Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question About TWA Flight 800......  
User currently offlineAlberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2925 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7090 times:



What ever happend to the reconstruction of the TWA fueselage? Was it scrapped or donated to a musuem? Why didn't it have the wings or nose with cockpit attached to it?




short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSRT75 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7062 times:

Quoting Alberchico (Thread starter):
What ever happend to the reconstruction of the TWA fueselage?

Interesting question. I would speculate that it was disassembled and stored in a warehouse in boxes. The parts would then be retained until all possible legal proceedings would be barred by the statute of limitations (including government body investigations). After the final incident report is issued, and the last possible lawsuit could have been filed, the parts were probably either trashed or scrapped.

Quoting Alberchico (Thread starter):
Why didn't it have the wings or nose with cockpit attached to it?

Probably never recovered. Alternatively, the focus of the investigation was a short in the fuselage, so they probably only spent the effort to reconstruct the relevant portion of the craft.


User currently offlineAlberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7029 times:

Quoting SRT75 (Reply 1):
Probably never recovered.

Actually the cockpit was recovered

Quoting B744F (Reply 2):
because they didn't want to admit a terrorist downed an airplane

Are you suggesting the goverment lied to us?



short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7019 times:

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 3):
Are you suggesting the goverment lied to us?

Most definately. If it walks like a duck...


User currently offlineAlberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7006 times:

But the fuel vapor theory has been conclusively tested. Every engineer and pilot in the industry belives that fuel vapors downed the plane.


short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlineThelowfarehero From Cayman Islands, joined Aug 2005, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6989 times:

conclusively tested, yet not confirmed. Something very fishy with this one!


I HAATE AA!
User currently offlineZOTAN From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6973 times:

Ah, now we have conspiracy theorists on this board. Or have they been already been around for a whiel? Hmmm.....

User currently offlineLiedetectors From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6976 times:

In a somewhat unrelated piece of news, the first 747-400F with the nitrogen generating system designed to prevent fuel vapor explosions has just been rolled out of the paint hangars at everett. It is l/u 1363 and is destined to serve with NCA.


If it was said by us, then it must be true.
User currently offlinePlanesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6964 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 2):
because they didn't want to admit a terrorist downed an airplane

Remember all those witnesses on the coast lines reporting they saw a flash of light fly at the aircraft. Could they ALL be wrong?


User currently offlineOttoPylit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6940 times:

Now that we have gotten completely off track, the answer to the question is that the wreckage was removed from the hangar that it was reconstructed in to another and has basically had control of it taken over by the NTSB. They will use the wreckage to help train new investigators on how to investigate and solve aircraft crashes.

Or as the conspiracy theorists would like you to believe, so the wreckage can be used to train new investigators on how to decieve the American public.  Yeah sure


Otto


User currently offlineThelowfarehero From Cayman Islands, joined Aug 2005, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6927 times:

well they decieved us into thinking there were WMD in iraq  bomb 


I HAATE AA!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6924 times:

Quoting Planesailing (Reply 9):
Remember all those witnesses on the coast lines reporting they saw a flash of light fly at the aircraft. Could they ALL be wrong?

Oh yeah, like eye witnesses are reliable?  Confused

The empty center wing fuel tank exploded from an electrical spark. It was not the first time it happened. The USAF lost 3 KC-135s (two A models and 1 E model), in the late 1980s, to the empty aft body tank exploding, from an electrical spark.

It was not terrorist. It was not a US Navy missile. The loss of TWA-800, a B-747-100, was a terrible accident.  banghead 


User currently offlineThelowfarehero From Cayman Islands, joined Aug 2005, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6912 times:

were you an investigator on that case to concrete your statement? So all the eyewitnesses were wearing 3d movie glasses and tripping on LSD?


I HAATE AA!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6909 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
It was not terrorist. It was not a US Navy missile. The loss of TWA-800, a B-747-100, was a terrible accident.

Every once in a while the Navy missile theory will raise it's ugly head. Every time I say the same thing. As a former sailor there is no way the Navy could keep a ship full of us from keeping our mouth shut. It goes against our nature.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6894 times:

I just finished First Strike, by Jack Cashill. It certainly paints a picture of a terrorist attack or friendly missile fire:
1. Over 200 witnesses saw either 1 or 2 streaks of light approaching a commercial airliner. All were dismissed.
2. The wreckage showed 2 areas of impact. Near the 3rd engine and then under the cockpit (the fatal blow) that can only be explained as an external hit by a projectile.
3. The nose wheel doors were blown IN, not out. Which indicates a projectile.
4. The investigation was run by the FBI, not the NTSB. The FBI did not cooperate with the NTSB. To this day it remains the only aircraft crash not investigated by the NTSB.
5. Clinton instructed the FBI that he wanted all discussion of missiles dismissed since if found true, his re-election would be in doubt.
6. The official conclusion of an internal explosion in a fuel tank caused by hot temps is full of holes and has never been replicated or experienced in any other airliner.
7. Two very separate debree fields show that the aircraft experienced 2 separate explosions, one disabling the #3 engine and part of the right wing, the other one severing the cockpit from the fuselage.

I'm simply repeating the findings of the book.

Cheers

[Edited 2005-08-09 01:52:59]


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineThelowfarehero From Cayman Islands, joined Aug 2005, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6891 times:

That area just seems to be the bermuda triangle of the north atlantic. The Titanic went down in the vicinity, TWA, Swissair, Egypt Air, JFK Jr....etc...


I HAATE AA!
User currently offlineMD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6859 times:

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 6):
Something very fishy with this one!

Surely you have expertise you'd like to share with us.

Quoting Planesailing (Reply 9):
Remember all those witnesses on the coast lines reporting they saw a flash of light fly at the aircraft.

Which has been explained over and over. How clear do people see things at 13,000+ feet above them, not to mention off in the distance.. Not very.

Quoting Planesailing (Reply 9):
Could they ALL be wrong?

Yes, and they are.. just like most eyewitnesses to most accidents are to some extent.

Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 7):
Ah, now we have conspiracy theorists on this board.

Your first TWA 800 thread, I see.  silly 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
The empty center wing fuel tank exploded from an electrical spark. It was not the first time it happened. The USAF lost 3 KC-135s (two A models and 1 E model), in the late 1980s, to the empty aft body tank exploding, from an electrical spark.

It was not terrorist. It was not a US Navy missile. The loss of TWA-800, a B-747-100, was a terrible accident.

Thank you. Unfortunately your words will be ignored by everyone who, for some reason, wants this accident to live forever in a world of conspiracy. The best thing to do now (since the original question has been answered) is ignore the thread and let it die. No sense in talking to brick walls.



Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6819 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 15):
I just finished First Strike, by Jack Cashill. It certainly paints a picture of a terrorist attack or friendly missile fire:

The "friendly missile theory" is complete and utter non-sense. As I pointed out in my other post there is no way you could keep a ship full of sailors from talking. Someone would have spilled the beans by now. There would have been no way a crew could have hidden the fact that they were minus one Standard Missile. Those things are not cheap an the Navy keeps a record of it's missile inventory. It's not something you just toss over the side.

It's also highly doubtful the Navy was conducting missile exercises off Long Island. Seems more logical they would find a better place. As with all weapons systems there are safeties involved. You just don't hit a button by accident and send a missile on it's way. Keeps young sailors from tearing things up. Now let's say one DID get away. The Standard is a semi-active system. In other words it requires target illumination from the ship that launched it. Stop illuminating a target and the missile goes dumb. Now what are the chances of an unguided missile actually hitting an aircraft. The skies a pretty big place.

Here's another problem with the friendly missile theory. The SM-2 weighs around 1300lbs and has a large blast fragmentation warhead and flies at supersonic speed. If one had hit TWA 800 it would have left telltale clues all over that aircraft. Clues that were not found.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6809 times:

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 6):
conclusively tested, yet not confirmed. Something very fishy with this one!

the explosion did happen right in about the same spot as the "shoe bomber" was sitting when he was taken off the plane (or was it denied boarding) a couple years ago. lends credence to the shoe bomber theory, combined with the "incongruous" increase in flight and airport security by the Clinton administration immediately after the accident for quite a few months, despite claims by the same government publicly that it was definitely a mechanical failure...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAlberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6788 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 15):
I just finished First Strike,

Didn't that book say something that the Navy was actually aiming for a small terrorist plane but ended up hitting 800 instead?



short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6784 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 19):
the explosion did happen right in about the same spot as the "shoe bomber" was sitting when he was taken off the plane (or was it denied boarding) a couple years ago. lends credence to the shoe bomber theory, combined with the "incongruous" increase in flight and airport security by the Clinton administration immediately after the accident for quite a few months, despite claims by the same government publicly that it was definitely a mechanical failure...

Here's the problem with the shoe bomber "theory". What's the usual SOP for a terrorist group? When they pull something like this off they want people to know. One would have figured they would have provided some sort of evidence they did it. Maybe in the form of a video tape of the person who carried it out. Second one would figure that if they were successfull on TWA 800 they would have tried it again. Yet no more aircraft were lost after this under similar circumstances in the US.


User currently offlineTallguy14 From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6763 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Nobody can prove that the plane was downed by a missile, or a bomb, or a fuel tank explosion. We'll probably never know what actually happened.

What CAN be proven, with reams and reams of reports, files, paperwork, faxes and other documents, is that the investigation was unlike any other in our history. Before the investigation even began, the US government decided what had caused the explosion (they say: fuel tank explosion) and the investigators ran roughshod over anyone who disagreed. Evidence was dismissed, exhibits "lost", witnesses discredited. Certainly that runs contrary to procedure, wouldn't you say?


User currently offlineEspion007 From Denmark, joined Dec 2003, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6761 times:

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 16):
That area just seems to be the bermuda triangle of the north atlantic. The Titanic went down in the vicinity, TWA, Swissair, Egypt Air, JFK Jr....etc...

yeah its amazing how many flights have suffered failures in the remote area of the norteast US  sarcastic 

Honestly this conspiracy stuff is bull. How about this-say that stuff outloud infront of a mirror so you can see how ridiculous and asinine you sound. All conspiracy theories are the same. Theres some small evidence brought up by some guy that something other than whats officially reported happened,and than theres the excruciatingly immense amount of evidence to contradict that.



Snakes on a Plane!
User currently offlineGogodude From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6741 times:

Quoting Thelowfarehero (Reply 13):
were you an investigator on that case to concrete your statement? So all the eyewitnesses were wearing 3d movie glasses and tripping on LSD?

Could you please point us to a source for "all of these" eyewitness accounts? I suspect that this is an urban myth that has been propogated on the internet without any real sources. It sounds like something that was brought up soon after the crash as hearsay and unsubstantiated stories. I am not personally aware of any credible eyewitness accounts of a "missile downing the plane." After all, where are all of these people now??


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6729 times:

Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 7):
Ah, now we have conspiracy theorists on this board. Or have they been already been around for a whiel? Hmmm.....

I think they've been around for a while  Wink

Quoting Planesailing (Reply 9):
Remember all those witnesses on the coast lines reporting they saw a flash of light fly at the aircraft. Could they ALL be wrong?

Yes. Note that this doesn't mean they are wrong. I'm just saying eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
25 Alberchico : Those events did not even happen in the same area !!!
26 Yyz717 : Military personnel are easily silenced thru coersions and threats. Given the incontrovertable evidence of 2 missile strikes, it was either a terroris
27 Post contains images LMP737 : You must have never served in the United States Navy! A typical navy cruiser has a crew of around 350. That means the Navy would have to keep silent
28 Brick : A simple question. Where does the wreckage go when they are through with it? And you trashed the thread by the 2nd reply. What an asshole you are...
29 Starlionblue : How is it incontrovertible now? And as LMP737 points out, it isn't that easy to silence 350 people.
30 Yyz717 : The evidence that the wheel-nose doors were blown into the aircraft, identified in the book as incontrovertable evidence of a missile. Read the book.
31 Dtwclipper : This is just great, how people get drawn into these bizarre stories. Tell me Thelowfarehere....when was the last time you saw an ICEBERG OFF THE SOUT
32 777236ER : If you don't trust the NTSB, you probably shouldn't be flying at all.
33 BCAL : But in an earlier reply
34 Post contains links 777236ER : http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aar0003.htm
35 Post contains images Jamie757 : That is the funniest thing I've read in a long time!! LOL Or should I say this is..... Rgds.
36 LMP737 : That's your "incontrovertable" evidence? Where's the explosives residue or fragments from a Navy SM-2 SAM? Once again I would like to know what Mr. C
37 Boeingfan71 : i recently read TWA 800 accident or incident and there was some really intresting stuff in there and to me it's still a mystery. but i wish they would
38 LTBEWR : To get back to an original question of this thread: I recall from other threads on TWA 800, and other sources, that most of the remains of TWA 800 a/c
39 Yyz717 : That's the book's "incontrovertable" evidence, not mine. Anyway, perhaps you could explain why a fuel tank explosion would cause a nose wheel door pa
40 Espion007 : Maybe it was because of the fact the plane hit the water at a billion miles an hour. Ever thought about that,missile boy?
41 Slider : Hardly. Whatever makes you sleep at night. **************************************** Can anyone explain why over a dozen FOIA requests have fallen on
42 KC135TopBoom : Not really. The RMS Titanic hit an iceberg and sank more than 1500 nm east of Boston. Many of the bodies recovered were taken to Gander and buried. T
43 Post contains images Yyz717 : More likely terminal velocity of 9.8m/sec at the most. It wuold take more than this to blow in nosewheel doors. Wow, that's mature. The damage on the
44 GBan : Compare the "findings of the book" with the ntsb report and you will get another picture: Thanks for that link, 777236ER !
45 LMP737 : You also stated in reply 17 "The investigation was run by the FBI, not the NTSB. The FBI did not cooperate with the NTSB. To this day it remains the
46 LMP737 : The NTSB report stated that the engines showed no evidence of penetration of any of the engines from an outside object.
47 B744F : it doesn't have to be a ship full of anyone. Russian equipment can be easily purchased on the black market. CIA trained terrorists can easily launch
48 Post contains images Slashd0t : Not really buying this theory. The north Atlantic around this area (NY coast up around Canada) is a very heavily populated area with a large amount o
49 Slider : Of course you will. The NTSB's report is good but not necessarily how it happened. Saying "God is love, love is blind, Stevie Winder is blind, theref
50 Post contains images Backfire : Ah yes...Jack Cashill...the same guy who supported a production ridiculing Darwinism, the same guy who helped produce a mass-conspiracy theory ('Mega
51 ANITIX87 : In Michael Crichton's new book, State of Fear, he says a lot about investigations and experiments. Now, I'm not blowing hot air out of my a$$, he is
52 B744F : His hands were tied with investigations into everything he did, personal and political. And there were no legal reasons to justify a war against a gr
53 IRelayer : Wrong. Terminal velocity does not equal gravity. Read a physics book. -IR
54 Post contains links and images Damirc : Some witness reports ... (for those who claim that there was just the odd witness or two ...) - David McClaine, Eastwind Airlines pilot (flying a B737
55 IRelayer : Even for someone who believes in conspiracy theories, that is a pretty tenuous and ludicrous assertion by any stretch of the imagination. Of course t
56 GQfluffy : HAHAHA! 'missle boy'. So the nose doors were blown in. I guess that OBVIOUSLY means a projectile. Read this (ala NTSB)- "The left aft nose landing ge
57 LMP737 : Ah yes the anonymous "CIA" trained terrorist. Standing right next to him is the guy in the grassy knoll.
58 Post contains images Checkraiser : And please tell us why the CIA trains terrorists.
59 LMP737 : Here's the problem with the missile firing submarine theory. US Navy submarines do not carry surface to air missiles. And I fail to see what the sign
60 GQfluffy : Dewd, you're blowing my cover, stfu!
61 Gogodude : I thought that was how the scientific method worked: you have a theory and you go about proving (or disproving) the theory. the peer-review process i
62 B744F : I never said the CIA had anything to do with it, although that is very possible considering their many illegal actions in the past. I was just pointi
63 Post contains images NWOrientDC10 : I saw a book advertized in a airliners magazine ("Airliners" or "Airways", I can't remember) which suggests that TWA flight 800 was hit by a meteor. A
64 4holer : IMO, Chances that the plane was brought down via accidental fuel tank ignition: 99.98% Chances of an onboard terrorist (shoe bomber theory): 0.005% Mi
65 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Well, I must finally tell the truth. TWA 800 was involved in a mid-air collision with an alien space craft. The crippled alien space craft made an eme
66 Post contains links and images NWOrientDC10 : Cute Guys I guess there's no was it was struck by lightning http://www.crh.noaa.gov/pub/ltg/plane_japan.php how silly of me Russell
67 AirScoot : I vote either or... leaning towards Gozilla Collision.
68 PlaneDane : I won't say what I think the cause of the crash is because I simply don't know. What I am more certain about is that the center fuel tank had nothing
69 Bhmbaglock : Remind yourself to shoot your physics teacher. Acceleration and velocity are not the same thing. Remember, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. C
70 Halophila : Actually... yes, the first statement here is true, although I think by "predetermined" you mean that it is what is expected (determined = already kno
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question) posted Mon Dec 6 2004 10:28:51 by Bigphilnyc
Question About A LAB Flight posted Mon Sep 4 2006 06:14:51 by USADreamliner
? About A TWA Flight From 1986/1987 posted Wed Apr 5 2006 22:13:34 by 7E72004
Question About NW Flight Numbers posted Thu Dec 15 2005 14:39:11 by Indy
Question About Tomorrow's Flight posted Sun Jun 19 2005 03:16:21 by PDXtriple7
Question About CO Flight 62 posted Fri Feb 18 2005 23:59:59 by AlitaliaMD11
"Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel posted Sun Oct 3 2004 22:29:36 by OB1504
Question About Planning A Flight posted Wed Jul 28 2004 12:38:44 by Hardkor
The Crew Of TWA Flight 800 posted Wed Jul 7 2004 15:25:07 by Usair320
TWA Flight 800...TWA's Organizational Culture posted Mon Apr 19 2004 15:46:46 by Planespotting