4 ms·

Yeah the fact that it was the CIA releasing the video always seemed like a red flag to me. Why were they even involved in the investigation? Why didn’t those st

Yeah the fact that it was the CIA releasing the video always seemed like a red flag to me. Why were they even involved in the investigation? Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA?

ceejayoz 4y ago
That's readily answerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 > At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). > Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA? They wouldn't normally; without any potential of criminal activity, they'd come from the NTSB.
- csharpminor 4y ago
  So why did the CIA produce a video about the fuel tank exploding, when that is something clearly within the purview of the NTSB? Why did they continue to devote resources when it was established that it was not a terrorist attack? Aviation incident analysis is not one of the CIA’s core competencies, but propaganda is.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Incident analysis - especially where explosives are concerned - is absolutely something the CIA does regularly. (As is causing such incidents.) If I asked the CIA to determine if something was enemy(ish, in this case) action, I'd expect to get a fairly detailed report explaining why or why not back. I'm skeptical until they provide some details on the FOIL documents received. The NTSB worked for four years and released a report, as expected.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Wouldn’t the CIA first ask if you needed it to be or not be enemy action?
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Sure, if you come to the CIA with "we need you to fake a report", they'll likely fake a report. In that scenario, though, I strongly suspect the 95% reconstructed fuselage wouldn't have been permitted to be a NTSB training aid for two decades afterwards.
        bombcar 4y ago
        How many other air remains had such done to it? 25 years seems a long time.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        MH17 was similarly reconstructed. https://www.reuters.com/world/mh17-aircraft-wreckage-viewed-by-judges-ahead-next-phase-trial-2021-05-26/ https://www.reuters.com/world/mh17-aircraft-wreckage-viewed-... Modern laser scanning makes retaining the original long-term less important, apparently.
- cronix 4y ago
  It sounds more like "take over" than "assistance."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Gamecollector 4y ago
- Missile system being tested in the area - Dozens of witnesses who report seeing missiles in the weeks before and after the crash - Multiple witnesses including Blackhawk pilots flying nearby who saw a missile hit the plane - FBI and CIA take over and freeze out the NTSB Yeah I'd say there were a few red flags lol

Yeah the fact that it was the CIA releasing the video always seemed like a red flag to me. Why were they even involved in the investigation? Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA?

ceejayoz 4y ago

That's readily answerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 > At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). > Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA? They wouldn't normally; without any potential of criminal activity, they'd come from the NTSB.

csharpminor 4y ago
So why did the CIA produce a video about the fuel tank exploding, when that is something clearly within the purview of the NTSB? Why did they continue to devote resources when it was established that it was not a terrorist attack? Aviation incident analysis is not one of the CIA’s core competencies, but propaganda is.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Incident analysis - especially where explosives are concerned - is absolutely something the CIA does regularly. (As is causing such incidents.) If I asked the CIA to determine if something was enemy(ish, in this case) action, I'd expect to get a fairly detailed report explaining why or why not back. I'm skeptical until they provide some details on the FOIL documents received. The NTSB worked for four years and released a report, as expected.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Wouldn’t the CIA first ask if you needed it to be or not be enemy action?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Sure, if you come to the CIA with "we need you to fake a report", they'll likely fake a report. In that scenario, though, I strongly suspect the 95% reconstructed fuselage wouldn't have been permitted to be a NTSB training aid for two decades afterwards.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        How many other air remains had such done to it? 25 years seems a long time.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        MH17 was similarly reconstructed. https://www.reuters.com/world/mh17-aircraft-wreckage-viewed-by-judges-ahead-next-phase-trial-2021-05-26/ https://www.reuters.com/world/mh17-aircraft-wreckage-viewed-... Modern laser scanning makes retaining the original long-term less important, apparently.
cronix 4y ago
It sounds more like "take over" than "assistance."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Gamecollector 4y ago

- Missile system being tested in the area - Dozens of witnesses who report seeing missiles in the weeks before and after the crash - Multiple witnesses including Blackhawk pilots flying nearby who saw a missile hit the plane - FBI and CIA take over and freeze out the NTSB Yeah I'd say there were a few red flags lol