Author Topic: TWA 800 Crash and the new Missle threat (Read 1169 times)

muckmaw · « **on:** August 14, 2003, 08:17:23 AM »

With this recent arrest involving people trying to attain surface to air missles to attack commercial airliners, I started thinking about TWA 800, and how so many people are convinced it was shot down by a missle.

I remember watching the FAA film about how the nose came off the plane, and yet, it somehow climbed 5000 feet.

This seemed awefully convenient to explain away the witnesses who said they saw a flame going up.

Is is possible for a 747, with the entire from 15% of is fueselage gone, to climb? I would have thought the air pressure rushing into an open cabin would have either blasted the plane apart, or simply made it fall like a stone. I can't see how it could climb 5k.

But here's something on the other side of the coin. Why did no one claim responsibility? Could the government squelch, and cover up these claims? I'm sure it would have made Al Jazera.

Thoghts?

LePaul · « **Reply #1 on:** August 14, 2003, 08:23:51 AM »

I wish i had the website that documents what they suspect happened...esentially the nose was blown off causing the thing to pitch up (cg?)

muckmaw · « **Reply #2 on:** August 14, 2003, 09:05:53 AM »

That seems to make sense, Sholz. I can understand the loss of weight, but with the nose gone, would'nt the aerodynamics be degraded to a point where the aircraft could not climb, or was the fact that it was already in a nose up attitude cause the loss of weight to accelerate the climb to stall?

Wilfrid · « **Reply #3 on:** August 14, 2003, 09:12:24 AM »

I thought they attributed the explosion to the detonation of fuel vapours in the main fuel tank?

LePaul · « **Reply #4 on:** August 14, 2003, 09:15:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
That seems to make sense, Sholz. I can understand the loss of weight, but with the nose gone, would'nt the aerodynamics be degraded to a point where the aircraft could not climb, or was the fact that it was already in a nose up attitude cause the loss of weight to accelerate the climb to stall?

You dont have to be aerodynamic to climb, muck...you are loosing the point he and I are illustrating. Take a heavy plane in a climb, something explodes and sheds the nose...it doesnt matter how smooth or blunt it is, if the weight is now off balance, up she goes.

sonofagun · « **Reply #5 on:** August 14, 2003, 09:40:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wilfrid
I thought they attributed the explosion to the detonation of fuel vapours in the main fuel tank?

They (US Gov't) did. Many investigators and witnesses dispute that finding.

Also, IR missile won't necessarily hit the engine.

From Jane's concerning Stinger Missile:

"The weapon flies a proportional navigation path to the interception point near to which the TAG circuit is activated and a signal is generated within the seeker head to add bias to the steering signal causing the missile airframe to guide itself into a vulnerable part of the target."

meaning fuselage rather than engine.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #6 on:** August 14, 2003, 09:45:31 AM »

When I was active duty Navy, our training in regards to IR guided munitions is that they were programmed to strike the biggest part of the target, thus the USS Stark got hit where the superstructure and the main deck meet. I would therefore think that the bulbous front of the 747 was the main target for the missile. I know the tail would be a bigger target but I think missile, if indeed there was one, target the large nose instead.

Martlet · « **Reply #7 on:** August 14, 2003, 09:50:27 AM »

http://www.twa800.com/index.htm

JBA · « **Reply #8 on:** August 14, 2003, 10:16:01 AM »

the Gentelman (can't remember his name) who was the security chief for Isreal airlines, who is now liveing in US and is an advisor some where, has always mantained that it was a bomb,(maybe of the shoe type).

Erlkonig · « **Reply #9 on:** August 14, 2003, 10:24:10 AM »

What kind of lousy terrorist would shoot down a plane and allow everyone to believe the plane fell out of the sky because of an accident? What would be the point? The mission of the terrorist is to convince people they are under attack.

muckmaw · « **Reply #10 on:** August 14, 2003, 10:25:57 AM »

It would be pointless not to claim responsibility, but is it possible the government covered up the claim?

Could they do that?

davidpt40 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 14, 2003, 10:37:59 AM »

Ever see pictures of B17s with their entire nose sections destroyed? Air rushing through the entire aircraft. Yeah they still managed to make it home.

CyranoAH · « **Reply #12 on:** August 14, 2003, 11:12:59 AM »

Problem is... b17 were not pressurized...

Daniel

Fishu · « **Reply #13 on:** August 14, 2003, 11:32:12 AM »

If the nose of a pressurized plane was ripped off, perhaps the forward velocity kept the pressurization from escaping too rapidly, since all the pressurization would have to escape through the nose, but with the nose gone, it was hogging in all the air and causing the air pressure rise around the nose -> pressurized air is thicker and disperses into thinner air, but the forward velocity kept the air ramming into the nose at a sufficient rate to keep the air pressure enough balanced to not rip apart the plane in instant as a result of rapid depressurization.

As if you would cut off a bottle, settle it sideways meanwhile you're pointing a high pressure water hose at the opening - it wont loose its water content aka pressure so fast.

Nothing scientific in this.. just a random thought

Dinger · « **Reply #14 on:** August 14, 2003, 11:42:00 AM »

there are much more plausible aircraft/missile conspiracy theories out there than TWA800.

A) an aircraft pressurized at 12000 feet is not the same as an aircraft pressurized at 35000 feet. One pops like a zit, the other doesn't.

B) if you're going to use a MANPAD on an airliner, you're going to want to fire from a position that gives you the best combination of security and a chance to hit. Why shoot at it at 12,000 feet when 6,000 feet gives you the same security and a better shot? Better still, why not shoot at planes when they're most vulnerable, right at takeoff and landing?

C) sorry, stingers are not designed to bring down airliners. That doesn't mean they won't, but they don't exactly have a charge big enough to tear the nost off a 747 at 12,000 feet.

D) long before they blamed the fuel tank on the mess, when they released the actions of the TWA 800 crew, they did mention switching over from the center fuel tank to the wing tanks. They also mentioned the temperature in those tanks. A heated fuel-air mixture doesn't need a stinger to set it off; a spark will do nicely.

E) Finally, why the "Accident" cover up? As our current administration has shown time and again, terrorism is a great excuse to squeeze the liberties out of the people. Why claim it wasn't a terrorist act when it was? To keep Americans from becoming fearful and agreeing to waive their rights?

F) If it was a US military accident, why wasn't it an Airbus like the last time? In any case, as long as the carrier is the same country as the military involved, you can still claim it was a terrorist act. That's what makes ustica a respectable conspiracy theory and TWA800 strictly amateur hour.