13 ms·

Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

235 points by hammock 4y ago

pmarreck 4y ago
I'm from Long Island and clearly remember this. This is a pretty shocking possibility.
consumer451 4y ago
Wow, how does discovery work when there are legit natsec concerns?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  I'm not sure what the legitimate national security concern would be for "we accidentally shot down an airliner 26 years ago".
  - consumer451 4y ago
    IANAL, far from it, but normally the other party gets emails and other communications. How does that work when everything is classified?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > How does that work when everything is classified? Well, they're - vaguely - claiming to have found a smoking gun in FOIL requests.
  - CentralHarvest 4y ago
    "We have to protect all the people who were involved in the accident and coverup, some of whom may now hold important positions of power." I mean, they are still using "national security" as an excuse not to declassify JFK files nearly 60 years after the fact.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      It's entirely likely some of the remaining JFK files - a big batch got released under Trump, and another under Biden - are victims of over-classification. It's a systemic problem in the government. It's also fairly likely some of the remaining classified docs include "we asked our mole at the Russian embassy to check into it discreetly" and "spy satellites checked to see if Russia was quietly mobilizing in advance" sort of scenarios likely to remain indefinitely secret.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        It's also possible that some of the JFK files might implicate an influential American ally, with whom JFK had a dispute concerning their nuclear weapons program.
- eastern 4y ago
  What are legit natsec concerns now? How about saying yeah it happened, we're sorry and we're paying a USD 100mil each to the surviving families as a token of our regret?
  - consumer451 4y ago
    I didn’t think I was going out on limb in assuming that the details and limitations of a naval defense weapon were probably something to guard. Please note that I am not defending anyone here…
GlenTheMachine 4y ago
Important, if true.
colechristensen 4y ago
If this were true, why aren’t they suing for the extraordinary coverup actions? Surely a whole lot of people up to the president should have been aware of this.
- bdowling 4y ago
  The coverup may be a crime, but it’s not a claim a civil plaintiff can recover damages for. If the defendant destroyed or hid evidence, however, the judge could order a negative inference against the defendant. The other problem is the statute of limitations. But that should toll if the defendants hid their liability and the suit really couldn’t be brought until now.
bombcar 4y ago
This is one of those conspiracies that always seemed probably true, based on my cursory examination of the evidence. Or the other way, assume a weapons test went horribly wrong; what would the result be?
- thunderbird120 4y ago
  Missile damage to aircraft leaves very distinct and VERY obvious traces as you would expect from a bunch of shrapnel suddenly slicing through the fuselage at hundreds of different points. If you want an example look at the reconstructed fuselage Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 which got shot down over Ukraine. 95% of the fuselage of TWA 800 was recovered. It was not hit by a surface to air a missile.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    What if it was skin-to-skin impacted by an unarmed missile?
    - thunderbird120 4y ago
      TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air. That would not be caused by an inert missile impact. The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup on top of the fact that there is literally zero evidence for it. The most likely explanation is exactly what is written in the official report.
      - tanseydavid 4y ago
        >> The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup Please explain this assertion. It makes no sense (at least to me).
        thunderbird120 4y ago
        It's exceptionally difficult to make a large airliner explode like a gas station in a 1980s action movie by hitting it with an inert missile-sized body. You could certainly cause damage which would cause it to eventually crash but TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air, which is different.
candlemas 4y ago
I was always curious about how so many witnesses saw a streak of light shoot up to the plane which then exploded. I was never convinced by the video the CIA released that explained what those witnesses actually saw was a trail of burning jet fuel going away from the plane.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  The theory isn't just "it's burning jet fuel", though; it's that the plane broke apart, and that the now tail-heavy back section with the wings flew upwards as the nose fell to the water. It's not an insane idea, and is at least partially backed by radar data.
  - tremon 4y ago
    Not an insane idea? How much lift can a pair of wings generate without thrust or stabilization? If the plane broke apart in mid-air, as you say, the engines would have shut down immediately. The only "thrust" the back section had remaining is the inertial energy from its moving mass. Without attitude control and with a huge gaping hole in the front acting as an air brake, I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      If it were that obvious, cover-up would be impossible. You’d have had hundreds of aeronautical engineers screaming to everyone who’d listen.
      - hammock 4y ago
        Well there were thousands of architects and engineers screaming ideas about 9/11. Doesn’t mean much https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/7884068/File/Document https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/7884068/File/Docume...
    - growse 4y ago
      > I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling. This is because you understand neither aerodynamics, or what happens to planes during failures, specifically big ones where when the front falls off. Thankfully, other people do.
lbotos 4y ago
Interesting claims from the lawsuit linked: "However, instead of allowing the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”), the agency tasked with investigating all domestic aviation incidents, to lead the investigation of the TWA 800 incident, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)took charge. The FBI also enlisted the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency(“CIA”). Indeed, the FBI essentially froze the NTSB out of the investigation. The FBI removed all copies (original and duplicates) of Navy radar tapes from the Navy, placing them out of the NTSB’s reach, and refused to allow the NTSB to conduct eyewitness interviews or review the FBI’s records that indicated the true cause of the TWA 800 crash. Eyewitnesses who were interviewed by the FBI recall being threatened by the organization. For example, one eyewitness recalls being told to keep quiet about the “rocket” she saw in the sky or risk her citizenship application being denied. Despite this, eyewitnesses have consistently maintained that they saw something arcing toward TWA 800 before the plane erupted into flames and fell from the sky. For example, one eyewitness testified that she saw a “rocket go up” and explode, and then saw TWA 800's flaming wreckage fall from the sky. Two other eyewitnesses, Air National Guard pilots, Captain Christian Baur and Major Frederick “Fritz” Meyer, similarly stated that they witnessed events that indicated a missile struck TWA 800. On the day TWA 800 went down, Captain Baur and Major Meyer were flying in a Black Hawk helicopter near the area of the TWA 800 incident. Captain Baur recalled seeing an object with a “rocket type motor "moving quick” toward TWA 800. After the crash, Captain Baur flew to the area and conducted a search and rescue. Captain Baur’s co-pilot, Major Meyer, testified that he recognized a “flak” explosion at the site of the TWA 800 explosion, which is what military anti-air explosives create. Despite this evidence, the CIA concocted materials to discredit eyewitnesses who could confirm that TWA 800 had been downed by some kind of projectile. These materials included a video and animation that was displayed during a nationally-televised FBI press conference that attempted to reconcile the eyewitness testimony that the plane was struck by a projectile with the U.S. Government’s official position that the crash was caused by a defect in the plane’s center fuel tank. Despite outwardly proclaiming that the cause of the TWA 800 explosion was, in the CIA’s words, “NOT A MISSILE,” several internal government communications (that have only come to light in the recent FOIA litigation) indicated that a missile was involved." --- Obviously these documents are going to be attempting to paint the case in favor of the plaintiff, but seems "strange".
- 4y ago
ramesh31 4y ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why have I never heard of this?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Why have I never heard of this? That's on you, it's been a popular theory for many years, since the very beginning. It's one of the most popular government coverup stories there is.
  - Sebguer 4y ago
    Tbf, the implication in the filing is that the plaintiffs weren't aware of the possibility until last year.
    - kodt 4y ago
      Eyewitnesses have been saying they saw a “rocket” fly towards it since the event but this filing indicates there is additional evidence of this known to the government.
anonuser123456 4y ago
This would require Boeing's cooperation. Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks. You mean other than their many billions in military contracts, and criminal penalties for releasing classified information? I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate. If the government accidentally blew the plane up and the CIA covered it up, then who exactly would be putting pressure on Boeing?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Is this a trick question? The government and specifically the CIA, presumably.
      - yucky 4y ago
        Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the government would be pressuring Boeing to show that the CIA covered up the real results of the investigation.
  - anonuser123456 4y ago
    >but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate. Boeing is not 'a person' and neither is the government. Boeing is a conglomerate of affiliated smaller organizations. So is the FBI and CIA. Understanding those dynamics is what makes this scenario so implausible. - Boeing commercial programs are separately funded from military. The executives and engineers in charge generally have no interest in committing fraud for other programs. - Boeing has shareholders and a board of directors. There are no laws in the US that allow executives and staff to defraud shareholders and the board on behalf of the government. Employees/executives would be subject to criminal and civil liability. - At the individual level, many of these people have security clearances. Fraud/lying on official documents is the easiest way to lose your clearance. There are no provisions for "It's OK to lie for the good guys". If you lie in an official proceeding, you are going to lose your clearance. - FBI is composed of numerous divisions, with competing interests and turf to defend. At the end of the day, someone at Boeing legal would have to sit down and look at this and say "Well, if the hundreds of people involved all agree to commit fraud and no one finds out, we're in the clear for some nebulous illegal kickback down the line line. Sign us up!"
jeffbee 4y ago
If there’s any meat in this case, they left it out of the filing. It’s basically the plane exploded, the navy owns missiles, QED. The part about the plucky retiree who unearths the truth is actually a big red flag.
- ipsin 4y ago
  What about the Navy radar tracks for an intercepting missile, and how those, like witness accounts, were actively discounted and suppressed, in favor of a "no missile" narrative?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > What about the Navy radar tracks for an intercepting missile The radar tracks are detailed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Missile_or_bomb_detonation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Missile_or_bomb... They're not from the Navy (they're ATC tracks), they don't intersect, and one of them's going 30 knots.
    - Gamecollector 4y ago
      You've made about 20 comments on this thread and all of them demonstrate you haven't read a single word of the docket. Plaintiffs now have the Navy radar tapes and they show and object hitting the plane then spiraling away from it.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        > You've made about 20 comments on this thread and all of them demonstrate you haven't read a single word of the docket. Plaintiffs now have the Navy radar tapes... Pot, meet kettle. The docket actually says this: "For example, Dr. Stalcup obtained several FBI records never released to the TWA 800 families or the public. One described an 'original [Navy radar] tape' showing an object “heading straight for TWA 800.'" There's no claim they have the actual tapes. We'll see what the record they've got says; that they're not parading it to the media is, at the very least, interesting.
ruddct 4y ago
The lawsuit[0] is worth a read and goes into quite a bit of detail about the claimed timeline. Roughly: * Upgraded missile defense systems were deemed a national security priority around this time * Navy ships compatible with these systems were 5 years out, so… * Live missile testing happens at a compatible land base in New Jersey, under congested airspace * Multiple civilians report seeing missile tests in & around the date of the TWA crash * Missile test hits TWA jet. Instead of the NTSB running the investigation (like normal), the CIA and FBI are immediately put in charge * CIA/FBI confiscate records, run PR campaign claiming the crash was “NOT A MISSILE”, mislead the families and general public about the incident * Missile tests continue post-crash Damning if true, to say the least. [0] https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Court/1--22-cv-11032/Krick_et_al_v._Raytheon_Company_et_al/docs/6.pdf https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Cou...
- aliqot 4y ago
  - drstewart 4y ago
    Uh, what?
- xhkkffbf 4y ago
  I distinctly remember how very soon after the crash, the TV announced that the DOD put out a statement that there were no ships nearby and the plane wasn't hit by a missile. Before anyone accused anyone of anything. It seemed a bit too suspicious for that to be among the first things on the news.
  - cyanydeez 4y ago
    Eh, you're aware there's always knowledgeable people tracking activities and just because there's no immediate discussion in public doesn't mean those watchers arnt questioning. Ergo, this is a useless factoid.
- raldi 4y ago
fermigier 4y ago
For reference: this crash was covered in great details by "Admiral Cloudberg": https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/memories-of-flame-the-crash-of-twa-flight-800-fecfd651a157 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/memories-of-flame-the-cr... Here's the part of his conclusion relevant to this new development: "And it is perhaps understandable that we struggle to ascribe an event so utterly horrible to the mere banality of fate, a sequence of mundane events that could have happened anywhere and at any time. No, we find it much more comfortable to believe that humanity is the only force capable of imagining an act of such malice, closing our minds to the knowledge that the unthinking universe could just as easily conjure those 54 terrible seconds of existential agony. Believing that that agony was the product of a human mind allows us to indulge our fantasy that someone is in control, saving us from the disturbing thought that perhaps we, too, are merely passengers aboard a pilotless airplane hurtling toward an uncertain zenith."
- CentralHarvest 4y ago
  Eh, I'd say the vast majority of people find it much more comforting to embrace the "mere banality of fate" explanation than to even entertain the idea that an errant missile test could be covered up by putting intelligence agencies in charge of the investigation -- let alone that it actually was.
  - duxup 4y ago
    Disinterested parties perhaps, but folks who the event touches them emotionally… they want reasons.
- Gamecollector 4y ago
  > Here's the part of his conclusion relevant to this new development This quote isn't even remotely relevant to the new developments and it's extremely obvious you didn't even take 30 seconds to skim the docket. They've obtained significant new evidence through FOIA litigation that shows the Navy's Aegis missile system missed its intended target (a test drone) and hit TWA 800 instead. One of those pieces of evidence is a set of Navy radar tapes (previously confiscated by the FBI) that show an object heading towards TWA 800 and then spiraling away. They also have dozens of witnesses who saw the missile tests happening, including two Air National Guard pilots who were flying in a Blackhawk nearby when they saw the missile hit TWA 800 and then proceeded to the crash site to see if they could help rescue anyone.
Shorel 4y ago
Avianca Flight 203, the one Pablo Escobar blows up in the TV show Narcos, was probably an engine failure. https://reportajes.elespectador.com/avianca-203/?outputType=amp https://reportajes.elespectador.com/avianca-203/?outputType=... As usual the official story and some details don't match, and the plane engines misterously disappeared from the crash site, preventing further inspection. The FBI was involved.
theflyingelvis 4y ago
I remember thinking it was odd that there weren’t any airworthiness directives issued for the center fuel tank.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Destruction_of_wreckage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Destruction_of_... > During the course of its investigation, and in its final report, the NTSB issued 15 safety recommendations, mostly covering fuel tank and wiring-related issues. Among the recommendations was that significant consideration should be given to the development of modifications such as nitrogen-inerting systems for new airplane designs, and where feasible, for existing airplanes.
  - theflyingelvis 4y ago
    Right. But, recommendations are not airworthiness directives.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      What airworthiness directive should they have issued? Mitigation systems for this issue are now required, but "shut down air travel until they're in place" would not have been feasible, especially as the issue wasn't limited to the one aircraft type.
- crazytony 4y ago
  I guess this is part of the coverup https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/A74A270AB48B95168625698400489555?OpenDocument https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... and https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/B1B2D37FD85A31768625697C006F5497?OpenDocument https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... and https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/0EC5EFAE6C53C8F586256AF5005F8D90?OpenDocument https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... and https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/6FE8E0C256BA8D9686256981006A0956?OpenDocument https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... there's about ~20 total unique if I recall. Some supersede others.
tanseydavid 4y ago
I wonder what Pierre Salinger would have to say about this if he were alive today.
alex_sf 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theo...
WalterBright 4y ago
Isn't there a statute of limitations? 1996 was 26 years ago.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Homicide is typically one of the things that doesn't have a statute of limitations. In some scenarios, SOL also starts from the discovery of the crime/tort, not the committing of it.
- dangero 4y ago
  "the statute of limitations runs from the date the litigant obtains actual knowledge of the facts"
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    Which will (eventually) place the defendants here in the position of arguing that the plaintiffs should have known that the coverup was a lie.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Also I don’t know if civil suits would be subject to statues of limitation.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Civil torts definitely (can) have statutes of limitation; for example, you can only be sued for bad debt for a few years.
stewvsshark 4y ago
Great write up/summary of the crash: https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo
fsociety999 4y ago
Pretty funny to look at this description on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theo... > TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories are discredited alternative explanations of the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 (TWA 800) in 1996.[1] The NTSB found that the probable cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 was an explosion of flammable fuel/air vapors in a fuel tank, most likely from a short circuit. Conspiracy theories claim that the crash was due to a U.S. Navy missile test gone awry, a terrorist missile strike, or an on-board bomb. Now ask yourself, what else is the Government lying about? It will be interesting to see if the truth about 9/11 ever comes out.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
A tragedy. But why the cover-up? The amount of money to settle honestly was finite. Sure a fair amount, but worth going as far as they did? Is there more to this? Or just group-think gone wildly bad? Edit / adding The arc of my concern is, if these organizations / companies would do this for this (relatively small) amount of money, what happens - to us - when the stakes are 10x or more higher?
WalterBright 4y ago
Pulling off this coverup would require cooperation of many agencies and lots and lots of people. These kinds of things are really, really hard to do, because someone always talks.
- fsociety999 4y ago
  People did talk, but they were silenced and the media did not report on it: http://raylahr.com/ntsb-clears-up-twa-800-conspiracy-theory.php http://raylahr.com/ntsb-clears-up-twa-800-conspiracy-theory.... > No fewer than four serious professionals within the investigation made specific allegations of evidence theft or tampering: Linda Kunz and Terrel Stacey of TWA, Jim Speer of TWA and ALPA, and Hank Hughes of the NTSB. Their allegations were taken seriously. Kunz and Speer were suspended from the investigation, Kunz permanently. Stacey was arrested. And Hughes was denounced by the FBI’s Kallstrom for his participation in a “kangaroo court of malcontents,” namely a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing.
  - TigeriusKirk 4y ago
    This is always the way it is. "It would be impossible to cover up, people would talk." "People did talk." "Those people were lying."
    - puffoflogic 4y ago
      [flagged]
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  Plenty of people did talk, including investigators. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-film-feeds-conspiracy-theories-crash-twa-flight-800-article-1.1376580 https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-film-feeds-con...
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 4y ago
If there was a missile test that went wrong, there would be a considerable number of people involved. Even if the authorities swore everybody to secrecy, they can't prevent a retiree from making a deathbed confession.
- djmips 4y ago
  I feel you underestimate the bonds of duty and social pressure to keep things under wraps.
waynecochran 4y ago
"The filing states claims for negligence" Accidently shooting down an airplane w a missile is "negligence?"
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Negligent homicide? Sure. Doing it deliberately would be murder.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  If you are legally intending to fire a missile, but not intending to hit a plane, what else would it be?
  - waynecochran 4y ago
    I think if a shot a gun down the street intending to hit a rabbit and shot my neighbor instead I would be charged with something more than mere negligence.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      That'd be a negligent discharge, and if they died, a negligent homicide.
      - waynecochran 4y ago
        I would think it would be at least reckless homicide. IANAL.
scorpios77 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jp57 4y ago
When the incident happened I worked with a woman who had served in the Navy at sea. Her opinion was that if the they had accidentally shot down an airliner during a training/practice exercise, hundreds of people on the ship would know about it and it would be impossible to keep them all from talking. Is there anyone from that ship who is on record saying "yeah, we shot down that plane?"
- busterarm 4y ago
  How many rank and file military personnel would be present for a capabilities test of a classified, state-of-the-art missile system? That's not exactly the same as a training exercise.
  - jp57 4y ago
    The ship was at sea, so presumably the full ship's complement? That's a bit over 300 people for an Aegis destroyer. Her point was that the accident wouldn't be knowledge that could be kept confined to the bridge/CIC and soon everyone on board would know about it.
    - busterarm 4y ago
      But the claim in the suit isn't that the missile was fired from any ship, but from a land base in New Jersey. Navy ships compatible with these systems were still 5 years out... If you're referring to the naval radar scans, only the people present on the bridge (and really only a handful of those...) would need to participate in any coverup, and that's only if the official account differs significantly from what was recorded. If the official explanation is plausible enough based on the data, which it seems to be, then you don't need any participation from the ship at all.
- throwoutway 4y ago
  From the docket, the claim is that it was from land not from a naval warship: > Although the SPY-ID(V) would later become a key component aboard the next wave of Navy destroyer ships, in 1996 the only option with the hardware and computing power sufficient to operate the SPY-ID(V) was a New Jersey land-based testing site called the Combat Systems Engineering and Development Site (“CSEDS”).
busterarm 4y ago
zeristor 4y ago
Why now?
w10-1 4y ago
If the FBI and CIA found the real cause, they could have released all the evidence. Having a valid cause of action (due to new evidence) means you can ask them to release all the evidence now (or at least let the attorneys see it). Remember: discovery is the starting-point of the investigation, not the end. To refuse discovery, the government would have to cite some other reason (e.g., national security secrets incidentally involved, like disclosing the location of the test site). But while those reasons might have been sufficient when those programs were active (and capabilities unknown) 20+ years ago, it's unlikely those reasons are still valid now, because the secrets don't convey any current capabilities. And the political will to hide them might also have changed. So if the system works, they can hide when needed, but now they should provide all the information gathered and sequestered.

235 points by hammock 4y ago

pmarreck 4y ago

I'm from Long Island and clearly remember this. This is a pretty shocking possibility.

consumer451 4y ago

Wow, how does discovery work when there are legit natsec concerns?

ceejayoz 4y ago
I'm not sure what the legitimate national security concern would be for "we accidentally shot down an airliner 26 years ago".
- consumer451 4y ago
  IANAL, far from it, but normally the other party gets emails and other communications. How does that work when everything is classified?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > How does that work when everything is classified? Well, they're - vaguely - claiming to have found a smoking gun in FOIL requests.
- CentralHarvest 4y ago
  "We have to protect all the people who were involved in the accident and coverup, some of whom may now hold important positions of power." I mean, they are still using "national security" as an excuse not to declassify JFK files nearly 60 years after the fact.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    It's entirely likely some of the remaining JFK files - a big batch got released under Trump, and another under Biden - are victims of over-classification. It's a systemic problem in the government. It's also fairly likely some of the remaining classified docs include "we asked our mole at the Russian embassy to check into it discreetly" and "spy satellites checked to see if Russia was quietly mobilizing in advance" sort of scenarios likely to remain indefinitely secret.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      It's also possible that some of the JFK files might implicate an influential American ally, with whom JFK had a dispute concerning their nuclear weapons program.
eastern 4y ago
What are legit natsec concerns now? How about saying yeah it happened, we're sorry and we're paying a USD 100mil each to the surviving families as a token of our regret?
- consumer451 4y ago
  I didn’t think I was going out on limb in assuming that the details and limitations of a naval defense weapon were probably something to guard. Please note that I am not defending anyone here…

GlenTheMachine 4y ago

Important, if true.

colechristensen 4y ago

If this were true, why aren’t they suing for the extraordinary coverup actions? Surely a whole lot of people up to the president should have been aware of this.

bdowling 4y ago
The coverup may be a crime, but it’s not a claim a civil plaintiff can recover damages for. If the defendant destroyed or hid evidence, however, the judge could order a negative inference against the defendant. The other problem is the statute of limitations. But that should toll if the defendants hid their liability and the suit really couldn’t be brought until now.

bombcar 4y ago

This is one of those conspiracies that always seemed probably true, based on my cursory examination of the evidence. Or the other way, assume a weapons test went horribly wrong; what would the result be?

thunderbird120 4y ago
Missile damage to aircraft leaves very distinct and VERY obvious traces as you would expect from a bunch of shrapnel suddenly slicing through the fuselage at hundreds of different points. If you want an example look at the reconstructed fuselage Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 which got shot down over Ukraine. 95% of the fuselage of TWA 800 was recovered. It was not hit by a surface to air a missile.
- bombcar 4y ago
  What if it was skin-to-skin impacted by an unarmed missile?
  - thunderbird120 4y ago
    TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air. That would not be caused by an inert missile impact. The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup on top of the fact that there is literally zero evidence for it. The most likely explanation is exactly what is written in the official report.
    - tanseydavid 4y ago
      >> The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup Please explain this assertion. It makes no sense (at least to me).
      - thunderbird120 4y ago
        It's exceptionally difficult to make a large airliner explode like a gas station in a 1980s action movie by hitting it with an inert missile-sized body. You could certainly cause damage which would cause it to eventually crash but TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air, which is different.

candlemas 4y ago

I was always curious about how so many witnesses saw a streak of light shoot up to the plane which then exploded. I was never convinced by the video the CIA released that explained what those witnesses actually saw was a trail of burning jet fuel going away from the plane.

ceejayoz 4y ago
The theory isn't just "it's burning jet fuel", though; it's that the plane broke apart, and that the now tail-heavy back section with the wings flew upwards as the nose fell to the water. It's not an insane idea, and is at least partially backed by radar data.
- tremon 4y ago
  Not an insane idea? How much lift can a pair of wings generate without thrust or stabilization? If the plane broke apart in mid-air, as you say, the engines would have shut down immediately. The only "thrust" the back section had remaining is the inertial energy from its moving mass. Without attitude control and with a huge gaping hole in the front acting as an air brake, I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    If it were that obvious, cover-up would be impossible. You’d have had hundreds of aeronautical engineers screaming to everyone who’d listen.
    - hammock 4y ago
      Well there were thousands of architects and engineers screaming ideas about 9/11. Doesn’t mean much https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/7884068/File/Document https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/7884068/File/Docume...
  - growse 4y ago
    > I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling. This is because you understand neither aerodynamics, or what happens to planes during failures, specifically big ones where when the front falls off. Thankfully, other people do.

lbotos 4y ago

Interesting claims from the lawsuit linked: "However, instead of allowing the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”), the agency tasked with investigating all domestic aviation incidents, to lead the investigation of the TWA 800 incident, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)took charge. The FBI also enlisted the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency(“CIA”). Indeed, the FBI essentially froze the NTSB out of the investigation. The FBI removed all copies (original and duplicates) of Navy radar tapes from the Navy, placing them out of the NTSB’s reach, and refused to allow the NTSB to conduct eyewitness interviews or review the FBI’s records that indicated the true cause of the TWA 800 crash. Eyewitnesses who were interviewed by the FBI recall being threatened by the organization. For example, one eyewitness recalls being told to keep quiet about the “rocket” she saw in the sky or risk her citizenship application being denied. Despite this, eyewitnesses have consistently maintained that they saw something arcing toward TWA 800 before the plane erupted into flames and fell from the sky. For example, one eyewitness testified that she saw a “rocket go up” and explode, and then saw TWA 800's flaming wreckage fall from the sky. Two other eyewitnesses, Air National Guard pilots, Captain Christian Baur and Major Frederick “Fritz” Meyer, similarly stated that they witnessed events that indicated a missile struck TWA 800. On the day TWA 800 went down, Captain Baur and Major Meyer were flying in a Black Hawk helicopter near the area of the TWA 800 incident. Captain Baur recalled seeing an object with a “rocket type motor "moving quick” toward TWA 800. After the crash, Captain Baur flew to the area and conducted a search and rescue. Captain Baur’s co-pilot, Major Meyer, testified that he recognized a “flak” explosion at the site of the TWA 800 explosion, which is what military anti-air explosives create. Despite this evidence, the CIA concocted materials to discredit eyewitnesses who could confirm that TWA 800 had been downed by some kind of projectile. These materials included a video and animation that was displayed during a nationally-televised FBI press conference that attempted to reconcile the eyewitness testimony that the plane was struck by a projectile with the U.S. Government’s official position that the crash was caused by a defect in the plane’s center fuel tank. Despite outwardly proclaiming that the cause of the TWA 800 explosion was, in the CIA’s words, “NOT A MISSILE,” several internal government communications (that have only come to light in the recent FOIA litigation) indicated that a missile was involved." --- Obviously these documents are going to be attempting to paint the case in favor of the plaintiff, but seems "strange".

4y ago

ramesh31 4y ago

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why have I never heard of this?

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> Why have I never heard of this? That's on you, it's been a popular theory for many years, since the very beginning. It's one of the most popular government coverup stories there is.
- Sebguer 4y ago
  Tbf, the implication in the filing is that the plaintiffs weren't aware of the possibility until last year.
  - kodt 4y ago
    Eyewitnesses have been saying they saw a “rocket” fly towards it since the event but this filing indicates there is additional evidence of this known to the government.

anonuser123456 4y ago

This would require Boeing's cooperation. Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks. You mean other than their many billions in military contracts, and criminal penalties for releasing classified information? I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate.
- yucky 4y ago
  >I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate. If the government accidentally blew the plane up and the CIA covered it up, then who exactly would be putting pressure on Boeing?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Is this a trick question? The government and specifically the CIA, presumably.
    - yucky 4y ago
      Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the government would be pressuring Boeing to show that the CIA covered up the real results of the investigation.
- anonuser123456 4y ago
  >but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate. Boeing is not 'a person' and neither is the government. Boeing is a conglomerate of affiliated smaller organizations. So is the FBI and CIA. Understanding those dynamics is what makes this scenario so implausible. - Boeing commercial programs are separately funded from military. The executives and engineers in charge generally have no interest in committing fraud for other programs. - Boeing has shareholders and a board of directors. There are no laws in the US that allow executives and staff to defraud shareholders and the board on behalf of the government. Employees/executives would be subject to criminal and civil liability. - At the individual level, many of these people have security clearances. Fraud/lying on official documents is the easiest way to lose your clearance. There are no provisions for "It's OK to lie for the good guys". If you lie in an official proceeding, you are going to lose your clearance. - FBI is composed of numerous divisions, with competing interests and turf to defend. At the end of the day, someone at Boeing legal would have to sit down and look at this and say "Well, if the hundreds of people involved all agree to commit fraud and no one finds out, we're in the clear for some nebulous illegal kickback down the line line. Sign us up!"

jeffbee 4y ago

If there’s any meat in this case, they left it out of the filing. It’s basically the plane exploded, the navy owns missiles, QED. The part about the plucky retiree who unearths the truth is actually a big red flag.

ipsin 4y ago
What about the Navy radar tracks for an intercepting missile, and how those, like witness accounts, were actively discounted and suppressed, in favor of a "no missile" narrative?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > What about the Navy radar tracks for an intercepting missile The radar tracks are detailed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Missile_or_bomb_detonation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Missile_or_bomb... They're not from the Navy (they're ATC tracks), they don't intersect, and one of them's going 30 knots.
  - Gamecollector 4y ago
    You've made about 20 comments on this thread and all of them demonstrate you haven't read a single word of the docket. Plaintiffs now have the Navy radar tapes and they show and object hitting the plane then spiraling away from it.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > You've made about 20 comments on this thread and all of them demonstrate you haven't read a single word of the docket. Plaintiffs now have the Navy radar tapes... Pot, meet kettle. The docket actually says this: "For example, Dr. Stalcup obtained several FBI records never released to the TWA 800 families or the public. One described an 'original [Navy radar] tape' showing an object “heading straight for TWA 800.'" There's no claim they have the actual tapes. We'll see what the record they've got says; that they're not parading it to the media is, at the very least, interesting.

ruddct 4y ago

The lawsuit[0] is worth a read and goes into quite a bit of detail about the claimed timeline. Roughly: * Upgraded missile defense systems were deemed a national security priority around this time * Navy ships compatible with these systems were 5 years out, so… * Live missile testing happens at a compatible land base in New Jersey, under congested airspace * Multiple civilians report seeing missile tests in & around the date of the TWA crash * Missile test hits TWA jet. Instead of the NTSB running the investigation (like normal), the CIA and FBI are immediately put in charge * CIA/FBI confiscate records, run PR campaign claiming the crash was “NOT A MISSILE”, mislead the families and general public about the incident * Missile tests continue post-crash Damning if true, to say the least. [0] https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Court/1--22-cv-11032/Krick_et_al_v._Raytheon_Company_et_al/docs/6.pdf https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Cou...

aliqot 4y ago
- drstewart 4y ago
  Uh, what?
xhkkffbf 4y ago
I distinctly remember how very soon after the crash, the TV announced that the DOD put out a statement that there were no ships nearby and the plane wasn't hit by a missile. Before anyone accused anyone of anything. It seemed a bit too suspicious for that to be among the first things on the news.
- cyanydeez 4y ago
  Eh, you're aware there's always knowledgeable people tracking activities and just because there's no immediate discussion in public doesn't mean those watchers arnt questioning. Ergo, this is a useless factoid.
raldi 4y ago

fermigier 4y ago

For reference: this crash was covered in great details by "Admiral Cloudberg": https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/memories-of-flame-the-crash-of-twa-flight-800-fecfd651a157 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/memories-of-flame-the-cr... Here's the part of his conclusion relevant to this new development: "And it is perhaps understandable that we struggle to ascribe an event so utterly horrible to the mere banality of fate, a sequence of mundane events that could have happened anywhere and at any time. No, we find it much more comfortable to believe that humanity is the only force capable of imagining an act of such malice, closing our minds to the knowledge that the unthinking universe could just as easily conjure those 54 terrible seconds of existential agony. Believing that that agony was the product of a human mind allows us to indulge our fantasy that someone is in control, saving us from the disturbing thought that perhaps we, too, are merely passengers aboard a pilotless airplane hurtling toward an uncertain zenith."

CentralHarvest 4y ago
Eh, I'd say the vast majority of people find it much more comforting to embrace the "mere banality of fate" explanation than to even entertain the idea that an errant missile test could be covered up by putting intelligence agencies in charge of the investigation -- let alone that it actually was.
- duxup 4y ago
  Disinterested parties perhaps, but folks who the event touches them emotionally… they want reasons.
Gamecollector 4y ago
> Here's the part of his conclusion relevant to this new development This quote isn't even remotely relevant to the new developments and it's extremely obvious you didn't even take 30 seconds to skim the docket. They've obtained significant new evidence through FOIA litigation that shows the Navy's Aegis missile system missed its intended target (a test drone) and hit TWA 800 instead. One of those pieces of evidence is a set of Navy radar tapes (previously confiscated by the FBI) that show an object heading towards TWA 800 and then spiraling away. They also have dozens of witnesses who saw the missile tests happening, including two Air National Guard pilots who were flying in a Blackhawk nearby when they saw the missile hit TWA 800 and then proceeded to the crash site to see if they could help rescue anyone.

Shorel 4y ago

Avianca Flight 203, the one Pablo Escobar blows up in the TV show Narcos, was probably an engine failure. https://reportajes.elespectador.com/avianca-203/?outputType=amp https://reportajes.elespectador.com/avianca-203/?outputType=... As usual the official story and some details don't match, and the plane engines misterously disappeared from the crash site, preventing further inspection. The FBI was involved.

theflyingelvis 4y ago

I remember thinking it was odd that there weren’t any airworthiness directives issued for the center fuel tank.

ceejayoz 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Destruction_of_wreckage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Destruction_of_... > During the course of its investigation, and in its final report, the NTSB issued 15 safety recommendations, mostly covering fuel tank and wiring-related issues. Among the recommendations was that significant consideration should be given to the development of modifications such as nitrogen-inerting systems for new airplane designs, and where feasible, for existing airplanes.
- theflyingelvis 4y ago
  Right. But, recommendations are not airworthiness directives.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    What airworthiness directive should they have issued? Mitigation systems for this issue are now required, but "shut down air travel until they're in place" would not have been feasible, especially as the issue wasn't limited to the one aircraft type.
crazytony 4y ago
I guess this is part of the coverup https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/A74A270AB48B95168625698400489555?OpenDocument https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... and https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/B1B2D37FD85A31768625697C006F5497?OpenDocument https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... and https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/0EC5EFAE6C53C8F586256AF5005F8D90?OpenDocument https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... and https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/6FE8E0C256BA8D9686256981006A0956?OpenDocument https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... there's about ~20 total unique if I recall. Some supersede others.

tanseydavid 4y ago

I wonder what Pierre Salinger would have to say about this if he were alive today.

alex_sf 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theo...

WalterBright 4y ago

Isn't there a statute of limitations? 1996 was 26 years ago.

ceejayoz 4y ago
Homicide is typically one of the things that doesn't have a statute of limitations. In some scenarios, SOL also starts from the discovery of the crime/tort, not the committing of it.
dangero 4y ago
"the statute of limitations runs from the date the litigant obtains actual knowledge of the facts"
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  Which will (eventually) place the defendants here in the position of arguing that the plaintiffs should have known that the coverup was a lie.
bombcar 4y ago
Also I don’t know if civil suits would be subject to statues of limitation.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Civil torts definitely (can) have statutes of limitation; for example, you can only be sued for bad debt for a few years.

stewvsshark 4y ago

Great write up/summary of the crash: https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo

fsociety999 4y ago

Pretty funny to look at this description on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theo... > TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories are discredited alternative explanations of the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 (TWA 800) in 1996.[1] The NTSB found that the probable cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 was an explosion of flammable fuel/air vapors in a fuel tank, most likely from a short circuit. Conspiracy theories claim that the crash was due to a U.S. Navy missile test gone awry, a terrorist missile strike, or an on-board bomb. Now ask yourself, what else is the Government lying about? It will be interesting to see if the truth about 9/11 ever comes out.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

A tragedy. But why the cover-up? The amount of money to settle honestly was finite. Sure a fair amount, but worth going as far as they did? Is there more to this? Or just group-think gone wildly bad? Edit / adding The arc of my concern is, if these organizations / companies would do this for this (relatively small) amount of money, what happens - to us - when the stakes are 10x or more higher?

WalterBright 4y ago

Pulling off this coverup would require cooperation of many agencies and lots and lots of people. These kinds of things are really, really hard to do, because someone always talks.

fsociety999 4y ago
People did talk, but they were silenced and the media did not report on it: http://raylahr.com/ntsb-clears-up-twa-800-conspiracy-theory.php http://raylahr.com/ntsb-clears-up-twa-800-conspiracy-theory.... > No fewer than four serious professionals within the investigation made specific allegations of evidence theft or tampering: Linda Kunz and Terrel Stacey of TWA, Jim Speer of TWA and ALPA, and Hank Hughes of the NTSB. Their allegations were taken seriously. Kunz and Speer were suspended from the investigation, Kunz permanently. Stacey was arrested. And Hughes was denounced by the FBI’s Kallstrom for his participation in a “kangaroo court of malcontents,” namely a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing.
- TigeriusKirk 4y ago
  This is always the way it is. "It would be impossible to cover up, people would talk." "People did talk." "Those people were lying."
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    [flagged]
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
Plenty of people did talk, including investigators. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-film-feeds-conspiracy-theories-crash-twa-flight-800-article-1.1376580 https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-film-feeds-con...

BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 4y ago

If there was a missile test that went wrong, there would be a considerable number of people involved. Even if the authorities swore everybody to secrecy, they can't prevent a retiree from making a deathbed confession.

djmips 4y ago
I feel you underestimate the bonds of duty and social pressure to keep things under wraps.

waynecochran 4y ago

"The filing states claims for negligence" Accidently shooting down an airplane w a missile is "negligence?"

ceejayoz 4y ago
Negligent homicide? Sure. Doing it deliberately would be murder.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
If you are legally intending to fire a missile, but not intending to hit a plane, what else would it be?
- waynecochran 4y ago
  I think if a shot a gun down the street intending to hit a rabbit and shot my neighbor instead I would be charged with something more than mere negligence.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    That'd be a negligent discharge, and if they died, a negligent homicide.
    - waynecochran 4y ago
      I would think it would be at least reckless homicide. IANAL.

scorpios77 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jp57 4y ago

When the incident happened I worked with a woman who had served in the Navy at sea. Her opinion was that if the they had accidentally shot down an airliner during a training/practice exercise, hundreds of people on the ship would know about it and it would be impossible to keep them all from talking. Is there anyone from that ship who is on record saying "yeah, we shot down that plane?"

busterarm 4y ago
How many rank and file military personnel would be present for a capabilities test of a classified, state-of-the-art missile system? That's not exactly the same as a training exercise.
- jp57 4y ago
  The ship was at sea, so presumably the full ship's complement? That's a bit over 300 people for an Aegis destroyer. Her point was that the accident wouldn't be knowledge that could be kept confined to the bridge/CIC and soon everyone on board would know about it.
  - busterarm 4y ago
    But the claim in the suit isn't that the missile was fired from any ship, but from a land base in New Jersey. Navy ships compatible with these systems were still 5 years out... If you're referring to the naval radar scans, only the people present on the bridge (and really only a handful of those...) would need to participate in any coverup, and that's only if the official account differs significantly from what was recorded. If the official explanation is plausible enough based on the data, which it seems to be, then you don't need any participation from the ship at all.
throwoutway 4y ago
From the docket, the claim is that it was from land not from a naval warship: > Although the SPY-ID(V) would later become a key component aboard the next wave of Navy destroyer ships, in 1996 the only option with the hardware and computing power sufficient to operate the SPY-ID(V) was a New Jersey land-based testing site called the Combat Systems Engineering and Development Site (“CSEDS”).

busterarm 4y ago

zeristor 4y ago

Why now?

w10-1 4y ago

If the FBI and CIA found the real cause, they could have released all the evidence. Having a valid cause of action (due to new evidence) means you can ask them to release all the evidence now (or at least let the attorneys see it). Remember: discovery is the starting-point of the investigation, not the end. To refuse discovery, the government would have to cite some other reason (e.g., national security secrets incidentally involved, like disclosing the location of the test site). But while those reasons might have been sufficient when those programs were active (and capabilities unknown) 20+ years ago, it's unlikely those reasons are still valid now, because the secrets don't convey any current capabilities. And the political will to hide them might also have changed. So if the system works, they can hide when needed, but now they should provide all the information gathered and sequestered.