TWA 800 New Probe ?
 

Shocked not to see this all over FT: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us...aim/index.html

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.

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." :rolleyes:

FTers usually love wild speculation and to twist and rehash spurious theories. I'm surprised this one gets no love. H*ll, there's probably 1000 posts on CX amenity kits !

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!

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.

CX amenity kits are real, not a vast conspiracy.

And FT covers FF programs and travel, not so much aircraft, piloting, investigations, etc.

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 am generally a rather difficult person to convince when it comes to conspiracy theories, I understand that some of the pe:eek:ple 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 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.

This is a really good point, of course. But the one thing I keep coming back to is this: the reconstructed remains of TWA 800 have been used as a training tool for (hundreds of? thousands of?) NTSB investigators. Did everybody not notice anything and/or stay silent?

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.

I hope you mean NTSB report. TSA didn't exist 17 years ago.

Well, if it's a training tool, they are likely being told what they are seeing, which is not the same thing as already being trained and experienced and approaching with an open mind.

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.

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.