• 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

I will say one thing about Anders:despite being one of the most obvious Trolls I have ever seen,he knows how to push people's buttons at JREF to get a response.
 
fess said:
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.
Click to expand...


I've asked him the same question in two other threads. I predict that he'll ignore it, just as he has the previous two times. :rolleyes:
 
Anders Lindman said:
It seems that you start your line of reasoning with the idea that a coverup is impossible...
Click to expand...

No, that is not my argument. Do not attempt to rewrite my argument into one that's easier for you to answer.

...instead of checking if the official claim really holds when scrutinized closer.
Click to expand...

I have scrutinized the "official claim" and I am professionally competent to do so. I find it eminently more plausible than any of the hare-brained theories I've heard, including (and especially) yours.

You may attempt all you wish to characterize your critics as uninterested sheep, but the fact remains that you don't know what you're talking about, and your frantic efforts to Google up enough to seem otherwise have, on this particular point, soundly backfired on you.

It could...
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in your uninformed fantasies.

If an electric spark could cause the explosion, so could a tiny shaped charge.
Click to expand...

No, that is not a valid engineering comparison. Further, your own source ruled out a shaped charge. Your attempt to skirt around that by postulating some magical form of a shaped charge is pure fantasy. Perhaps you should read your sources more carefully.

And how the experts could rule that out smacks of a coverup.
Click to expand...

You are not a relevant expert, so your opinion on whether their findings have a defensible rationale is not probative. You are simply trying harder to backpedal away from a source that turned out to say exactly the opposite of what you'd first believed.

I hope you at least consider the possibility that there can have been a coverup.
Click to expand...

Do not attempt to lower the standard of proof. I will consider any alternative for which you are able to provide actual proof. But your offerings are simply free-form fantasies with no connection to the real world, often by your own admission. You don't get to beg the question that your wild tall tales are immediately as credible on their face as meticulously tested and arrived at findings. Your self-admitted reputation as a troll works against you here.
 
abaddon said:
You don't know what a shaped charge is or it's purpose, do you?
Click to expand...

I think it's hilarious that he simply proposes a "small and weak" shaped charge. One doesn't use a shaped charge where a weak explosion is desired. Further, the smaller the charge, the lesser like the observed damage the result would be.

As I observed and predicted, Lindman is just throwing around concepts he doesn't understand at all, hoping the handwaving will seem like a rational argument instead of uninformed wishful thinking.
 
Bit odd, isn't it, to have a thread more than a year old discussing a "new" film which didn't exactly rock the nation...:rolleyes:
 
JayUtah said:
You are not competent to determine that. You're arguing with your own source, so please let me know when you're finished.
Click to expand...

Both the first source and the second source support the idea of a shaped charge as being the cause of the explosion, since the reasons for ruling it out are weak and vague. Ask an expert if you don't believe me.

Do you expect me to find sources that admit that it's a coverup?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Both the first source and the second source support the idea of a shaped charge as being the cause of the explosion...
Click to expand...

No, they consider it, test it empirically, and upon the strength of that test they reject it. There is no ambiguity on those points.

...since the reasons for ruling it out are weak and vague.
Click to expand...

No, that's your personal opinion, which is not qualified or suitably informed. As I said, your source ended up saying something you didn't realize it said, and now you're frantically trying to disqualify only that portion of the source while retaining, somehow, the notion that a "shaped charge" is a plausible explanation. Hair-splitting your own sources simply reveals the shallowness of your knowledge and research.

Ask an expert if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you, for the reasons given (lack of foundation). If you want your beliefs established as fact, you have the burden to prove them. If you believe there exists expert testimony to support your belief, it is your responsibility to locate it, qualify it, present it, and defend it. Do not shift the burden of proof.

Do you expect me to find sources that admit that it's a coverup?
Click to expand...

If you contend that there was a coverup, you have the burden to prove there was one. Simply fantasizing about it is not proof. If you believe it would be difficult to prove a coverup, that's not my problem.
 
JayUtah said:
No, they consider it, test it empirically, and upon the strength of that test they reject it.
Click to expand...

So you see that they at least considered the possibility. You started by claiming that I did just throw out a random demolition term. And then you moved the goal post even further by claiming I'm no expert.
 
Anders Lindman said:
So you see that they at least considered the possibility.
Click to expand...

I never claimed otherwise.

You started by claiming that I did just throw out a random demolition term.
Click to expand...

What your sources did and what you did are not the same thing. Your sources conducted a proper experiment to test the possibility. You just threw it out as a buzzword whose properties you don't understand. The ensuing discussion has demonstrated your lack of understanding.

And then you moved the goal post even further by claiming I'm no expert.
Click to expand...

In attempting to salvage your source you have made assertions that have probative value only when they come from an expert. You have even suggested I should go consult external experts, thus admitting that you recognize expertise is necessary to answer these questions. When you offer judgment and opinion that are probative only from an expert, you make it pertinent to question the foundation of those opinions and judgments. Thus it is not "moving the goal" to question expertise you allude to, but do not possess.
 
JayUtah said:
No. Vague references to "disagreement" do not support your affirmative contention of a shaped charge. This is my profession, Lindman -- do not try to bluff past me.
Click to expand...

Of course not. The just briefly mentioned it, and didn't give much details about what the disagreement was about other than that it was related to the "splatter material" they discussed earlier.

Yet, that was the only disagreement of some kind in the reports or something like that. I guess someone wanted to cover their coverup. :D
 
Anders Lindman said:
So you see that they at least considered the possibility.
Click to expand...
And dismissed it.

Anders Lindman said:
You started by claiming that I did just throw out a random demolition term.
Click to expand...
Well, you did. You heard the term "shaped charge" and threw it around willy nilly hoping nobody would notice that it was nothing more than a buzz word that you did not understand and it wouldn't be noticed that you are simply making things up out of whole cloth.

Anders Lindman said:
And then you moved the goal post even further by claiming I'm no expert.
Click to expand...
Anders, you claimed you were no expert in such matters. Every time you are caught out, you bluster that you are no expert. As if that somehow excuses your easily disproven ideas.
 
Whoa. I found interesting information. Not any direct proof but anyway. The jet fuel vapor had to be warm enough to be flammable. And since the explosion happened only 12 minutes after takeoff, the center wing fuel tank had to be "cooked" before takeoff. And that's what happened. The tank was exposed to heat from air condition units for nearly 3 hours just before the plane took off.
 
JayUtah said:
Posting non-controversial facts does not dilute the more ludicrous claims you've made. I take it by this ham-fisted attempt at diversion that you've abandoned any semblance of the intent to prove a "shaped charge" was employed, or that a coverup ensued.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. It supports the deliberate detonation. Brushing it off as coincidences is an insufficient excuse. They needed to warm up the fuel vapor to ensure that it was flammable. And they needed to detonate it quickly after takeoff since as they said in the video the fuel vapor gets cooled off during flight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom