TWA 800 Lawsuit

[Stryder50]

About 15 years ago I was talking to a buddy of mine whose been in the military forever. He told me that he knows some of the people who did the investigation. He said there is no doubt it was a missile, but it was not a Stinger. The plane was shot down at like 12,000 feet. The stinger is only good up to about 8 or 9k at best. He said it was a missile from a boat completely on accident. He said they were doing live fire exercises in the area and the missile accidentally locked onto TWA800. He said the entire thing was a cover up to try to hide the fact that our US Navy shot down one of our civilian airliners. It was absolutely 100% on accident, however.

Boeing was told to keep their mouth shut or else. I mean we've had hundreds of thousands of flights of 747's with an empty center fuel tank and they never exploded. If Boeing really had such a dangerous airplane in that configuration, you would think we'd have had more than one flight blow up in such a manner.

Think about that.

I've heard from my sources that like the performance figures of many military weapons, the horizontal range and vertical altitude reach of the Stinger are understated. Reduces the confidence of any enemy who finds they aren't out of range.

The maps in the links I provided show a radius of @2.7 miles for where the FBI investigation was trying to find clues and evidence of MANPADS. Which might have been some type other than a Stinger.

 

[Stryder50]

Just happened to be a missile test in one of the east coast most aviation congested corridors......using Aegis systems.

Yes. I know and mentioned such in my post #23 where I present material and links to the CSEDS* in New Jersey, and specs on the Standard, SM-2 missile.
To refresh;

USS Rancocas: The Cornfield Cruiser - Lockheed Martin​

This is the superstructure of an AEGIS cruiser on the roof of the building, with AEGIS radar antennae installed (the near hexagonal structure on the side).

You'd have to ask the Navy why they built this test station where they did.
I'd assume that actual test areas would be more to the East out over open ocean, than to the North/North-East where one gets close to the commercial air-routes., and the recreational boating off-shore.

 

[Stryder50]

Styder50 apparently thinks he/she/it is the only person who can contribute to this topic.

Such a delicate little blossom <barf>

You appear to be the delicate blossom who's whining about ... whatever.
I'm not keeping you from contributing, toss out your pearls of wisdom.

I'm just providing data and sources for most part with limited observations and opinions. What these boards are for.

 

[Stryder50]

Where in the airplane reconstruction was there any evidence of a missile hit?

My guess would be where it's shown in the photo, the underside area in the circle. Being exhaust vents and hot, this is where the heat-seeker part of terminal guidance would aim, and impact, with explosion.

​

A Thermal Imaging photograph provided by military experts shows that a MANPADS missile would guide on the three Air Packs located directly below the Center Fuel Tank.

 

[Stryder50]

Why would the US gov hide that? We paid Iran tens of millions when the navy shot down one of their airliners. It’s not like the fed would go bankrupt from paying out a huge settlement. They’d just print and tax to get the money.

The Iran episode was in a combat zone while there was an on-going war, so can be chalked off to the sort of co-lateral that can happen.

In peace-time, off the USA coast, and one of our own airliners; maybe someone that it too sensitive to be honest. This was during the Clinton(s) Administration if you recall.

The Fed is already bankrupt from printing too much money.

 

[Picaro]

So what happens if the conspiracy theories prove to be true? We bankrupt a major defense contractor at a critical time when our military is having to ramp up and recover from years of neglect and low budgets, just to appease isolationists and libertoons? The survivors get a few more million bucks to blow? Anybody think it was done on purpose, cuz Amurkin defense contractors are all evil criminal masterminds n stuff?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Where in the airplane reconstruction was there any evidence of a missile hit?

He said the navy went out before everyone else and gathered all the debris that showed a missile impacted. By the time rescuers got there the wreckage had been combed through. It didn't take long, they knew what they were looking for. After all, the plane fell not far from their boat. They had a head start getting out there, as they were already out there. The evidence would have only been right around the impact point. At that point, with the explosion of the vapors in the center tank, the explosion of the vapors from inside could very well make it look like the explosion came from inside the plane when it didn't.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

He said the navy went out before everyone else and gathered all the debris that showed a missile impacted. By the time rescuers got there the wreckage had been combed through. It didn't take long, they knew what they were looking for. After all, the plane fell not far from their boat. They had a head start getting out there, as they were already out there. The evidence would have only been right around the impact point. At that point, with the explosion of the vapors in the center tank, the explosion of the vapors from inside could very well make it look like the explosion came from inside the plane when it didn't.

It took months to gather all of the pieces. The navy could not possibly have pinpointed and collected the pieces that showed outside-in impact and then hid them. That’s beyond paranoid.

 

[Delldude]

It took months to gather all of the pieces.

I remember it took a week or so just to locate the wreckage.

 

[eagle1462010]

Not out of the realm of possible. Operators could have accidentally targetted the airliner. Aegis Radar is only as good as those using it.

I was on a ship that got hit by friendly fire. It can happen

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I remember it took a week or so just to locate the wreckage.

Probably. Took way longer to gather and reconstruct. 3-D images of the reconstructed plane are still available.

 

[Stryder50]

Not out of the realm of possible. Operators could have accidentally targetted the airliner. Aegis Radar is only as good as those using it.

I was on a ship that got hit by friendly fire. It can happen

Was this "friendly fire" result of using Aegis ?

How could the operator(s) accidentally target an airliner when it's IFF should have shown it wasn't a target drone ?

 

[Delldude]

Was this "friendly fire" result of using Aegis ?

How could the operator(s) accidentally target an airliner when it's IFF should have shown it wasn't a target drone ?

Wasn't aware TWA used IFF.

 

[Stryder50]

Wasn't aware TWA used IFF.

The contemporary commercial equivalent. Which is something that US military is familiar with and make part of their target acquisition procedures.

My main point remains that I'm inclined to think the ship that is supposed to have fired the Standard SM-2 would have been about 30-40 miles away and that the Standard is guided by ship's radar locked on to the "target" and feeding guidance instructions to the missile up till the last few miles when the missile's own detection sensors take over.

Point is that the ship would have to have targeted TWA-800 first, before the Standard would take over the lock-on and home in. I haven't seen anything detailing this actual tactical procedure happened, so I'm remaining skeptical since the scenario is being presented vaguely and with key technical details missing. Too many "ifs - maybes - might haves" to remove it from speculative conspiracy fantasy.

Plus level of destruction done by the missile impact fits more the size of a MANPADS warhead than a larger Standard one.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

I'm just providing data and sources for most part with limited observations and opinions.

Not allowed!

It’s a cardinal sin to do things like that.

 

[Stryder50]

Wasn't aware TWA used IFF.

EXCERPTS;
....
Identification, friend or foe (IFF) is a combat identification system designed for command and control. It uses a transponder that listens for an interrogation signal and then sends a response that identifies the broadcaster. IFF systems usually use radar frequencies, but other electromagnetic frequencies, radio or infrared, may be used.<a href="Identification friend or foe - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> It enables military and civilian air traffic control interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly, as opposed to neutral or hostile, and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. IFF is used by both military and civilian aircraft. IFF was first developed during World War II, with the arrival of radar, and several friendly fire incidents.

IFF can only positively identify friendly aircraft or other forces.<a href="Identification friend or foe - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a><a href="Identification friend or foe - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a><a href="Identification friend or foe - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a><a href="Identification friend or foe - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a> If an IFF interrogation receives no reply or an invalid reply, the object is not positively identified as foe; friendly forces may not properly reply to IFF for various reasons, for example equipment malfunction, and parties in the area not involved in the combat, such as civilian light general aviation aircraft, may not carry a transponder.

IFF is a tool within the broader military action of combat identification (CID), the characterization of objects detected in the field of combat sufficiently accurately to support operational decisions. The broadest characterization is that of friend, enemy, neutral, or unknown. CID not only can reduce friendly fire incidents, but also contributes to overall tactical decision-making.<a href="Identification friend or foe - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>6<span>]</span></a>
....

Mode S​

During the 1980s, a new civilian mode, Mode S, was added that allowed greatly increased amounts of data to be encoded in the returned signal. This was used to encode the location of the aircraft from the navigation system. This is a basic part of the traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS), which allows commercial aircraft to know the location of other aircraft in the area and avoid them without the need for ground operators.

The basic concepts from Mode S were then militarized as Mode 5, which is simply a cryptographically encoded version of the Mode S data.

The IFF of World War II and Soviet military systems (1946 to 1991) used coded radar signals (called cross-band interrogation, or CBI) to automatically trigger the aircraft's transponder in an aircraft illuminated by the radar. Radar-based aircraft identification is also called secondary surveillance radar in both military and civil usage, with primary radar bouncing an RF pulse off of the aircraft to determine position. George Charrier, working for RCA, filed for a patent for such an IFF device in 1941. It required the operator to perform several adjustments to the radar receiver to suppress the image of the natural echo on the radar receiver, so that visual examination of the IFF signal would be possible.<a href="Identification friend or foe - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>19<span>]</span></a>
....

Identification friend or foe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

ALSO;
...

2.​

Outside the military, IFF systems play an equally critical role in industries such as aviation, maritime navigation, and space exploration. These applications focus more on ensuring safety and preventing collisions, miscommunication, or unauthorized access.

Aviation: Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR)​

In civil aviation, IFF systems take the form of Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR), which is used in conjunction with primary radar to identify aircraft and prevent collisions. SSR systems require each plane to carry a transponder that responds to ground radar queries. This system ensures that air traffic controllers can manage flights efficiently and safely, even in busy skies.

According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), IFF systems helped manage over 50 million flights in 2023, preventing accidents and enabling smooth air traffic control globally.
...

Friend or Foe Identification Systems: Securing the Skies, Seas, and Cyberspace

Learn how Friend or Foe Identification (IFF) systems protect military, aviation, maritime, and cybersecurity operations. Discover emerging trends like AI, quantum encryption, and 5G that are shaping the future of IFF technology.

julienflorkin.com

 

[Delldude]

Which is something that US military is familiar with and make part of their target acquisition procedures.

You don't know that unless you were present.

My main point remains that I'm inclined to think the ship that is supposed to have fired the Standard SM-2 would have been about 30-40 miles away and that the Standard is guided by ship's radar locked on to the "target" and feeding guidance instructions to the missile up till the last few miles when the missile's own detection sensors take over.

SM 2 uses inertial guidance and it's own onboard radar...... with a range of 90 miles at Mach 3. 747 makes one helluva RCS......

The damage is consistent with the SM 2....... especially when small fragmentation holes were found in the fuselage.

 

[Stryder50]

Some informational websites on Aegis. I don't have time now to pick out relevant text, maybe later. But here for any who want to dig into it.

Aegis Combat System - Wikipedia​

AEGIS Weapon System > United States Navy > Displayy-FactFiles​

Aegis Combat System | Lockheed Martin​

About AEGIS - Naval Sea Systems Command​

 

[Delldude]

Some informational websites on Aegis. I don't have time now to pick out relevant text, maybe later. But here for any who want to dig into it.

Aegis Combat System - Wikipedia​

AEGIS Weapon System > United States Navy > Displayy-FactFiles​

Aegis Combat System | Lockheed Martin​

About AEGIS - Naval Sea Systems Command​

This is a waste of time.

 

[Stryder50]

You don't know that unless you were present.

SM 2 uses inertial guidance and it's own onboard radar...... with a range of 90 miles at Mach 3. 747 makes one helluva RCS......

The damage is consistent with the SM 2....... especially when small fragmentation holes were found in the fuselage.

After it is told where to go and what to focus on via the launching ship's radar and Combat Command Center. AND the CCC has confirmed it is on track and on target, then it is turned loose on it's own, use it's own systems.

Fragmentation holes in the fuselage could result from the explosion under the central fuel tank where the air pack exhaust vents are, which is what the IR would lock on. Warhead of a MANPADS would be large enough to blow that machinery and tank producing the shrapnel.


A Thermal Imaging photograph provided by military experts shows that a MANPADS missile would guide on the three Air Packs located directly below the Center Fuel Tank.