New Documentary about TWA Flight 800, Watch it Now!

[leeland]

Gah...sucks the password was changed...I got about 1/3 into it and wanted to watch the rest!

 

[readymix]

1) given the date and time and the proximity to shinnecock and Moriches inlets i'd expect there to be scores and scores of boats fishing striped bass. lots of eyes with nothing but a flat horizon field of vision.

2)mid july happens to coincide with the start of the perseids meteor shower.

3) jumbo jet climbing to altitude, throttle up, pumps crankin and shit happens, often.

 

[jruchko]

-snip-
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.
-snip-

I will start off by saying I was air defense artillery when I was in the Army, Stinger missiles was my job so I know a bit about them. The way the witnesses described how it moved, and the simulation of how it moved was unlike anything I ever saw. The Stinger is locked on to the target before you even fire it, so the erratic behavior before locking on makes no sense.

EDIT: Watch the following video to see how a Stinger behaves. It goes straight for its target. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av2BzaXF6lg

 

[disappoint]

I will start off by saying I was air defense artillery when I was in the Army, Stinger missiles was my job so I know a bit about them. The way the witnesses described how it moved, and the simulation of how it moved was unlike anything I ever saw. The Stinger is locked on to the target before you even fire it, so the erratic behavior before locking on makes no sense.

EDIT: Watch the following video to see how a Stinger behaves. It goes straight for its target. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av2BzaXF6lg

In that video the soldier is aiming for the target to begin with, so of course the missile is directed straight to the target. What would happen if it were not aimed at the target and fired in some random direction, such as an inadvertent or accidental firing? Will it still seek a heat signature and change course to aim for it?

Having said that, and as has already been mentioned this does not answer why it would strike the center fuel tank and not one of the engines.

 

[K1052]

In that video the soldier is aiming for the target to begin with, so of course the missile is directed straight to the target. What would happen if it were not aimed at the target and fired in some random direction, such as an inadvertent or accidental firing? Will it still seek a heat signature and change course to aim for it?

Having said that, and as has already been mentioned this does not answer why it would strike the center fuel tank and not one of the engines.

On older Stingers you could launch without thermal target acquisition but the warhead wouldn't arm and the only the gas system to propel the rocket out of the tube would fire, the rocket would not ignite. Thud.

 

[lotus503]

One thing in the documentary, while they obviously discussed missiles.
In the documentation filed to reopen the investigation the only contention made was that it couldn't have been an explosion from the fuel tank wiring, that it was an external explosion.

 

[jruchko]

On older Stingers you could launch without thermal target acquisition but the warhead wouldn't arm and the only the gas system to propel the rocket out of the tube would fire, the rocket would not ignite. Thud.

Correct.

Some witnesses also said the "missile" detonated next to the plane, it didn't actually hit, Stingers also don't do that.

 

[nf4m]

I haven't seen the documentary. I'll watch it on TV. (I have no audio on my PC).

At the time this happened I placed more trust in the eyewitness accounts of the military pilots who claimed to have seen a missile strike the airplane. I.e., this is the one 'conspiracy theory' I tend to suspect is true.

Fern

why do you suspect the US continues to cover it all up? why is this allowed?

 

[Thebobo]

have a new password???

 

[werepossum]

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.

Probably true for a 747. I was thinking of the design requirements for the Stinger, which has to lock and hit a military ground attack aircraft which will of course have its engines shrouded (and probably above the wing) to avoid presenting a good heat source for the vulnerable engines. I based my comments about Stinger aiming toward the cockpit, which from a programming standpoint isn't difficult (since direction and center-of-heat mass are easily determined and shifting the aim point based on interpolation and fractional length is technologically also not difficult), on one of the links I attached, so YMMV.

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.

First generation missiles like Redeye sought the hottest thermal signature. Such missiles had great difficulty achieving a lock on approaching aircraft (the most dangerous kind) and almost invariably missed if they did lock since they would be aiming for the jet's exhaust. These missiles are also incredibly easily decoyed since a magnesium flare is hotter than any engine. Later generation missiles like Stinger are much, much smarter and also feature supercooled IR sensors (to make the sensor much, much more sensitive.) Without some kind of sophisticated controller logic, any heat seeking missile would be virtually useless as long as the target aircraft had flares to decoy it away.

As far as leading edges heating up, can you really not think of some other things which may freeze but also heat up during operation? Heat is relative, and if a very cold and wet atmosphere is removing heat faster than friction can supply it freezing can occur on a wing moving fast enough and at an oblique enough angle to cause significant heating. Edge heating was a major problem on early supersonic and near-supersonic aircraft; any angle of attack which introduced turbulence could lead to fatigue breakage well before predicted failure. A couple of links should be sufficient to make my point.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/about/Organizations/Technology/Facts/TF-2004-12-DFRC.html

Other benefits stemming from a large high-speed transport incorporating laminar flow technology would be a reduced sonic boom signature at ground level due to weight reduction, and a reduction in airport takeoff noise levels. Aerodynamic heating due to skin friction would also be reduced with laminar flow, compared to increased skin friction created by turbulent boundary layers.

Can't reduce it if it doesn't occur, correct? In early jet aircraft, two kinds of wings were particularly susceptible to these problems. Wings with high lift and little or no sweep were particularly susceptible because the blunt leading edge causes high friction and compression heating as it batters through the air. And large delta wings were particularly susceptible because the leading edge heat feeds into the skin friction from the long wing and because high angles of attack cause a lot more turbulence. Both are exacerbated in hot, dry, thick air such as low, dry equatorial areas. (Assuming I remember those correctly. One of my thermodynamics professors helped design the AWAC radar wing and liked to give us wing problems.)

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

In high-speed aircraft, compression heating of the air ahead of the wings can cause extreme heating of the leading edge. Heating was a major contributor to the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia during re-entry on February 1, 2003.

Again, remember we're not talking about problems, even fatigue problems, merely heating up the leading edges of the wings enough to show up on a cooled IR sensor.

Correct.

Some witnesses also said the "missile" detonated next to the plane, it didn't actually hit, Stingers also don't do that.

Unless they miss; if the missile misses and its proximity sensor flips it will instantly detonate, no?

You made a good point about the trail of the missile. Jinking corrections on a non-maneuvering target generally indicate a missile receiving guidance from a remote station, the delay between emitting radar, receiving and processing the reflected signal, calculating the revised trajectory, and sending this to the missile cause the jerky motions. But then, I don't think many people really believe a MANPAD of any sort downed TWA 800.

 

[werepossum]

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.

As I understand the official theory, three things had to happen. First, the air conditioning packs transferred enough heat into the center fuel tank to lower the required ignition energy significantly below design specifications. (This could be a design flaw or it could be a maintenance issue if insulation were removed and then left out or compromised.) Second, a short circuit of some sort would have impressed on the fuel gauge circuit a voltage much higher than it was designed for. Third, a break in the fuel gauge circuit would allow an electrical spark across the wires; given that the electrical potential would be much higher than designed and the ignition point be much lower than designed, ignition occurred. The resultant explosion could be too small to detect on the cockpit voice recorder while still doing enough structural damage (from the rapidly expanded center fuel tank) to make the plane almost immediately begin breaking up.

I'm not saying that any of this DID happen or that the specific sequence of events even COULD happen, but the underlying principles seem reasonable.

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.

That was my thought process as well. A lot of people who should know were saying early on that this particular investigation was a sham. Then we have the many leaks that it was a center fuel tank explosion, but many months went by without even a preliminary warning to check 747 center fuel tank wiring harnesses. That's why I liken it to the JFK assassination. In both cases there has been enough perceived irregularity to doubt the official version, but not enough evidence to say conclusively that the official story is wrong, much less to establish a reasonable alternative hypothesis.

 

[jruchko]

Unless they miss; if the missile misses and its proximity sensor flips it will instantly detonate, no?

I really can't say for sure as I have never seen something like that happen, it MIGHT be possible. I remember a couple missiles at the range missed the decoy and they didn't detonate, but they also didn't get very close either. (The drones don't put out much heat, so the heat signature can get lost on very windy days.)

 

[Fern]

why do you suspect the US continues to cover it all up? why is this allowed?

I don't think there's any desire by new Presidents to go after previous ones. There's little or no precedent or incentive.

Seems the habit is to let 'sleeping dogs lie'.

I think a better question, the more interesting is why any cover up in the first place; assuming that happened for the sake of discussion. I can think of a couple of possible explanations:

1. The economy is rolling along. Think Bill Clinton cared about his legacy? What would be the economic consequences on air travel and business etc it was known at the time terrorists shot down a commercial jet flying out of NYC? My guess is devastating. Instead what would a President do? Have the CIA etc hunt down the perps and assassinate them.

What if it was 'friendly fire'? Why start an international event etc.

At the time we were so 'not wanting the terrorism thing' to pop up we couldn't be bothered to take Usama bin Laden when he was offered to us. We took a pass.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

In that video the soldier is aiming for the target to begin with, so of course the missile is directed straight to the target. What would happen if it were not aimed at the target and fired in some random direction, such as an inadvertent or accidental firing? Will it still seek a heat signature and change course to aim for it?

Having said that, and as has already been mentioned this does not answer why it would strike the center fuel tank and not one of the engines.

Larger missiles like AAMRAAMs or Sparrows can be fired to a vector and acquire a target. Stinger can lose a target and acquire another (though I believe there's a small time window for this to avoid being shot down by your own missile - though I might have dreamed that) but as others have pointed out, if one fires a Stinger without tone one has launched the world's most expensive club. I do think the inert (or defective) warhead missile is the likeliest alternative theory, but even assuming those who say the naval group was badly out of position are correct I would be hard-pressed to imagine why such a missile would be launched even where they were supposed to be. As far as why it would strike the center fuel tank, that MIGHT be possible assuming that what I linked was correct, although it seems pretty far back.

I really can't say for sure as I have never seen something like that happen, it MIGHT be possible. I remember a couple missiles at the range missed the decoy and they didn't detonate, but they also didn't get very close either. (The drones don't put out much heat, so the heat signature can get lost on very windy days.)

I believe proximity sensors are only good to within a few meters, so they wouldn't with a wide miss. Wouldn't be any point anyway; it the target is outside the blast radius then the debris is more dangerous to you than to him.

It's academic anyway, as there is no way a Stinger could miss a 747 close enough to explode that far forward in the center of the craft. If it had enough velocity to get there then surely it would have struck farther back in any case. And even assuming that for whatever reason the Stinger exploded and chunks of metal penetrated the center fuel tank, the shrapnel would be penetrating into liquid fuel; surely that wouldn't have caused an explosion, and if it did, surely the penetrated tank would have directed the explosion mostly downward.

I don't think there's any desire by new Presidents to go after previous ones. There's little or no precedent or incentive.

Seems the habit is to let 'sleeping dogs lie'.

I think a better question, the more interesting is why any cover up in the first place; assuming that happened for the sake of discussion. I can think of a couple of possible explanations:

1. The economy is rolling along. Think Bill Clinton cared about his legacy? What would be the economic consequences on air travel and business etc it was known at the time terrorists shot down a commercial jet flying out of NYC? My guess is devastating. Instead what would a President do? Have the CIA etc hunt down the perps and assassinate them.

What if it was 'friendly fire'? Why start an international event etc.

At the time we were so 'not wanting the terrorism thing' to pop up we couldn't be bothered to take Usama bin Laden when he was offered to us. We took a pass.

Fern

I have a hard time believing that all the people who would have to go along with the cover-up of a terrorist attack would do so just because the President wanted it. Surely there would be some who hated Clinton enough to leak it. And if we're going to cover up friendly fire, why not do so in other cases, like when we shot down the British planes or when we shot down the Iranian airliner? As far as declining to take Usama when offered, obviously that was a horrible mistake in retrospect, but at the time, considering that Usama was merely one of many such terrorists and that Nigeria wanted concessions in return forgiving their own sponsorship of terrorism, it probably wasn't such an unreasonable decision. Remember that it was only after 9/11 that Clinton discovered his own previous obsession with the man.

I have some major problems with the investigation, but I have an equally hard time finding any other explanation that fits.

 

[johnjohn320]

Just watched it on Netflix (I know I'm late to the party).

Definitely compelling, though I could have done without the emotional/personal stuff at the end. Seems worth re-opening the investigation. But what I cannot get out of my head is the question of motive: why would this need to be covered up?

 

[halik]

Government can cover up a jet liner shootdown and the follow up investigation, but can't make a website work. Occam's razor.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Remember, according to some the government covered up 4 hijacked airliners and multiple office buildings be damage/destroyed just to go to war.

 

[HumblePie]

Government can cover up a jet liner shootdown and the follow up investigation, but can't make a website work. Occam's razor.

Moar practice at one and not the other? Or maybe not having the web site working serves some other purpose that we are not aware of for either side. This is me thinking with a tin foil hat need a tinfoil hat emoticon.

 

[Kadarin]

But what I cannot get out of my head is the question of motive: why would this need to be covered up?

Depends on who shot down the plane and why they did it, I suppose.

 

[railer]

Just watched it on Netflix (I know I'm late to the party).

But what I cannot get out of my head is the question of motive: why would this need to be covered up?

The conspiracy nuts can give you 10 million reason as to why that is so. I myself can't come up with one either. I'd refer to this part of the CNN article:

"The sequencing report that told how the airplane fell apart, none of it supports a missile -- none of it. When you look at the physical evidence inside the tank, it's clear that there was an explosion inside the tank. If the top of the tank goes up and the bottom of the tank goes down, and the forward side goes forward and the back of the tank goes back, that tells you that the blast was inside the tank -- not outside.

He said that no holes were found in the tank that would indicate something had penetrated it."


Sounds like a spark blew the tank up. But there's no great intrigue or suspense in that, so let's come up with some conspiracy story to spice it up a bit, and reel in the suckers.

 

[BoomerD]

Moar practice at one and not the other? Or maybe not having the web site working serves some other purpose that we are not aware of for either side. This is me thinking with a tin foil hat need a tinfoil hat emoticon.

This has been on one of the cable channels lately. I watched a bit of it last night. (maybe 15 minutes)

I seem to remember there being a navy ship in the area that had missile launch capability at the time. I always suspected that the US Navy shot the plane down...thus the official cover-up. COULD this have been a terrorist attack? You betcha...but I don't think the US Government would have gone to so much trouble to cover up a terrorist missile launch.

 

[Zorba]

Very early on the NTSB seemed (to my untrained observation anyway) to go into cover-up mode. For instance, seizing rather than copying radar tapes, including back-ups, and seizing film media (including threatening jail time for copies) but not cameras. In evaluating film it's often very useful to have the actual camera, but it's hardly useful to have copies of the film or digital media. That suggests to me that they knew from very early on the need to cover up the incident, because it normally takes time to figure out what happened. If a terrorist fired a shoulder-launched or even launcher-launched missile, surely it would have taken some time to figure out what happened, present this information in preliminary form to Clinton, have him decide to cover it up, and then implement the cover up. And everyone familiar with the investigation up to that point is a security risk. I don't think it's possible to have a cover up of something of this magnitude without almost immediately making that decision, else someone will surely disagree, or have an attack of conscience, or simply hate Clinton too much to keep the secret.

I've been involved with multiple investigations with the NTSB and this is all standard. They take the originals and no one is allowed to say or publish anything about anything until released by the NTSB.

My airline had an incident a few years back where the NTSB said they were not going to investigate, so we pulled the FDR so we could pull the data, pretty standard procedure. Then a few hours later the NTSB decided they were interested and quarantined the plane, nobody really thought about the recorder and when it got to the base we pulled the data on the FDR. When the NTSB found out they went ape shit, accusing us of tapering with the data, made us delete all the data of the server, held a press conference to let the world know we would no longer be a "party" to the investigate, etc.

A few months later we replaced some parts on the same system that failed on the same aircraft, and there was the NTSB demanding the parts. Even though the quarantine was long over we had to hand over all the parts, even though we only had the one spare unit and would be without a spare. About 3 months later we finally got the parts back, completely disabled, basically a box of piece parts.

They seem whacky, but I think they do a pretty good job of controlling the speculation and controlling political interference with these tactics.