3 ms·

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

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.
- growse 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. It's completely relevant, because it characterises the motivations behind the filing of a time-wasting, straw-clutching lawsuit by those desperate to believe some conspiracy. The singular problem with any of these endeavours is that they completely fail to even attempt to show how their theories account for the actual damage and crack patterns seen on the wreckage pulled out of the sea. We have a very good, consistent working theory for how the observed damage came to be, so if anyone's going to take an alternative theory seriously, it has to also account for that. > 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. The new evidence doesn't show this. It suggests it may be a possibility, but that possibility contradicts other, hard evidence.
  - Gamecollector 4y ago
    > straw-clutching If that's how you characterize the plaintiff's recent acquisition of Navy radar tapes (previously seized by the FBI) that show a missile hitting the plane and then spiraling away I have to seriously question your ability to objectively evaluate the facts of the case.
    - growse 4y ago
      If you knew anything about radar, you'd understand that the chasm between what would be needed to show what you think it shows, and what it actually shows is pretty vast.

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.

growse 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. It's completely relevant, because it characterises the motivations behind the filing of a time-wasting, straw-clutching lawsuit by those desperate to believe some conspiracy. The singular problem with any of these endeavours is that they completely fail to even attempt to show how their theories account for the actual damage and crack patterns seen on the wreckage pulled out of the sea. We have a very good, consistent working theory for how the observed damage came to be, so if anyone's going to take an alternative theory seriously, it has to also account for that. > 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. The new evidence doesn't show this. It suggests it may be a possibility, but that possibility contradicts other, hard evidence.
- Gamecollector 4y ago
  > straw-clutching If that's how you characterize the plaintiff's recent acquisition of Navy radar tapes (previously seized by the FBI) that show a missile hitting the plane and then spiraling away I have to seriously question your ability to objectively evaluate the facts of the case.
  - growse 4y ago
    If you knew anything about radar, you'd understand that the chasm between what would be needed to show what you think it shows, and what it actually shows is pretty vast.