• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

Anders Lindman said:
I wonder how you will defend your position when it turns out that I were correct.
Click to expand...

I wonder when and how you will finally undertake to prove your claims correct. As it stands, you are wishing for the impossible and postulating some alternate reality where you're somehow right about it. I won't be part of some fantasy in which you thwart all your critics and obtain some imaginary vindication.

No fringe reset. Your claim was previously made, previously answered, and the historical facts have not changed in the meantime.
 
It's not that I reject all mainstream evidence related to TWA 800. The reconstruction of the wreckage was a monumental job. And the reconstructed plane is even used for education purposes iirc.

That also means that the missile conspiracy theories likely are false. And the official story about an electric spark I strongly doubt too. This leaves a shaped charge as the cause of the explosion in my mind.

As for the plane taking off without any people on board, that could have been tricky yet doable perhaps.

What if there were real victims? Then my conspiracy theory is falsified.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Impossible? Surely not with manipulation of the plane. Even remote control of the cockpit would have been a possibility. And radio traffic from another location pretending to be the pilots.
Click to expand...
Cool story you have there, science fiction at its best. Could you offer some sort of explanation as to how this took place?

Anders Lindman said:
No rocket science needed.
Click to expand...
No, rocket science isn’t needed. However, a grade school level of knowledge in aeronautics might help.
 
fess said:
Cool story you have there, science fiction at its best. Could you offer some sort of explanation as to how this took place?
Click to expand...

The crew and the passengers never entered the plane. And then the plane took off with some kind of remote control perhaps. Radio communication was done from another location nearby, with the real crew pretending to be inside the plane.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The crew and the passengers never entered the plane. And then the plane took off with some kind of remote control perhaps. Radio communication was done from another location nearby, with the real crew pretending to be inside the plane.
Click to expand...

You don't believe any of this. Why not admit it?
 
Craig4 said:
You don't believe any of this. Why not admit it?
Click to expand...

More believable than an electric spark and victims' bodies having the same DNA because their flesh had been fused because the explosion was so strong, as one of the experts claimed.
 
Anders Lindman said:
What if there were real victims? Then my conspiracy theory is falsified.
Click to expand...

Why not plan your next vacation to a beautiful small town in Pennsylvania called Montoursville. I’m sure they could enlighten you about victims. Or possibly do you bodily harm.
 
Anders Lindman said:
And the official story about an electric spark I strongly doubt too.
Click to expand...

Those of us in the industry aren't skeptical or suspicious at all about it. Based on your history of argumentation, I doubt you have any defensible rationale for disputing the investigative findings.

This leaves a shaped charge as the cause of the explosion in my mind.
Click to expand...

No. Throwing out a random demolition term whose effects and limitations you don't understand is not an argument. Proposing to establish it via elimination (i.e., "This leaves...") is unsupportable and irrational.

As for the plane taking off without any people on board, that could have been tricky yet doable perhaps.
Click to expand...

No. Asked and answered. No fringe reset, Lindman.

What if there were real victims? Then my conspiracy theory is falsified.
Click to expand...

You give no reason for doubting there were real victims. It's all just a fantasy for you.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The crew and the passengers never entered the plane. And then the plane took off with some kind of remote control perhaps. Radio communication was done from another location nearby, with the real crew pretending to be inside the plane.
Click to expand...

Pure fantasy -- and impossible. Proposed, asked, and answered long ago. No fringe reset, Lindman.
 
JayUtah said:
No. Throwing out a random demolition term whose effects and limitations you don't understand is not an argument.
Click to expand...

"In July, FBI agents, assisted by British explosives experts who investigated the 1988 sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, explored what might be called the "vanishing bomb" theory: that although no suspicious trace of explosives was found on the wreckage of Flight 800, a small but powerful "shaped charge" might have been used to detonate an explosion in one of the plane’s fuel tanks." -- http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/Aircraft_Wire/headonclash.html
 
JayUtah said:
Why did your quote leave out the part where that hypothesis was tested and rejected because it didn't match the evidence?

As I said, you're just throwing out terms whose effects and limitations you do not understand. That's not an argument.
Click to expand...

And your reason for ruling out a shaped charge is...?
 
JayUtah said:
The source you cited rules it out.
Click to expand...

"In a second junked 747 fuselage, this one parked on a military base north of London, five "shaped charges" were detonated to see if they produced tell-tale similarities. They did not." -- http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/Aircraft_Wire/headonclash.html

And you accept that as being enough to rule out a shaped charge as cause of the explosion? In what way would a "small but powerful" shaped charge cause a different explosion than an electric spark?
 
Anders Lindman said:
And you accept...
Click to expand...

You raised the hypothesis of a "shaped charge." When challenged, you produced a reference to others having raised, tested empirically, and rejected that hypothesis. I'm simply referring you to your own sources.

What appears to have happened is that you frantically Googled for "TWA 800 shaped charge" and posted the second link that appeared on the search page without actually reading what it said. Now you're frantically backpedaling and trying to put the onus on your critics.
 
JayUtah said:
You raised the hypothesis of a "shaped charge." When challenged, you produced a reference to others having raised, tested empirically, and rejected that hypothesis. I'm simply referring you to your own sources.

What appears to have happened is that you frantically Googled for "TWA 800 shaped charge" and posted the second link that appeared on the search page without actually reading what it said. Now you're frantically backpedaling and trying to put the onus on your critics.
Click to expand...

It seems that you start your line of reasoning with the idea that a coverup is impossible instead of checking if the official claim really holds when scrutinized closer.

It could even have been a "small and weak" shaped charge. If an electric spark could cause the explosion, so could a tiny shaped charge. And how the experts could rule that out smacks of a coverup.

I hope you at least consider the possibility that there can have been a coverup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom