bigphilnyc
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2002 10:43 pm

TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:28 pm

I know this fligth gets talked about a lot, and I'm sure this specificalyl has come up, but it's tough to find in those long threads. I just got confuded about something.

I was looking through NTSB reports and saw a photo of the ieced-together wreckage of the plane in the hangar:



The windows on the upper level don't look like anything consistant with that of the 747-100 that supposedly crashed, which as you can see here only had three upper deck windows.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Ken Rose
View Large View Medium

Photo © John Allan



It isn't even consistant with ths frame, which is from a video of the recovery. It clearly looks like it's a completely different piece.



I'm not trying to accuse or anything. Just something I found on my own and I am curious as to the reason of it. Can anyone explain?

-Phil

[Edited 2004-12-06 10:35:08]
Phil Derner Jr.
 
JuniorSpotter
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:38 pm

Hey...what the heck is that? Multiple upper deck windows in the hangar, but only three at the crash-site(?)...? Freaky...

Cheers!
Danny

[Edited 2004-12-06 10:40:29]
If something can go wrong, it will.
 
bill142
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:01 pm

thats very odd.. there has to be a logical explanation for it. Unless of course the NTSB built a fake.
 
zonky
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:31 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:13 pm

It was covered on airliners.net a few days ago. Some later model -100's did have full upper windows. Try a search.
 
emrecan
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2000 7:20 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:17 pm

Never believe American goverment..
They are all lying. It is really bad but they are hiding some realities from the people.
You are totally true Phil.
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4458
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:23 pm

Zonky, maybe you should pay closer attention to a thread before posting something like that. While it may be true that some -100s had the full upper deck windows, the 747 that supposedly crashed apparently only had the three windows on the upper deck. Bigphilnyc even included a picture taken from the recovery that shows a piece of the upper deck that apparently only has three windows. Yet, in the NTSB's reconstruction of the aircraft, there appears to be a full upper deck.

Very interesting indeed. I wonder why that is?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
zonky
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:31 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:38 pm

As i said, the reasons why were covered in a recent thread. Is it so complex to use the search facility before another thread of recently discussed material?
 
DTWINTLFLYER
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 11:24 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:41 pm

If you look on the airdisaster.com, you will see the picture of the mock up from the other side. It would appear that the piece with three windows is on the Captains side of the aircraft (left side). This would verify this photo of the wreckage being pulled out. It has three windows. Now, I am not sure and I would still think it is odd, but maybe the left side only had three windows and the right side had the multiple windows as seen in the mock up from the right side. Anyone have any photos of the a/c in question from the left and right side?

Odd also, it does appear on that website with the photo that there are actually two windows above and just in front of the W. The one in front does not appear in the photo of the wreckage being pulled out of the water? I don't know. Very odd. Let's not get back into all the bizarre stories of what did or didn't happen, but it does bring up interesting questions for analysis. Hopefully someone has photos that explain this, because I am sure there are somewhere.

And then again, maybe someone fixed the photos with a little photoshop?

[Edited 2004-12-06 11:48:49]



JUST Saw the link by zonky....enough said.

[Edited 2004-12-06 11:52:28]
 
 
TG992
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2001 12:03 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:44 pm

[covered by zonky's link]

[Edited 2004-12-06 11:47:04]
-
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:49 pm

Well spotted by BigPhilnyc, the plane that crashed was N93119, the model with only 3 upper deck windows. I really do not know how they ended up reconstructing the plane with more windows?  Confused
In Arsene we trust!!
 
SmithAir747
Posts: 1677
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:30 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:19 pm

The aircraft that flew TWA flight 800 that fateful night was a 747-131 that had all 10 window-holes made on both sides, then had all but 3 windows "plugged" to maintain the aircraft's commonality with its sisters (all 747-100s with 3 windows), some of which had only 3 window-holes and others with 10 window-holes (all but 3 plugged).

When 93119 exploded and went down in the Atlantic, its front end landed on the right side in the water. Upon its high-speed impact with the water, the plugs on the right side windows apparently popped out with the force of the impact, revealing all 10 window-holes on that side (while the opposite side retained its plugs).

That most likely explains the discrepancy regarding the upper-deck windows.
This would shoot down any conspiracy theories surrounding the upper-deck windows on the 747.

Hope this helps!

SmithAir747
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
 
JINX
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:25 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:26 pm

I agree with reply 12, side seen being recovered is port side, side shown in reconstruction is starboard side. Aircraft front section hit water starboard side down. It all makes sense once you have the facts.
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4458
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:02 pm

Zonky, allow me to quote the person who started this topic...

"I'm sure this specificalyl has come up, but it's tough to find in those long threads."

Although the answer to this person's question was answered in the previous topic you provided, it's kind of hidden somewhat deep in a discussion that is not specifically about TWA 800. It's possible Bigphilnyc did do a search and overlooked the answer to this flt. 800 question because it didn't immediately pop out and was buried in a discussion about something that Bigphilnyc may have known already. Depending on how someone does a search, or how thorough a job they do, it is possible their answers can go overlooked. I probably would have overlooked it...

Some topics come up a lot and it does get annoying to see the same questions posted over and over. But sometimes the fact there is a similar topic floating in the forums somewhere is not always so obvious. Cut the guy some slack.  Smile

Uhh anyway...I think the answer has been answered now...and I still think it's interesting haha.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
bigphilnyc
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2002 10:43 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:28 am

Thank you folks for the information.

To be honest, frmo all the Anet photos, the area where those plugged windows would be looks very smooth, I would think there'd be some telltale signs of there formerly being windows there.

But, I'll accept the answer I guess.

-Phil
Phil Derner Jr.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:12 am

Emrecan:

Most amusing of you.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:22 am

Bigphil,

I agree with you very much in that if the windows were originally there when new, and were simply plugged then surely you would seen the outline of the plugged windows. I searched through every single TWA 747-100 photo and not in one is there a sign of a plugged window. If the windows could "pop" out from impact then obviously you would see body panel outlines from the outside. What gives??? Im not tryin to say something is being setup here because we all know a TWA 747 did crash, but somethin just seems fishy in that reconstruction photo.
Here is an example picture that shows there are no "plugged" windows. Anyone have any input on this? save the photo to your desktop and zoom in for better detail.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Malc Southern

 
Flyinround731
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2000 4:47 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:40 am

The 747 that crashed in the 800 flight was built with 10 windows on each side and they were plugged on a 747-131 model. The reason the 747 you posted does not have plugs is because it was built with only 3 windows on each side as a 747-156 model.
-Joe
 
BIGBlack
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:16 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:08 am

For gods sakes people. You act like a coverup is easy to accomplish. The American goverment has American citizens working for it. American people talk... a lot. Especially to family and friends or when given compensation to tell the truth. When you are dealing with investigations that have a large amount of people working on them, I fail to believe you can simply tell people, "Look, weare going to stage this thing. Don't tell anyone okay?" I mean come the fuck on already. We don't believe what the American goverment tells us. That is why we have so many whistle blowers, private investigators, talk shows, and authors looking for the next big scandal to report about.
Someone special in the air
 
philhyde
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 2:16 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:39 am

I'm certainly no conspiracy theorist, but I am inclined to agree with TrnsWrld. If the window holes were plugged, wouldn't the side of the a/c appear to have them concealed like converted freighters do?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Danny Fritsche



Do any high-resolution photos of the sides exist?
Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:41 am

Sheesh. I bet you all believe in the alien autopsy and listen to Art Bell, don't you?
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
CLT18R
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:03 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:01 am

As I think was covered in the thread that was previously linked to, the "plugs" were put into place, and then new fuselage panels were placed over them...thus, no sign they were ever plugged. The windows still exist however. The holes are still there in the fuselage, they are just plugged up and covered smooth by new, thin, aluminum panels.
 
BIGBlack
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:16 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:49 am

The plugs on the IMPACT side came out, the ones on the other side did not. Think of how the impact would effect even a plugged hole that can't be seen easily by the naked eye. Hey, there was a time I believed a missle hit it also. But facts are facts. That is what the NTSB is for.
Someone special in the air
 
Oceanic
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:02 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:04 am

Think of how the impact would effect even a plugged hole that can't be seen easily by the naked eye

I see your point, but here is a question. Is it logical to think that EVERY plugged window on the right side of the plane popped out? If this was the case, wouldn't at least one of the windows stayed plugged?
 
MD11LuxuryLinr
Posts: 1311
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:34 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:38 am

~"Is it logical to think that EVERY plugged window on the right side of the plane popped out?"~

Why not? If the forces of the impact were greater than the plugs could withstand, why wouldn't they ALL blow out?

I know that the pics in the database of 93119 aren't the greatest, but I CAN see plugged windows in the upper deck of this one..


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anders Nilsson



Answered.
Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7798
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:56 am

In the a/c I have worked with that have plugs, they are only held in with 6 small metal clips. Pressurization and the gasket are what really keep them sealed. They are installed just as a window would be...and if you notice, the windows are blown out too....!!!! Also, this is NOT new news. This was well covered and mentioned during the investigation.

The photograph above that shows the fuselage section being pulled from the ocean is from the LEFT side of the aircraft....notice the lettering location compaired to the reconstruction picture. The nose section impacted the water on the RIGHT side, blowing out the windows and blanking plugs.

[Edited 2004-12-07 04:04:57]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
BIGBlack
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:16 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:04 pm

Well said MD11. I was going to say the same thing. Not to mention, I was also going to say, if they didn't all pop out, who is to say during reconstruction they didn't remove any that did not pop out. The basic point of the matter is it was not 3 people doing the reconstruction/investigation. It was a bunch of people. And a bunch of people are not going to all going sit there and agree to mock up a major search for answers.
Someone special in the air
 
philhyde
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 2:16 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:05 pm

MD11LuxuryLinr, thanks for posting the link. I do see the plugs in that a/c.
Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
 
Oceanic
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:02 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:30 pm

Here is a photo of the left side of the aircraft
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/tw800/1.jpg

The fragment not shown is also missing windows. I personally think the whole conspiracy thing is just a bunch of nonsense, but it is interesting none the less.

[Edited 2004-12-07 04:32:40]

[Edited 2004-12-07 04:38:52]
 
philhyde
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 2:16 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:06 pm

Here is the pic

Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
 
BIGBlack
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:16 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:30 pm

Well, like I said before, the plugs could have been removed while reconstructing the a/c. If it was indeed a massive conspiracy you would think they would have thought about that. It is pretty easy to notice.

[Edited 2004-12-07 05:31:14]
Someone special in the air
 
vigilante3
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:43 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:58 pm

Well, another anomaly: Note top picture and color of paint under the word "TRANS"; it's pure white, no soot. Then note sharp soot on paint just aft of the pristine white. That is soot caused when center fuel tank exploded. The problem? There is no soot on any parts of the forward part of the nose that is white yet a center tank explosion as initial event would have put soot everywhere. The explanation is the nose was off and clear before center tank exploded. WWW.corazon.com explains the plausible, reasonable mechanical explanation for United Airlines Flight 811: the shorted wiring/ruptured open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation. If your first reaction after understanding the explanation is to direct barbs at the messenger or to think conspiracies, those are clues you are on the wrong side of the argument. I am a pilot and there are no conspiracies, everyone is acting in their own best interests. My interest, as a sudden night fiery fatal jet airplane accident survivor, is to prevent it from ever happening to anyone else. www.corazon.com and don't be put off by the matching evidence of other controversial Boeing 747 accidents that left a sudden loud sound on the CVR followed by an abrupt power cut to the FDRs.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2802
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:31 pm

There is no soot on any parts of the forward part of the nose that is white yet a center tank explosion as initial event would have put soot everywhere.

Read the accident report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf

and the appendixes:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAR0003_App.pdf

Come back and tell me why you're incorrect. You're not understanding the sequence of the breakup properly.

Same goes for the rest of you conspiracy theorists, of which I can almost guarantee not one has read this report from start to finish. Do it, come back and then let's hear what questions you still have unanswered. Because every single one of these questions posted so far in this thread (and every other thread I've ever seen on TWA 800) is specifically answered in this report.

An entire appendix is dedicated to sooting pattern diagrams; it's very hard to miss. Kind of difficult to argue that this was either not noticed or glossed over by the NTSB. It's also talked about in the report itself (the appendixes obviously serve as supporting documents for the report's conclusions).

As for the window plugs, TWA's use of window plugs is well-known, and was well-known even before TWA 800. You can even see some of them still intact on the photo from the other side of the plane. There's no point questioning or disputing it; you may as well question whether TWA even had 747's at all, I mean that's about how much sense continuing to question it makes when others have already given the correct answer and even provided visual proof.

I don't mean to sound curt and while it's a legitimate question once, it's no longer a legitimate question once it's been answered. And as for this other junk that comes up in all these threads, just read the accident report and you'll have all your answers...
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
emrecan
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2000 7:20 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:46 pm

to N328KF:

The thing I`ve said are completely true. Unfortunately you`ve found me amusing!!!
Sorry but I cannot find anyrthying to say to you..
 
vigilante3
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:43 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Wed Dec 08, 2004 12:54 am

Dear Spececadet:

"If your first reaction after understanding the explanation is to direct barbs at the messenger or to think conspiracies, those are clues you are on the wrong side of the argument."

Here are the stages of human responses to a new idea:
1. No,
2. You're wrong,
3. You're crazy,
4. You go away,
5. I'm ignoring you,
6. I'll attack,
7. Questions, why, who, where, how much, when,
8. Action based on conclusions.

You do not use specific facts; I did and pointed to the white paint sharply next to sooted paint. I specifically said no conspiracies and you accuse conspiracy. You never ask questions to an obvious anomaly as was asked by others about the number of upper windows on Trans World Airlines Flight 800.

In other words, business as usual when confronted with contradictory facts to wishful thinking. So sad. So unnecessary. So tragic.

barry@corazon.com
 
MD11LuxuryLinr
Posts: 1311
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:34 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:54 am

~"Then note sharp soot on paint just aft of the pristine white. That is soot caused when center fuel tank exploded."~

~" The explanation is the nose was off and clear before center tank exploded."~

I disagree, radically. The soot was caused from the burning materials inside the cabin (after the CFT explosion) as the jet rocketed some 2000 feet upwards.. after the nose section came off and the center of gravity changed. Take a lit cigar or cigarette, hold it horizontal and start walking with it. See what happens?

~"There is no soot on any parts of the forward part of the nose that is white yet a center tank explosion as initial event would have put soot everywhere."~

Really? When was the last time you exploded the center tank of a 747 at 13,000 feet? I don't recall the airspeed of flight 800, but how far forward do you think 'soot' from an explosion would go, at say, 250 knots?
Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
 
BIGBlack
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:16 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:10 am

Thanks for posting those accident reports
Someone special in the air
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:38 am

Ahh yes the government covered this thing up perfectly .... I just have one question, why ???
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
 
Thrust
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:57 pm

I know this may seem a little off-topic, but what was the new flight number for TWA's JFK-CDG route that took the place of Flight 800? And just how soon after the crash did the B762ER replace the Boeing 747 on the route?
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
vigilante3
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:43 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:57 am

MD11> "The soot was caused from the burning materials inside the cabin (after the CFT explosion) as the jet rocketed some 2000 feet upwards.. after the nose section came off and the center of gravity changed."

Please permit some reality... when a heavily loaded 747 soon after takeoff loses its entire nose just forward of the wing...it does not climb a foot, a yard, or a third of a mile. It descends, then disintegrates into three main sections.

"but how far forward do you think 'soot' from an explosion would go, at say, 250 knots?"

Many feet at least, but the point is the sharpness of the soot line, only possible when nose is nowhere near the explosion. Also, I have reviewed the hundreds of items in the debris field and none has any soot forward of that sharp line.

The nose came off when the cargo door blew out a huge hole in it. A few seconds later the CWT exploded ignited by the detached and on fire number three engine.

To know Trans World Airlines Flight 800, one must first learn United Airlines Flight 811, the undisputed shorted wiring/ruptured open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup event.

"Thanks for posting those accident reports"

You're welcome.

DC 10>"Ahh yes the government covered this thing up perfectly .... I just have one question, why ???"

I repeat: No coverup, no conspiracy. Many times probable causes are wrong, check out United Airlines Flight 811: First it was a bomb, as the copilot told the tower, then it was improper latching believed for a year, finally it was electrical when cargo door retrieved. Investigators get it wrong sometimes. Most times they get it right.

Safety is everything and causes can always be discovered later and corrected. I'm trying to correct a current safety issue: Faulty Poly X wiring causing a design defective non plug cargo door to inadvertently open in flight.

This forum brought up the quick question of Trans World Airlines Flight 800; I am responding.

John Barry Smith
541 Country Club Drive
Carmel Valley, California 93924
831 659 3552
barry@corazon.com
http://www.corazon.com
 
BIGBlack
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:16 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:11 am

I have been reading the reports. That plane was pretty damn old wasn't it?
Someone special in the air
 
vigilante3
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:43 pm

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:05 pm

"I have been reading the reports. That plane was pretty damn old wasn't it?"

Yes.

Just like the others. It takes a while for that Poly X wiring to chafe, crack, and short.

Pattern recognition is what led me to the shorted wiring/ruptured open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for those Boeing 747 accidents. All hull losses were reviewed. Four showed up as having many evidence matches.

It's no coincidence that all were thought to be bombs, were/are controversial, and drove two airlines out of business.

Explosive decompression from a ruptured open cargo door in a 747 mimics a bomb or fuel tank explosion.

Well, it's never too late for safety; the danger is still out there but very rare.

The A 380 also has two large outward opening non plug cargo doors so the design flaw continues.

John Barry Smith
541 Country Club Drive
Carmel Valley, California 93924
831 659 3552
barry@corazon.com
http://www.corazon.com
 
ac7e7
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:27 am

RE: TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)

Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:42 pm

Never believe American goverment..
They are all lying. It is really bad but they are hiding some realities from the people.


Never believe the Turkish government either....