SESGDL
Topic Author
Posts: 2621
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:49 am

I was looking at a documentary on TWA Flight 800 a few weeks ago and noticed that when the aircraft was put back together it had the 9 windows like most 747-200s have on the upper deck. But looking at pictures of the aircraft on airliners.net, even a picture taken one month before the crash, the aircraft has the standard 3 windows that the 747-100 typically has. Was N93119 the aircraft that crashed, and did it have a modification just before the crash? I'm totally confused. Here's some pics to compare:

N93119 just one month before the crash:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ken Rose



Pic of N93119 after the crash:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Academy/Graphics/TWA800.jpg

Jeremy
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 710
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:59 am

This is a very good observation. Very puzzling indeed.
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
RetRes
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:37 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:03 am

Coincidentally I just posed the same question on another thread. Perhaps we'll get some answers. Interesting!!
Great pictures by the way.
 
UAL4ever
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:04 am

I have heard this problem brought up before. When TWA first recieved 747s they were delivered with 3 windows on the upper deck. Later in the production of 747-100s Boeing began installing 9 upper deck windows in the 747-100s. When TWA was ready to recieve more 747-100s they wanted to have commonality throughout their fleet. To that end Boeing filled in most of the windows and just left the 3 windows. When the plane crash occured the 6 fillings were blown out.
 
oldeuropean
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 5:19 pm

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:08 am

Wow, you really detected something strange. I don`t think that the aircraft could have been modificated.

Is this (N93119 in the a.net database) is really the aircraft of flight 800?
If yes, this could be a big uplift for the conspiracy theory, that the aircraft was shot down by a Navy rocket.

I´m curious to read other comments about your finding.

Axel
Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
 
oldeuropean
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 5:19 pm

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:19 am

Quoting UAL4ever (Reply 3):
When TWA was ready to recieve more 747-100s they wanted to have commonality throughout their fleet. To that end Boeing filled in most of the windows and just left the 3 windows. When the plane crash occured the 6 fillings were blown out.

This could be an explanation. But wasn`t it a disadvantage to use it only with 6 windows if could have had 18? And this only for the outer commonality?

Axel

Edit: I found another photo of the reconstructed aircraft from the other side:
http://www.letadla.info/disaster/twa800.php
Here you can see less than 9 windows. So the explanation of UAL4ever could be possible.

[Edited 2006-07-28 22:26:23]
Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
 
SESGDL
Topic Author
Posts: 2621
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:20 am

Quoting UAL4ever (Reply 3):
I have heard this problem brought up before. When TWA first recieved 747s they were delivered with 3 windows on the upper deck. Later in the production of 747-100s Boeing began installing 9 upper deck windows in the 747-100s. When TWA was ready to recieve more 747-100s they wanted to have commonality throughout their fleet. To that end Boeing filled in most of the windows and just left the 3 windows. When the plane crash occured the 6 fillings were blown out.

Huh? I don't think so. On the picture after the crash you can still see some filled in windows. All of them would've been blown out if that were the case. There's also a picture of the other side of the aircraft:

http://www.cheniere.org/images/twa800.jpg

I don't recall seeing any 747 with that window configuration.

Jeremy
 
oldeuropean
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 5:19 pm

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:29 am

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 6):
On the picture after the crash you can still see some filled in windows. All of them would've been blown out if that were the case. There's also a picture of the other side of the aircraft:

If the windows were filled, it is possible that some, but not all fillings were blown out.

Axel

Edit: And UAL4ever is right. There are B747-100 with 3 and others with more windows in the database.

[Edited 2006-07-28 22:32:05]
Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
 
SESGDL
Topic Author
Posts: 2621
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:29 am

This picture here clearly shows that there were only 3 windows on TWA's 747-100s, you can see no window outlines where they may have been filled in:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Chambers



Could Flt. 800 have been a 747-200?

Jeremy
 
SESGDL
Topic Author
Posts: 2621
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:35 am

Quoting MSPCRJ200 (Reply 9):
Nothing of a mystery here since TWA800 was shot down by a Navy missile everything else is just BS.

I didn't think that at first, but the more I think about things I think it was shot down.

Jeremy
 
oldeuropean
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 5:19 pm

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:40 am

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 8):
This picture here clearly shows that there were only 3 windows on TWA's 747-100s, you can see no window outlines where they may have been filled in:

But this is not N93119 and the cn (#19957. N93119 was #20083) shows, that it is an older aircraft.

Axel

[Edited 2006-07-28 22:42:09]
Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
 
SESGDL
Topic Author
Posts: 2621
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:46 am

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 11):
But this is not N93119 and the cn (#19957. N93119 was #20083) shows, that it is an older aircraft.

Correct, but why would N93119 be the only TW 747 to have windows added just to have them filled in? It doesn't make sense. Also, look at this pic from a propaganda site about TWA 800. It seems to display that the forward section of the aircraft (which disconnected in the crash) seems to clearly not be the same aircraft as the aft section. This indicates that another TWA 747 (with additional upper deck windows) was broken up and used to substantiate the claim that a fuel tank exploded causing the crash.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/cn16123_det.gif

Jeremy
 
RetRes
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:37 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:57 am

So say 'they' attached a different forward section to the rear section, wouldn't they get the windows rights. It's so obvious. And where is the real forward section with the big missile hole in it? Why has this not come up before? Try to google it, it's not mentioned.
 
oldeuropean
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 5:19 pm

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:00 am

Quoting RetRes (Reply 13):
And where is the real forward section with the big missile hole in it?

Down in the Atlantic Ocean?

Axel
Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
 
SESGDL
Topic Author
Posts: 2621
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:02 am

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 14):
Down in the Atlantic Ocean?

That's what I would assume. There's too many things that don't add up with this crash. I think it's almost certain that the plane was shot down.

Jeremy
 
oldeuropean
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 5:19 pm

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:12 am

Beside of beeing shot down, there is just another theory:

Here in Germany I saw some reports in TV about a weakness in the construction of the fuselage of the 747 right after the hump. The transition from the oval to the circular cross section. Just there, were N93119 should have been broken through, after the explosion.

Perhaps they used the forward section of another aircraft to dissemble these general problems with the 747. A pleaded cause, of a explosion caused by wires in the fuel tank, could have been better “solved” than a general problem with a weakness of the fuselage, which also raises doubts in the construction of the 747, an aircraft with a hump, in total. Also in the face of the streched hump of the 747-300 and-400.

Axel

[Edited 2006-07-28 23:19:23]

[Edited 2006-07-28 23:28:43]

[Edited 2006-07-28 23:29:29]
Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
 
phatty3374
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:12 am

Hey guys,

That window observation's awesome, but it does look as if on one side they were blown out, and on the other, most, but not all of them were blown out.

I frankly, am very skeptical when reading conspiracy theories especially after people began to claim that AA77 didn't really hit the Pentagon, or that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-set explosives. That being said, the 'Ed Zehr's Analysis' part of this link definitely plants the seed of doubt into my mind about whether TWA800 was an accident or not.

I know that 'whatreallyhappened.com' is renowned for being somewhat outrageous, but this specific document is really pretty interesting, and if it's true, could hold some truth. I think it's always better to be able to choose what you think is more valid from two different accounts!


Regards,

Tom
 
steve6666
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:08 am

Of all the recent 800 threads this has to be the stupidest.

This topic has been done to death periodically over the last however long, and basically the crash DID blow the additional holes in the upper deck. (Effects of explosive decompression anyone?).

N93119 definitely was the crash aircraft, and it definitely was a 747-100.

And for the love of God, I would bet my mortgage and my mother's life that the nose section of "the real" TWA747 is not sitting in the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island for the last 10 years.
A306, A318, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A346, A388, B722, B732, B733, B734, B735, B73G, B738, B742, B744, B752, B753, B762, B763, B764, B772, B773, B77W, B787-8, BAe-146, Cessna Something, DC-10, E175, E195, ERJ145, MD-11, MD-80, PA Something
 
philhyde
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:29 am

I've seen this topic discussed before. If you search around, you'll find pictures that confirm the "extra" windows were plugged. In fact, I believe the accident pictures of port side show one or two plugged.

Big version: Width: 369 Height: 295 File size: 125kb
twa 800 port side 1


[Edited 2006-07-29 02:49:36]
Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
 
User avatar
jetpixx
Posts: 839
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 3:22 pm

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:23 pm


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Propfreak

If you look at a similar photo in the database of the same aircraft with a more closer view of the upper deck, you can make out what appears to be a blocked in window in front of the first open window. The quality of the photo is not that great, but it makes UAL's claim above make plenty of sense.
 
L1011Lover
Posts: 736
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:16 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:22 pm

Quoting Jetpixx (Reply 20):
The quality of the photo is not that great, but it makes UAL's claim above make plenty of sense.

It´s not only making sense, it´s a fact!

N93119 had 6 of the 9 windows plugged on each side! When the aircraft hit the ocean surface the fillings of the windows were blown out. The fuselage hit the water with the right front side for that reason all fillings were blown out there, while some remained in place on the left front of the fuselage!

This question was brought up in the magazine "airliners" a while ago and I´ve seen a picture were you can clearly see the 9 original windows with 6 of them being plugged!

So please put all those theories where they belong... in the trash!!!

Best regards

L1011Lover
 
philhyde
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:49 am

Quoting L1011Lover (Reply 21):
N93119 had 6 of the 9 windows plugged on each side! When the aircraft hit the ocean surface the fillings of the windows were blown out. The fuselage hit the water with the right front side for that reason all fillings were blown out there, while some remained in place on the left front of the fuselage!

It's 7 of 10. You can see in the picture linked above that there is still one on the starboard side.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Academy/Graphics/TWA800.jpg

Quoting L1011Lover (Reply 21):
This question was brought up in the magazine "airliners" a while ago and I´ve seen a picture were you can clearly see the 9 original windows with 6 of them being plugged!

Just out of curiosity, do you recall which issue?
Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
 
lincoln
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:22 pm

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:12 pm

Quoting Philhyde (Reply 22):
It's 7 of 10. You can see in the picture linked above that there is still one on the starboard side.

For anyone who can't see it, it's just forward of the "blown out" windows.

In these pictures -- it takes some looking, but I promise it's there, you can make out the outline of a plug aft of the 3rd window (above the second valley in the W)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © A J Best
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anders Nilsson



For anyone who thinks that it's implausable that the plugs may have been blown out as part of the crash, I would ask where is the glass from the remaining windows?

Lincoln
CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
 
SESGDL
Topic Author
Posts: 2621
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:41 pm

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 23):
For anyone who can't see it, it's just forward of the "blown out" windows.

In these pictures -- it takes some looking, but I promise it's there, you can make out the outline of a plug aft of the 3rd window (above the second valley in the W)

In the second pic I do see the plugs. Thanks for showing that.

The crash is still awfully suspicious however it is looked at. At least the theory that it's not a 747-100 can be put to rest. There is still no registration of the aircraft though.

Jeremy
 
sparkingwave
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:01 pm

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:23 am

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 24):
The crash is still awfully suspicious however it is looked at.

This is because the cause of the crash is still not exactly fully understood. No one knows for sure what caused the spark that ignited the fuel vapors in the 747 fuel tank.

However it is looked at, there is more proof that the crash was caused by ignited fuel vapors than in any other theory, whatever it may be.

Eyewitness testimony has been proven unreliable by scientists and psychologists. And conspiracy theories? Well, there's no proof. If they were true, why aren't more planes shot down over Long Island?

SparkingWave ~~~
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
 
Cadet57
Posts: 7174
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:02 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:49 am

Quoting MSPCRJ200 (Reply 9):

here we go again..   

Quoting Dc10s4ever (Reply 26):

Oh for the love of friggin god. Shut the heck up.... Take off the reynolds wrap, put down the kool aid and shut up.


And with that, im suggesting deletion of flamitory crap that this thread has taken....

[Edited 2006-07-30 18:52:23]
Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
 
B6FAN
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:45 am

RE: Flight 800 Dilemma?

Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:18 am

**Taken off of wikipedia***





Missile strike (friendly fire)
One theory has the US Navy conducting tests of submarine-to-air missiles, accidentally hitting Flight 800, and then covering up the fatal error. After initial denials, the U.S. Navy later admitted that USS Wyoming (SSBN-742), listed as being armed with 24 Trident II D-5 Ballistic Missiles, commissioned only days before, was conducting sea trials in the area, and that USS Trepang (SSN-674) and USS Albuquerque (SSN-706) were conducting unspecified operations in the area. The Wyoming is indicated to be carrying Trident missiles, but these are ICBMs, not SAMs. Possibly one or more could have been carrying MANPADS missiles; however all three were more than 50 miles (80 km) away from the crash site {{citation needed}}, far outside the range of any MANPADS missile. Granting these facts, alternate theories have suggested that the type of missile used to strike the plane may be classified secret.

Another possible alternate theory involving the US Navy is that a missile was fired from the USS Normandy (CG-60), operating 185 nautical miles (340 km) south of the TWA 800 crash site. This is well outside of the range of currently deployed Standard missiles carried by US ships, almost double the range of the current SM-2 Block IIIB versions, and just within the future Block IV ER versions. Even if this were a test of a Block IV version, although there is no evidence for this, at the extreme range in question the engine would have long burned out and the warhead would be gliding. This contradicts the main claim that a missile was involved, which is a number of eyewitness accounts claiming to have seen a missile trail almost vertical under the explosion site. Furthermore, inventories of USS Normandy's missile complement by the US Navy, immediately following the crash of TWA 800, showed no missiles missing from the inventory.

Regardless of the possibility of any number of missiles and missile launch platforms being in the vicinity of TWA 800 at the time of the accident, no evidence of a missile impact exists within the recovered wreckage according to a study conducted by the Department of Defense's Office of Special Technology.

Nevertheless, evidence such as the following affidavit, dated January 2, 2003, is being listed as one of the articles of evidence in recent FOIA suits pressed by Captain Ray Lahr against the National Transportation Safety Board: in the continuing assertion that TWA 800 was downed by a missile. The affidavit filed in Lahr's suit is by a retired United Airlines pilot, Captain Richard Russell, who viewed radar tapes and took part in phone conversations which convinced him that Flight 800 was a victim of friendly fire, and subsequently wrote an affidavit to this effect.

Pierre Salinger, a former White House press secretary to President John F. Kennedy, US Senator, and ABC News journalist, prominently and repeatedly claimed he had proof that the flight was downed by a missile from a U.S. Navy ship. The document on which his "proof" was based was given to him by someone in French Intelligence. It was later found not to be a government document but instead an email written by retired United Airlines pilot Richard Russell that had been distributed over Usenet weeks before. Some people coined a condition called Pierre Salinger Syndrome to denote the tendency to believe anything one reads on the Internet .


I believe it's true.
JetBlue Airways...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos