an easy way to identify the aircraft before firing. That would require a second team to provide targeting info (to strike the right plane) which means TWO conspiracies would have to remain secret.

As far as the stinger just taking out an engine, I was thinking more of the missile igniting the fuel tank that is inside the wing that the engine is attached to.

As far as the rest of the conspiracy, I tend to agree. Plus I couldn't imagine anyone destroying a 747 to kill a single person. Especially back then its just much easier to kill them in other ways and get away with it.

 

[davmat787]

Yeah, unfortunately I had already closed it and can't get back now.

Apparently it will be available again when it is officially released on the 17th IIRC.

 

[davmat787]

So...they have a documentary on a conspiracy theory....and they password it. Doesn't strike me as being very smart.

Well, to be fair, we were not supposed to be able to watch it in the first place. I believe the OP mentioned the PW was part of a press pre release media kit, as is common practice. Now why they changed the pw, I have no idea than to guess they noticed a huge spike in views, and found out the PW is out in the wild now.

Many google searches will list an anandtech forum thread first if it is specific.

Hopefully when it is officially available someone will remember this thread and bump it with a good link. I am old, so I won't remember but maybe some whippersnapper will.

 

[werepossum]

My understanding of the adaptive guidance is that it directs the missile away from the exhaust plume at the last second to the engine itself. There isn't enough hardware in a Stinger for it to make intelligent decisions optically about where the cockpit or other vital areas could be. The explosion would have basically left a signed note anyway when they find a wing and engine cowling parts riddled with shrapnel from a proximity blast.

I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think that is correct. Remember that the Stinger is an all-aspect AD missile using a super-cooled IR sensor capable of seeing not only exhaust, but also the heated edges & surfaces (from air friction) of an oncoming plane. That is why it can take on a plane in head-on configuration where no exhaust plume is visible. I believe it senses the overall hot space first, then as it gets close enough resolves the entire plane, calculates the center mass leading edge, then interpolates by percentage to aim for the area where the cockpit is normally situated. Remember also that if a plane is approaching, its leading wing edges (where air strikes and feeds over) are hotter than its engines (where air flows through as smoothly as is possible.) I don't think a Stinger could run down a 747 this close to its maximum ceiling so I'm assuming that if a Stinger struck it would have to be launched from ahead, almost directly in the flight path - but again, I'm no expert so your mileage may vary.

As far as the stinger just taking out an engine, I was thinking more of the missile igniting the fuel tank that is inside the wing that the engine is attached to.

As far as the rest of the conspiracy, I tend to agree. Plus I couldn't imagine anyone destroying a 747 to kill a single person. Especially back then its just much easier to kill them in other ways and get away with it.

For the first, see the above response. For the second, I agree. I can't imagine any scenario where government would either intentionally kill that many people or cover up for someone else doing so, short of preventing a major war, and I can't really imagine any nation with which war would qualify as major doing something so stupid.

Likewise, I can't really see a conspiracy holding together unless there is a really compelling reason and/or little evidence. I can (albeit barely) imagine an inert warhead missile or a kinetic energy missile leaving such limited evidence; I have a much harder time imagining an explosive warhead missile doing so.

 

[davmat787]

Too bad you got fed up and closed it, you missed the extensive list of people they tried to interview with counter viewpoints, like all of the people who were part of the original investigation and congressional testimony.

Pretty hard to present that side when no one from that side wants to participate.

True, and important to point out. At the end they list many people and their role at the time of the accident who were contacted for their viewpoints. Viewpoints that one could only assume would counter the overall narrative of the documentary, since most were part of the governments report.

 

[Darwin333]

Things in the Wiki that discounted a missile attack:

None of the radars in the area picked up a missile. So either the missile had to be stealthy or the government cleaned it up after the fact.

None of the bodies had injuries or residue from an explosion. Not sure how that was the case if the fuel tank had blown like a fuel-air bomb.

Enough of the plane was recovered that it should be possible to see where the missile impacted. But no such point was seen.

The thing that interested me the most is a (supposed) expert stated that it was absolutely impossible for anything on the plane to ignite the fuel. There is nothing in the fuel tank that carries even remotely close to enough voltage to arc and ignite the vapors. The only electrical wire even in the tank is a very low voltage wire for the fuel gauge which has something like 1/100th of the voltage/amperage required.

 

[Darwin333]

Likewise, I can't really see a conspiracy holding together unless there is a really compelling reason and/or little evidence. I can (albeit barely) imagine an inert warhead missile or a kinetic energy missile leaving such limited evidence; I have a much harder time imagining an explosive warhead missile doing so.

The ONLY reason I have given it the little thought that I have so far is because the official story sucks so bad. The .govs actions during the investigation are "coverupish" but from what I understand, and it makes perfect sense, is its supposed to be impossible for the mwt to ignite like they say it did.

 

[Fern]

The thing that interested me the most is a (supposed) expert stated that it was absolutely impossible for anything on the plane to ignite the fuel. There is nothing in the fuel tank that carries even remotely close to enough voltage to arc and ignite the vapors. The only electrical wire even in the tank is a very low voltage wire for the fuel gauge which has something like 1/100th of the voltage/amperage required.

I don't know much about a plane's mechanics etc.

My question is did this plane have some new type of fuel tank or gauge, or have had zillions of similar flights over the many decades with NO explosions?

Fern

 

[K1052]

I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think that is correct. Remember that the Stinger is an all-aspect AD missile using a super-cooled IR sensor capable of seeing not only exhaust, but also the heated edges & surfaces (from air friction) of an oncoming plane. That is why it can take on a plane in head-on configuration where no exhaust plume is visible. I believe it senses the overall hot space first, then as it gets close enough resolves the entire plane, calculates the center mass leading edge, then interpolates by percentage to aim for the area where the cockpit is normally situated. Remember also that if a plane is approaching, its leading wing edges (where air strikes and feeds over) are hotter than its engines (where air flows through as smoothly as is possible.) I don't think a Stinger could run down a 747 this close to its maximum ceiling so I'm assuming that if a Stinger struck it would have to be launched from ahead, almost directly in the flight path - but again, I'm no expert so your mileage may vary.

It's all aspect but the hottest parts are still the engines even viewed from the front. I remember seeing a thermal image of a 747 in flight and the leading edges were nowhere near as hot. AFAIK the Stinger doesn't have the capability to determine what different parts of the plane are (which would be highly variable) instead goes after the much simpler target of the poweplant.

 

[davmat787]

It's all aspect but the hottest parts are still the engines even viewed from the front. I remember seeing a thermal image of a 747 in flight and the leading edges were nowhere near as hot. AFAIK the Stinger doesn't have the capability to determine what different parts of the plane are (which would be highly variable) instead goes after the much simpler target of the poweplant.

The leading edges on commercial aircraft, business jets, and even commuter prop planes and smaller, often have de-icing boots or electrical deicing. If the leading edges were to get hot, these would not be needed of course.

Stingers seek the hottest thermal signature, which would be inside the aft portion of the engine where combustion takes place and that hot air is ejected.

Not sure as to the resolution of the heat seeking element, perhaps that has improved over time.