TWA Flight 800 Crash - Revisited : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread


In one of your posts under Jim Cooke's previous MD-80 stabilizer probs, you make the following statement.

"You might even get half credit for believing Colonel what's-his-face who pops up after every crash to claim it was shot down by a terrorist missile."

I most certainly don't know about this Colonel making such claims after any crash other than Flt. 800. Having read the letter he allegedly sent to the heads of TWA and Boeing after his research into the incident, I thought he made some compelling points.

Is your point that this Colonel is just another "nut" making unsubstantiated claims or is there information available that can effectively refute his claims? BTW, wasn't this the incident and explanation of it that caused Pierre Salinger to also be labeled a "loony?"

I'm a relative newbie to the TB2K forum and I've got to believe this was discussed at length on other threads, although I can't seem to find any. I'd be very interested in facts and opinions related to why Colonel "whats-his-face's" research should be dismissed out of hand, as you seem to do.


-- Jimmy Splinters (, March 06, 2000


Since you're re-introducing the airline topic, Jimmy, I thought I'd take the opportunity to post the link which Malcolm referenced on the old forum: NTSB - Air Accidents by Month

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 06, 2000.

This is not an official aircraft post until aviation expert Hawk comes in and pinches out a new theory.

-- CJS (, March 06, 2000.

So, what, does Flint have a real job or something? Cause I'd hate to think he doesn't bother answering my question just cause I'm a newbie.

I'm just doin' my part to get a serious discussion going and I think this is a good issue to debate.

Maybe I shoulda addressed it directly to him in the thread header.


-- Jimmy Splinters (, March 06, 2000.


Yes, I have a real job. Sometimes I have time to read some threads, but my net access at work is read-only, so I can't respond during the day. But this gives me the chance to think about what I have to say, and sometimes I take advantage of it (I think)...

Anyway, you get half credit for Colonel what's-his-face [grin].

I certainly don't have any facts other than what I read (not all of which are facts, of course). I haven't ever been part of a crash investigation. I CAN see that when some spectacular mishap like a plane crash happens, everyone looks for an explanation.

Now, what's interesting is that psychologists look for human error, engineers look for structural failures, military people (like what's- his-face) look for enemy activity, and y2k-nutballs look for nonexistent date errors in nonexistent code running on nonexistent computers.

And lo, they ALL see what they are looking for! Some of the theories (like Hawk's) can be discarded as arrant nonsense, but others (like what's-his-face) not so easily. Granted, the "shot down" theory rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, except for some highly dubious eyewitness testimony. (Footnote: I don't trust eyewitness testimony, because people DO see what they want to see. People are LOUSY observers.) But you can (and he did) build a plausible case for this, and plausible reasons why such an incident would have been suppressed, at least for public consuption. How would I know?

And I accept that I will NEVER know what *really* caused most crashes, especially since multiple factors are often involved. I can only hope that those who do find out (whether they tell me or not) have learned something useful, and hopefully can prevent a recurrance. I have no desire to participate in a plane crash.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make wasn't that what's-his-face was wrong, but that it's obviously possible to build a case for *anything* if you make enough assumptions and don't need to support your assertions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just assumptions based on surrounding circumstances, *especially* if that leads you to believe what you believed before you started. Very suspicious, know what I mean?

-- Flint (, March 06, 2000.


Thanks for the response, your point re: eyewitless (sp) reports is well taken. I remember that I happened to be watching TeeVee when that crash occurred and recall that in the whirlwind of news coverage immedaitely following, there were several mentions of eyewitnesses reporting that they'd seen a "missile". I kinda wrote it off at the time thinking that since the plane was down so far offshore that none of the newsies could (or were allowed) to get to it, they were browbeating the existing witnesses onshore for anything they could report.

And then Pierre Salinger jumped on that bandwagon and seemingly just as quickly was denounced as a nut.

I then forgot about the incident until about a month ago when I read a copy of the Colonel's letter. What struck me was the fact that a career military man would stake his career and reputation on something he knew, or at least believed, to be the "real" truth. That just doesn't happen everyday. I mean, these are the guys who invented CYA!

If his version is true, and I am not yet in a position to make that call, and frankly may never be, then what other potential disasters are in the making that our .gov also knows about?

It gives this dyed-in-the-wool doomer pause. Not TEOTWAWKI, but enough to keep some basic preps on hand. And the nice thing about a tinfoil hat, it matches just about everything.


-- Jimmy Splinters (, March 06, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ