TWA 800 New Probe ?
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Snooky
Posts: 2,508
TWA 800 New Probe ?
Shocked not to see this all over FT: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us...aim/index.html
#2
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego
Programs: IHG Spire Amb, HH Diamond, DL Diamond and 1MM
Posts: 3,610
Maybe most of the people on FT read the accident report and accepted the evidence (which I found convincing) of an electrical short within a fuel tank and pump.
Just because a few people fall off the nut wagon, doesn't make me all excited.
Just because a few people fall off the nut wagon, doesn't make me all excited.
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,625
CNN was all over this "news" this morning - and the more they allowed the guests to jabber, the more it appeared to be a simple sales pitch to go see a documentary. When the near-clueless host asked the guest why they didn't go to the NTSB with their supposed new information before releasing the documentary, I could easily answer in my mind for the guest: "Because we wouldn't make any money that way."
#5
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worldwide - Cruising altitude
Programs: Delta Platinum AA Platinum UA Dirt Grey Marriott Ambassador Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 415
It's a 17 year old plane crash. What do you expect?
There are only two options:
a) The TSA Report satisfied you.
b) There will be some new facts how the gov't lied to us. What a shock!
There are only two options:
a) The TSA Report satisfied you.
b) There will be some new facts how the gov't lied to us. What a shock!
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,714
I've spoken privately with numerous aviation professionals over the years, including two Boeing people, who were unconvinced by the original NTSB verdict and say there's excellent reason to reopen this thing.
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 30,956
#8
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC SE (*A Gold), Bonvoy Platinum Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum / AP Reserve, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,690
I agree with others who suggest that this is just a ploy to get people to watch the documentary.
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike...
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,339
I can understand the desire to not have such a tragedy associated with a systems fault (especially if one is/was somehow associated with Boeing), but it's hard to argue with science. The salvaged aircraft pieces tell a story, and this filmmaker's trying to tell a different one.
I agree with others who suggest that this is just a ploy to get people to watch the documentary.
I agree with others who suggest that this is just a ploy to get people to watch the documentary.
#10
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,237
I am generally a rather difficult person to convince when it comes to conspiracy theories, I understand that some of the peple who are coming forward and asking that this be reinvestigated are among the original NTSB investigators. Why they did not bring this up in the original investigation? If they are so sure that it went down the wrong path why didn't they say anything at the time? That is a rather nagging question. The conspiracy theory is that a missile brought the plane down.
I don't know the inside details of how it was handled. There may have been internal disagreements (I've seen them in my own line of work). Generally, the folks who don't agree with the official finding speak their piece, accept that they are over-ruled, and go back to work. Not worth being a whistle-blower, potentially destroying their career, etc. Doesn't mean that they agree with the official story. Doesn't necessarily mean that they are conspiracy theorists.
#11
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC SE (*A Gold), Bonvoy Platinum Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum / AP Reserve, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,690
I don't know about this particular investigation, but how do you know that the few original NTSB investigators asking for a reinvestigation didn't speak up at the time of the original investigation? How do you know they didn't say something?
I don't know the inside details of how it was handled. There may have been internal disagreements (I've seen them in my own line of work). Generally, the folks who don't agree with the official finding speak their piece, accept that they are over-ruled, and go back to work. Not worth being a whistle-blower, potentially destroying their career, etc. Doesn't mean that they agree with the official story. Doesn't necessarily mean that they are conspiracy theorists.
I don't know the inside details of how it was handled. There may have been internal disagreements (I've seen them in my own line of work). Generally, the folks who don't agree with the official finding speak their piece, accept that they are over-ruled, and go back to work. Not worth being a whistle-blower, potentially destroying their career, etc. Doesn't mean that they agree with the official story. Doesn't necessarily mean that they are conspiracy theorists.
#12
Suspended
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 738
The thing is, some of the folks who are trying to get this re-opened are hardly the sort of folks who ride the nut wagon in the first place.
#13
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
#14
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,237
It reminds me of a fairly recent case (not the first, unfortunately) where a re- investigation of an old arson decided that the original investigator was wrong. IIRC, the first findings were challenged in court at the original trial, but emotions ran high and an innocent man was wrongly convicted and served many years for a 'crime' that never happened. The fire wasn't arson.
I haven't looked into it, but it still sounds as though there may have been differences of opinion during the original investigation, but the 'official' story won out. That doesn't always mean it was the true explanation. People make mistakes.
#15
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,330
All of this makes me wonder...
If it was a terrorist attack, who did it? Real terrorists always claim responsibility for their attacks. Until NTSB came out and said that it wasn't an attack, the FBI was actively investigating, so if it was an attack, the attackers would have come out and said that they did it, and the FBI would have investigated their claim of responsibility. Naturally, a lot of nutbags who had nothing to do with it also claim responsibility, but if the FBI investigated, they would have figured out which group did it.
Supposed "eyewitness" accounts don't hold much water with me. Anyone who saw what happened had to be miles away from and thousands of feet below the plane, and the human eye plays so many tricks on people at that distance, over open ocean, it ain't funny.
So, I don't think it was an attack. I find nothing compelling in the wild rantings of a bunch of consipracy theorists who are trying to make money selling a documentary.
I don't belive the Phoenix Lights were alien space monsters, either.
And yes, I DO believe that those guys in the 60s and 70s ACTUALLY landed on the moon.
If it was a terrorist attack, who did it? Real terrorists always claim responsibility for their attacks. Until NTSB came out and said that it wasn't an attack, the FBI was actively investigating, so if it was an attack, the attackers would have come out and said that they did it, and the FBI would have investigated their claim of responsibility. Naturally, a lot of nutbags who had nothing to do with it also claim responsibility, but if the FBI investigated, they would have figured out which group did it.
Supposed "eyewitness" accounts don't hold much water with me. Anyone who saw what happened had to be miles away from and thousands of feet below the plane, and the human eye plays so many tricks on people at that distance, over open ocean, it ain't funny.
So, I don't think it was an attack. I find nothing compelling in the wild rantings of a bunch of consipracy theorists who are trying to make money selling a documentary.
I don't belive the Phoenix Lights were alien space monsters, either.
And yes, I DO believe that those guys in the 60s and 70s ACTUALLY landed on the moon.