Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Valujet 592 Conspiracy Theorists  
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 6574 times:

Hello Everyone...

I am starting this thread to try to determine if everyone believes the Oxy canisters started the Valujet 592 fire.. There are some out there who think it was an electrical fire, and the FAA/NTSB covered it up... My question is, Why would they do this? Also, if this were an electrical fire, how could it have brought down the airplane?

Does anyone have anymore articles about this... I tried to find the one I originally read, and my search proved to be futile.

63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 6529 times:

If you want to find conspiracy theories, they are a dime a dozen.

Or as they say, they are like a******s, everybody has one.


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 6514 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
I am starting this thread to try to determine if everyone believes the Oxy canisters started the Valujet 592 fire.. There are some out there who think it was an electrical fire, and the FAA/NTSB covered it up... My question is, Why would they do this? Also, if this were an electrical fire, how could it have brought down the airplane?

Maybe uneducated here, but what would be the point of blaming it one mechanical issue versus another? If anything, I think the conspiracy theory would really go the other way around- that the FAA and NTSB would say the cause of the crash was an electrical fire when in fact it was the oxy tanks in the cargo compartment. In other words- I think the electrical fire would be the cover up story, done maybe to protect the reputation of the airline, which was known for its safety record, or rather, lack thereof.

But what do I know? I'm not too good with this conspiracy theory stuff. Most of them are a bunch of loons, IMO.


User currently offlineSuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 6503 times:



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 2):
Maybe uneducated here, but what would be the point of blaming it one mechanical issue versus another? If anything, I think the conspiracy theory would really go the other way around- that the FAA and NTSB would say the cause of the crash was an electrical fire when in fact it was the oxy tanks in the cargo compartment.

I am not saying I buy the theory, but I can see where it would be advantageous to do so. If it were a electrical issue, that is fleet wide, that presents a larger risk than if it is one stupid employee who packed something they shouldn't.



Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 6473 times:



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 1):
Or as they say, they are like a******s, everybody has one.

You forgot to add and they all stink!"

As far as any cover-up goes, it just doesn't hold water. The NTSB has no love for the FAA and would certainly not do anything to work in unison with the FAA to cover up a design defect in the DC-9. Cover-up??? I think the Roswell incident has more chance of being a cover up than this!


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4316 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 6422 times:

While I normally hate to contribute to anything that discusses a conspiracy theory, this one is just way too weak and beyond the fringe (aren't they all?) to not try to quash it.

The problem with the electrical angle is that the fire on 592 was not only intense, but it spread rapidly. So let's say it was an electrical fire. What caused it to burn so intensely and spread so rapidly? From what I recall, the plane crashed in a very short period of time after taking off.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineFlyMIA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7140 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 6419 times:



Quoting SuseJ772 (Reply 3):
I am not saying I buy the theory, but I can see where it would be advantageous to do so. If it were a electrical issue, that is fleet wide, that presents a larger risk than if it is one stupid employee who packed something they shouldn't.

As someone else said why would the NTSB help the FAA. Also why would they help the DC-9? When the Air China 737-800 have the bolt lose in the wing fuel tank the problem was stated and fixed. DC-10 problems, 747 classic cargo door problem etc.. Why would they cover up the DC-9? It makes no sense. All evidence points to the cargo fire, they did the fire test, the CVR etc.. Electrical power did not go away right away either. I never heard of a conspircacy theory on Valu Jet 592 and anyone who thinks it is true or makes on up, I think is a complete fool.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 6391 times:

I found it...

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...FAA_Inaction/moreonValujet592.html

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...Issues/FAA_Inaction/AD91-21-07.htm

Edited to add a second link related to the topic

[Edited 2007-12-26 23:39:30]

User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 6346 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 7):
I found it...

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...FAA_Inaction/moreonValujet592.html

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...7.htm

Please point out how the NTSB is tied into this? The NTSB and the FAA are separate operating agencies and have completley different agendas. It makes no sense at all.

As for the AD, if you look at the AD it was issued in 91, the crash was in 96, even if the relays were just installed when the AD came out, they would have been inspected within a 5 year period. So, I guess I don't see the point that's trying to be made.


User currently offlineDebonair From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2416 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6124 times:

Well, the best TV documentary film was done by NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. Everything fits perfectly (like a puzzle) together... After I saw this film, all open questions were answered.

see a part of it: http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,2046134004.aspx


User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5901 times:



Quoting Debonair (Reply 9):

Watching that makes my heart drop. It just keeps making me ask myself the question.. WHY???

WHY would anybody be stupid enough to put potentially dangerous cargo on an airplane
WHY wouldn't the FAA approve smoke detectors in the cargo BEFORE this?

The scary thing is that, given Valujet's safety problems, if this crash had not occurred, and other safety problems not identified, there most likely would have been a crash on another plane anyway. They said SAFETY was their #1 Priority..... THEY LIED!!! Their #1 priority was the almighty $$$


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5882 times:



Quoting SuseJ772 (Reply 3):
If it were a electrical issue, that is fleet wide,

Why?

Lots of planes have had electrical fires that were unique to that particular airplane. Maybe a repair was done incorrectly at some point, maybe wiring frayed because of some quirk in the way it was positioned against other wiring on that specific plane. Electrical fires happen fairly often on airplanes that don't end up requiring any sort of fleet-wide action.

Putting oxygen canisters on a plane and then mis-marking them, though, shows a systemic breakdown that *did* affect the entire company and also showed lax FAA oversight. If anything, the real story of what happened makes the FAA look far worse than an electrical fire would have. An electrical fire can start with a single spark from a single frayed piece of wiring that could easily be missed by the one individual person charged with inspecting that area at any given time... but what happened on the Valujet flight required negligence on the part of at least two whole companies and one government agency.

If this conspiracy theory does exist (and I almost believe it was created just for this thread, it sounds so dumb to me), then it's bass ackwards.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5814 times:



Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 11):
(and I almost believe it was created just for this thread, it sounds so dumb to me), then it's bass ackwards.

Please read the links I provided... It was not created solely for this thread.


User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5796 times:

I think the pilots of the Valujet flight were slow in reacting to the fire.

User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3327 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5756 times:



Quoting Orion737 (Reply 13):
I think the pilots of the Valujet flight were slow in reacting to the fire.



Quoting Wikipedia:
The 27 year old DC-9 aircraft on this route, N904VJ, previously owned by Delta Air Lines [1], took off after a delay of 1 hour and 4 minutes at 2:04 pm and began a normal climb, however at 2:10 p.m. asked air traffic control for a return to Miami due to smoke in the cockpit and cabin. Captain Candi Kubeck and First Officer Richard Hazen were given instructions for a return to the airport. Seconds later, shouts of "fire, fire, fire, fire" were recorded on the plane's cockpit voice recorder coming from the cabin. A flight attendant opened the cockpit door and informed the flight crew that the cabin was on fire. The ValuJet flight attendant manual stated that the cockpit door should not be opened when smoke or other harmful gases may be present in the cabin. However, the intercom was disabled, and there was no other way to inform the pilots of what was happening. By this time, the plane's interior was completely on fire.

They didn't have much time to.


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5726 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 10):

WHY would anybody be stupid enough to put potentially dangerous cargo on an airplane

Because the COMAT manifest said "OXY generators, empty". In some ways, you can also put some of the blame on the flight crew, as the COMAT manifest is given to the flight crew. I guess seeing the word "empty" on the manifest gave the impression that the item(s) were safe, although it had been policy for some time not to carry oxygen generators or any type of HAZMAT in a/c cargo holds.

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 10):
WHY wouldn't the FAA approve smoke detectors in the cargo BEFORE this?

Boils down to  dollarsign   dollarsign   dollarsign , as the airlines fought this for a time, as well as the nature of the relationship between the FAA and the NTSB. The NTSB after an incident involving a cargo hold fire (caused by HAZMAT) on an AA flight in 1988 made the recommendation that a/c cargo holds be fitted with smoke detectors. Since the NTSB can only make recommendations, the FAA is not required to make those recommendations into policy. Unfortunately, it takes the loss of 110 pax to force the FAA to finally force the FAA enact it as policy.


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5594 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 12):
Please read the links I provided... It was not created solely for this thread.

What's that supposed to prove? I see two pages on the same site, which is obviously run by a crackpot.

I mean come on, I could put up a web site somewhat and post a couple pages and say "hey guys, have you heard about this conspiracy theory?" and get people talking about it just as easily.

I'm not saying that's what you did. But this is the first I've ever heard of this dumb theory and I have an almost morbid fascination with air disasters - I read everything I can about them. So I'm convinced that whoever it is, this is one guy just being an idiot.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5524 times:

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
Also, if this were an electrical fire, how could it have brought down the airplane?

Swiss Air 111 ring a bell.....??

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
I am starting this thread to try to determine if everyone believes the Oxy canisters started the Valujet 592 fire

Chemical O2 Generator DID cause this crash. As someone that first had information about just how hot these can get.. I can fully see how this happened. It only takes one going off to start a chain reaction with the rest. Then you have a VERY HOT - O2 feed fire.

[Edited 2007-12-27 14:41:29]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5287 times:

The only conspiracy theory I heard on this flight, which I think is equally stupid, is that a certain competitor purposely had the mis-marked canisters shipped on the plane in hopes of creating another major mishap for Valujet which would have force the FAA to slow down Valujet growth or the mishap itself put them out of business.

The accident did almost accomplish both.



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5095 times:



Quoting Orion737 (Reply 13):
I think the pilots of the Valujet flight were slow in reacting to the fire.



Quoting OB1504 (Reply 14):
They didn't have much time to.

At the first sign of smoke/fire, they were already radioing in to MIA... Unfortunately, the fire was so intense, that they didn't have another 10 minutes to get the plane on the ground.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 15):
you can also put some of the blame on the flight crew

Absolutely... IIRC, It was Richard Hazen who signed off on it. He NEVER should have allowed those on the airplane.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 15):
Unfortunately, it takes the loss of 110 pax to force the FAA to finally force the FAA enact it as policy.

The Tombstone Agency

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 18):

About the competitor doing it... They would NEVER do something like that. No airline would EVER intentionally put any passengers/crew/aircraft in potential danger. I know there are some ruthless competition practices out there, but none like this.. and if there are, the responsible party should be JAILED.


User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 49
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5081 times:

Does this thread have anything to do with the fact that you no longer work for them?


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineMarkEJFay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5073 times:

The information is there, but it requires careful reading. Airworthiness Directive 91-21-07 required replacement of the primary longitudinal trim relays within 8000 hours time in service cited. At the time of Flight 592's accident, the only possible way to install a replacement primary longitudinal trim relay was to purchase a new one from Douglas Aircraft Company. Douglas Aircraft Company never sold a primary longitudinal trim relay. It is possible that a used primary longitudinal trim relay was installed, but it would be subject to the same 8,000 hour replacement interval. The DC-9 that was Flight 592 had 68,400.7 hours total time on it.

The FAA and NTSB are both part of the Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT is a cabinet of the Executive Branch of the US government. The FAA had taken the position years earlier that there had not been a fatality caused by bogus, unapproved, or illegal parts in U.S commercial aviation. It was part of the FAA's ongoing campaign of self-delusion regarding the very existence of bogus/unapproved/illegal aircraft replacement parts. Mary Schiavo, Inspector General of DOT at the time, was aggressively arresting and jailing bogus parts makers and sellers, much to FAA's chagrin. Ms. Schiavo informed me, in early 2003, that Tony Broderick, FAA's top safety associate administrator at the time, gave a verbal order that there would be no bogus/unaproved/illegal part found on the wreckage of 592.

It was an election year, and Bill Clinton took credit for fostering low cost carriers, and ValuJet was his darling (thanks to political contributions from its management). The unfortunate death of 110 people on a ValuJet flight was not going to interrupt his plans to become the first democrat elected to a second term as President since FDR.

National Geographic's Seconds From Disaster segment on 592 was produced by Darlow Smithson in England. I was interviewed for about 45 minutes by an associate producer from Darlow Smithson, but they chose not to do the research and instead followed the NTSB accident report script.

There have been tests, more scientific that the sham testing conducted by the FAA, on the oxygen generators. Not only could the oxygen generators/candles not self-initiate, when they were deliberately initiated, the temperatures generated would not ignite paper, cardboard, bubble wrap, even when soaked in jet fuel.

There is a history, according to FAA AD 91-21-07 and the referenced-into-law Douglas Alert Service Bulletin A27-316, of the primary longitudinal trim relays causing smoke and fire in the forward cargo compartment.

On Monday following 592's crash, the FAA submitted a Suspected Unapproved Parts report against American Airlines at their Dallas-Fort Worth facility on the same part number primary longitudinal trim relay as was installed on 592.
I was assigned to assist American Airlines convince the FAA that even though the relay was bogus/unapproved/illegal, it was, my management wanted to believe, the same as if it had been FAA-approved.

The oxygen generators did not start the fire, but they probably intensified it. The FAA, laboring under the order to NOT find any bogus/unapproved/illegal part must have considered themselves extremely fortunate to discover unexpended oxygen generators aboard. Aircraft accident investigations are undertaken by teams by invitation. The teams invariably include those who were responsible for the accident. The investigations and reports are closely controlled.


User currently offlineF9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5026 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5047 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
Hello Everyone...

I am starting this thread to try to determine if everyone believes the Oxy canisters started the Valujet 592 fire.. There are some out there who think it was an electrical fire, and the FAA/NTSB covered it up... My question is, Why would they do this? Also, if this were an electrical fire, how could it have brought down the airplane?

Does anyone have anymore articles about this... I tried to find the one I originally read, and my search proved to be futile.

There was no coverup. The FAA and NTSB were all over Valujet before 592. There would be no reason to cover it up. If anything, 592 brought some changes to avoid another tragedy like this one.

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 13):
I think the pilots of the Valujet flight were slow in reacting to the fire.

I think their reaction was that of urgency. They requested the nearest available airport, and MIA was far from the nearest.

I also knew the captain of 592. She was a great pilot, and knew how to prioritize.



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineMarkEJFay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5026 times:

It seems that we all believe what we want to believe. My belief, however, is based on the fact that I participated in the cover-up.

User currently offlineBingo From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4996 times:

When it comes to fire onboard, I can't help but wonder if its ok to wait and find the nearest airport. I would think that everyone has a better chance of surviving a rough landing in the Everglades than a fire onboard. Its not like a ship where you can atleast fight the fire until you either sink or jump off. When I become the next Gordon Bethune, I'm going to tell my pilots...If its smells like smoke dont be a dope....get it on the ground right away...airport or not. I'd rather lose a few frames than my crews or a single pax.

592 was a preventable tragedy. One that has probably saved many lives since. Bringing up conspiracies on the crash only serves to insult those who paid the ultimate price for a bad decision.


25 BR715-A1-30 : Since when did Valujet hire 11 year olds, which is how old I was when 592 went down. Did you now?
26 Luv2fly : We all know that Valujet bacame Airtran and yet you did work for them now did you not.
27 Threepoint : If a certain mechanical part or system were to cause an aircraft crash, there would be liability issues facing the design, manufacture, installation
28 MarkEJFay : That is correct. As I stated in my previous post, I was assigned to assist American Airlines convince the FAA that the bogus primary longitudinal trim
29 Aa757first : The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are never backed with valid evidence. For the theory to be valid, someone would have to prove that i
30 MarkEJFay : The problem with NTSB reports are that they are primarily designed to protect the guilty. This is the conclusion of some preliminary tests on the oxyg
31 Aa757first : How so? What does the NTSB gain by protecting guilty parties? And who exactly was protected here? ValuJet eventually had their operating license susp
32 Post contains links MarkEJFay : Aa757first, Please read the NTSB report for the summary of the FAA's test. It is in section 1.16.1, page 53 at the following link. http://www.ntsb.gov
33 Post contains images BR715-A1-30 : By the time I worked for AirTran for a full 15 days (I'd still like to find out who reported my personal blog to the station manager...snitches end u
34 NWA Man : I've been a member of this site for a long time. I don't stop by nearly as often as I used to due to the demands of life -- when I joined, I was a sop
35 MarkEJFay : It is unlike anything posted anywhere on the internet, as far as I've seen. I was involved in the cover-up of the illegal parts installed on 592, par
36 Post contains images ZTagged : All I can say is.. /facepalm Good god. This is worse than saying that F16s hit the twin towers.
37 SuseJ772 : People, people, people. I didn't say I believe it. I just said that I think it is plausible that the O2 situation presents less problems than the con
38 Avt007 : Is there any evidence that the relay did cause the fire, other than it possible for it to overheat? For that matter, why couldn't it have been caused
39 PhilSquares : Have you contacted the FBI or the IG at DOT? If what you're saying is true, then there is an issue of conspiracy that is a criminal offense. You shou
40 MarkEJFay : I did call the FBI in Miami, and talked to the Special Agent in Charge of 592. She was polite, but not encouraging. As Avt007 says, I do not have the
41 BR715-A1-30 : Thank you for your post Mark. It is sad to see what lies behind the iron curtain.
42 Avt007 : Mark, I feel that you are taking too much on your own shoulders here. You make it sound like you actively tried to cover up the situation. But contac
43 MarkEJFay : [quote=Avt007,reply=42]Mark, I feel that you are taking too much on your own shoulders here. You make it sound like you actively tried to cover up the
44 ZTagged : Well, if the bureaucrats pull their heads out of their asses, there could be a re-investigation.. You might have just opened Pandora's Box on Boeing.
45 MarkEJFay : You're much too young to understand how our government really works (no offense intended). Bureaucrats are doing what bureaucrats do. There was a rep
46 DefAeroSales : With all due respect Mark, in my experience a statement, and belief, such as this is almost always inaccurate. Assuming that you, among all the peopl
47 NIKV69 : This is actually pretty true. If you remember the NTSB deals in probable cause and always stops short of saying that something in itself caused an ai
48 MarkEJFay : NOTE, since there were numerous points to address, I copied the entire reply #46. To identify my replies, I have added a @ at the beginning of each re
49 DefAeroSales : Well, I guess we differ on what is shown by the NTSB here, and I'd recommend that anyone who is interested in this event and the ensuing investigatio
50 MarkEJFay : I just spent several hours replying to this post. While spell checking, and clicking on a word, the page reloaded, deleting all that I had written. I
51 Post contains images DefAeroSales : It can be an extremely frustrating medium, I agree completely!   Also, I forgot earlier to welcome you to the forum, and thank you again for your th
52 Contrails : Who believes it was an electrical fire? What evidence do they have? Why would the NTSB blame the fire on the Oxygen generators if the cause was somet
53 Jetdeltamsy : I belive that on those old DC9's, the "fire supression" system for the holds was creating a sealed cabin that would rapidly become depleted of oxygen
54 BR715-A1-30 : Back in 1997, there were actually quite a few conspiracies. No offense man, but your post sounds like you're covering up something. MANY people belie
55 Tdscanuck : And there goes your credibility on accident investigations. I don't want to drag this thread off the rails so we don't need to restart TWA800. Suffic
56 Jetdeltamsy : You've got that right.
57 NIKV69 : Exactly, the NTSB's reports have to be taken with a grain of salt. It was also really interesting how the CIA took over that investigation when they
58 Post contains images ZTagged : None taken! You just underestimate me. At any rate, it's a shame to hear that again, the media would rather listen to money than the truth..
59 MarkEJFay : My estimation is based on your age, as stated in your profile, and the fact that at my ripe old age, after a lifetime in this highly regulated indust
60 Tdscanuck : If you really want to rehash this partciular part of the TWA800 investigation, I suggest you start a new threat (which I'll be happy to participate i
61 Contrails : I figured this would come up eventually. TWA 800 has nothing to do with ValuJet 592. If anyone presents credible evidence of a conspiracy with the Va
62 NIKV69 : Your right, I just wanted to respond to your claim because it would lead people to believe there weren't any witnesses who said they saw a missle and
63 PanAm_DC10 : This thread has run it's course and is drifting away from the original topic of Valujet 592 and more toward the issue of TWA 800. At the request of th
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...
How Close Were Eastern 401, And Valujet 592 posted Mon Dec 30 2002 16:28:10 by BR715-A1-30
ValuJet 592 posted Fri Sep 24 1999 20:54:15 by Pilot1113
Valujet Flight 592 posted Thu Jan 31 2002 02:51:47 by Delta777-XXX
Did ValuJet 597 Improve THY Maintenance? posted Tue Dec 11 2007 15:06:42 by SirDeath
Virgin Blue Ignores Lessons Of ValuJet Tragedy! posted Thu Nov 29 2007 12:46:45 by Peh
9W Conspiracy To Sabotage AUS Cricket Team posted Mon Oct 15 2007 04:34:16 by Zeke
ValuJet Bus Service... Why Not Tried By FL? posted Wed Aug 29 2007 04:40:59 by SirDeath
"Dry Runs" Conspiracy And TSA Loophole posted Fri Jun 8 2007 17:18:46 by GateHold
J'Accuse! Conspiracy To Tank Dollar Unmasked! posted Tue Dec 5 2006 02:08:05 by Dougloid
Flashback: Valujet At PHL July, 1994 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 02:52:08 by Matt D