Overlap between TWA 800 & 9/11 theorists

proxywar said:
Don't forget the A/C beneath the nearly empty center fuel tank.:)
Click to expand...

Also, according to the accident report:

The airplane in question had a history of electrical problems, especially with wiring associated with the fuel system.

The cockpit voice recorder recorded one the flight crew remarking on 'crazy' readings on the fuel flow gauges a few minutes before the explosion.

The cockpit voice recorder in the last seconds before the explosion recorded intermittent dropouts in the 400hz hum from the AC mains (which run in the same conduit as the center fuel tank capacity sensing wires).

The center fuel tank quantity gauge recovered from the wreckage indicated a fuel capacity which did not match what the center fuel tank was known to have contained, but did match what you'd see if the fuel capacity wiring was momentarily shorted to the AC mains.

While they never conclusively determined the source of the explosion, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest a short circuit between the high-voltage AC mains and the center fuel tank capacity probe wiring.
 
Exactly when do you choose to believe eye witnesses and when do you not bofors? The huge majority witnesses accounts at the Pentagon, for example, support the official explanation and are corroborated by the physical evidence, yet you choose not to believe them.

The witnesses to 800 who are counter to the official explanation are NOT corroborated by any physical evidence, yet you believe them no question.

Now, I'm not saying 800 was or wasn't a conspiracy; what I am saying is that it is painfully apparent that you choose to believe things that support your theory exclusively.

Sadly, this is EXACTLY what you and others like you accuse US of doing.
 
Corsair 115 said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Anyone who thinks TWA 800 was brought down by an errant U.S. missile should first read the chapter entitled "Beyond the Black Box" in the book Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing that up, I'll expand it a little bit further with some references to past aviation incidents, from the late 40's and into the 60's there were a series of incidents in which people used bombs to bring down aircraft as part of an insurance fraud, one case involved mixing chemicals in the aircraft toilet to cause the explosion.

In all of these cases evidence was found to confirm that a bomb or other explosive device was used. In one 1940's case bomb parts were recovered from the corpse of the man who set the device off.

In a 1960's incident in which a bomb brought down a Comet IV, shrapnel damage was used to pinpoint the location of the bomb.

The damage is distinctive and was not found in TWA 800 nor were any bomb parts found.

More to the point, when Auburn Calloway tried to hijack FedEx Flight 705 he used hammers to attack the crew precisely because he wanted to avoid leaving forensic evidence inconsistent with an accident.
 
funk de fino said:
Because he is an idiot and you have been fooled by idiots again
Click to expand...

BENTON K. PARTIN

Biographical Notes

Thirty one years active duty in the Air Force. Progressively responsible for executive, scientific and technical assignments directing organizations engaged in research, development, testing, analysis, requirements generation and acquisition management of weapons systems. Assignments from laboratory to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Personal contributions made in the fields of research and development, management, weapon system concepts, guided weapons technology, target acquisition aids, focused energy weapons, operations research and joint service harmonization of requirements. Retired as a Brigadier General.

White House appointed Special Assistant to the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration. Personally designated to prepare the white Paper on the Federal Aviation Administration for the 1989 Presidential Transition Team. This included development of policy initiatives on FAA/USAF joint use of the Global Positioning System (GPS), operational life for commercial aircraft, anti-terrorism, airport and, airway capacity, requirements in the FAA acquisition process and FAA leadership and. management development.

Military Command Pilot and Command Missileman with 4000 hours (37 combat.)

Education: B.S. Chemical Engineering; M.S. Aeronautical Engineering; Ph.D. Candidate, Operations Research & Statistics (Academics Completed).

Publications / TV

Sino-Soviet Conflict, Competition and Cooperation:

Risks in Force Structure Planning.

A Reduced Upper Limit for Sequential Test Truncation Error.

Frequent TV Talk Shows on the Voice of Freedom.

Honors: Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit thrice, Distinguished Graduate - Air War College

Community Affairs:

Chairman, United States Defense Committee

Member of the Board, In Touch Mission International

Member of the Board, Frontline Fellowship

Founding Chairman of the School Board, Engleside Christian School

Washington Representative for the Association of Christian Schools International (1981-1983)

Chairman Fairfax County Republican Party (1982-1986)

Lifelong Professional Challenge: Continuing studies and analyses to anticipate and forecast the future course of world military / political / economic transforming processes
 
bofors said:
Yet again, JREFers appear not too bright.
Click to expand...

You say you reject the moon hoax ct because there is no hard evidence supporting it, right?

Yet you do not reject the 9/11 ct on the same grounds. Just wondering why.
 
bofors said:
BENTON K. PARTIN

Biographical Notes

Thirty one years active duty in the Air Force. Progressively responsible for executive, scientific and technical assignments directing organizations engaged in research, development, testing, analysis, requirements generation and acquisition management of weapons systems. Assignments from laboratory to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Personal contributions made in the fields of research and development, management, weapon system concepts, guided weapons technology, target acquisition aids, focused energy weapons, operations research and joint service harmonization of requirements. Retired as a Brigadier General.

White House appointed Special Assistant to the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration. Personally designated to prepare the white Paper on the Federal Aviation Administration for the 1989 Presidential Transition Team. This included development of policy initiatives on FAA/USAF joint use of the Global Positioning System (GPS), operational life for commercial aircraft, anti-terrorism, airport and, airway capacity, requirements in the FAA acquisition process and FAA leadership and. management development.

Military Command Pilot and Command Missileman with 4000 hours (37 combat.)

Education: B.S. Chemical Engineering; M.S. Aeronautical Engineering; Ph.D. Candidate, Operations Research & Statistics (Academics Completed).

Publications / TV

Sino-Soviet Conflict, Competition and Cooperation:

Risks in Force Structure Planning.

A Reduced Upper Limit for Sequential Test Truncation Error.

Frequent TV Talk Shows on the Voice of Freedom.

Honors: Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit thrice, Distinguished Graduate - Air War College

Community Affairs:

Chairman, United States Defense Committee

Member of the Board, In Touch Mission International

Member of the Board, Frontline Fellowship

Founding Chairman of the School Board, Engleside Christian School

Washington Representative for the Association of Christian Schools International (1981-1983)

Chairman Fairfax County Republican Party (1982-1986)

Lifelong Professional Challenge: Continuing studies and analyses to anticipate and forecast the future course of world military / political / economic transforming processes
Click to expand...

Qualifications do not mean someone is not an idiot. You have qualifications yet you believe idiots. Does this make you an idiot?

Step back for a moment and look at what he is claiming. How is his opinion formed on the subject? Because he has listened to one witness? Can he refute the investigation that was carried out? The rest of his theory is speculation.

I am an ex airforce technician, I am more of an expert in this case than you. You did not even know how missiles worked to take down aircraft.

Why do you believe this witness but not all the evidence that do not support the missile theory?
 
funk de fino said:
Why do you believe this witness but not all the evidence that do not support the missile theory?
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier: only evidence that supports his theory is considered 'real' evidence, even if it's in the minority.
 
twinstead said:
Exactly when do you choose to believe eye witnesses and when do you not bofors? The huge majority witnesses accounts at the Pentagon, for example, support the official explanation and are corroborated by the physical evidence, yet you choose not to believe them.
Click to expand...

At this point, I am agnostic on whether a 757 hit the Pentagon or not, and frankly leaning towards the theory that one did.

One of the reasons why I tend to support the theory that a 757 hit the Pentagon are in fact the number of eye witnesses.

The witnesses to 800 who are counter to the official explanation are NOT corroborated by any physical evidence, yet you believe them no question.
Click to expand...

JREF consistently fails to understand that physical evidence can be (and is) fabricated , falsified, misrepresented and just simple misinterpreted by the "experts" you put so (too) much faith.

Likewise, and with respect to the TWA eye witnesses, JREF does not even begin comprehend the "where there is smoke there is fire" maxim.

Now, I'm not saying 800 was or wasn't a conspiracy; what I am saying is that it is painfully apparent that you choose to believe things that support your theory exclusively.

Sadly, this is EXACTLY what you and others like you accuse US of doing.
Click to expand...

This is exactly ass-backwards. Here is what JREF does:

(1) JREF prejudicially decides that the any and all "conspiracy theories" are absolutely false.

(2) JREF attacks any and all people, facts, and science which support "conspiracy theories".
 
bofors said:
This is exactly ass-backwards. Here is what JREF does:

(1) JREF prejudicially decides that the any and all "conspiracy theories" are absolutely false.

(2) JREF attacks any and all people, facts, and science which support "conspiracy theories".
Click to expand...

I don't think I've seen any evidence to support your point #1. Could you please provide it?
 
nicepants said:
You say you reject the moon hoax ct because there is no hard evidence supporting it, right?

Yet you do not reject the 9/11 ct on the same grounds. Just wondering why.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I think there is overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was inside job.

Duh?
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
(1) JREF prejudicially decides that the any and all "conspiracy theories" are absolutely false.

(2) JREF attacks any and all people, facts, and science which support "conspiracy theories".
Click to expand...

Nah, not really.

For one thing, the people who post here do not represent the JREF, it just so happens that, much to the chagrin of CT believers, the JREF attracts people who don't swallow extraordinary claims without first seeing extraordinary evidence for those claims. We know that many in the 'truth' movement see the JREF as their natural home but that it's been usurped by a load of government shills. But, unfortunately for 'truthers', simply claiming to be skeptical simply because you don't believe anything anyone in authority says does not a skeptic make.

Now, your comment should really read :

(1) Skeptics prejudicially decide that the any and all "conspiracy theories" should be based on hard evidence, good science, technical expertise and logic or they can be considered false.

(2) (some) Skeptics attack any and all people who base their beliefs on prejudice, faith, ignorance, lies, distortions and woo which forms the basis of their "conspiracy theories".
 
bofors said:
Can tell us why you think Maj. Meyer is an idiot?

He seems very credible to me:

http://raylahr.entryhost.com/FredMeyer4.wmv
Click to expand...


Just to expand on what beachnut has written, here is an excerpt from an article written in 1985 by space author James Oberg, on the subject of pilots as observers of unusual aerial phenomena:

Perhaps a key misconception of [ufologist Bruce] Maccabee's paper, and of pro-UFO argumentation in general, is an inaccurate estimate of the correlation of "simplicity and hi-fidelity of the algorithm" with education and expertise of the percipients. . . . A "trained observer" such as a pilot, being an expert on things seen above the ground, would thus hypothetically be able to provide extremely reliable descriptions of anomalous apparitions. . . .

Just what does [pilots'] perceptual training consist of? Maccabee (et al.) would have us believe that decades of cockpit experience have developed in such people a dispassionate reflex to note the characteristics of any and all sudden visual apparitions. But this is unreasonable: surviving pilots are people of rapid action, not calm contemplation. Any unusual perception may instinctively be interpreted immediately in its most dangerous possible incarnation, and avoidance action must be executed quickly. Only later, when a sense of surprise (and by conditioned reflex, danger) has passed, can the pilot react closer to the human norm, with curiosity and careful observation. . . .

Hence it should come as no surprise that pilots have repeatedly misinterpreted distant fireball meteors as nearby jets or rockets, have thrown their aircraft into violent evasive maneuvers to dodge a falling satellite sixty miles overhead, have made turns to avoid running into the cloud-shrouded rising crescent moon, and similar cases. Such misperceptions -- which err on the side of caution and hence tend to enhance the survival rate of the percipients -- are regular features of UFO reports by pilots. This is so much so that even Dr. J. Allen Hynek of the Center for UFO Studies remarked in one of his books that "Surprisingly, pilots are among the poorest observers of UFOs" . . . [emphasis added]
Click to expand...


Meyer obviously had seen many missile launches, and presumably several aircraft destroyed by missiles. Clearly, he was conditioned to interpret streaks of light followed by the explosion of an aircraft as indications of a missile attack. This conditioning undoubtedly served him well in Vietnam; however, it also calls into serious question his interpretation of what he witnessed.

I don't mean to suggest that pilots' observations are totally worthless. For example, if the only two witnesses to an airliner crash were a pilot with 4,000 hours in the same type of aircraft and his 12-year-old niece, the NTSB investigators would likely ask the pilot many additional, in-depth questions that they would not ask the girl, and they would rightly tend generally to give the pilot's account more weight where the two differed. But at the same time, those investigators would also do well to bear in mind the issues about pilots' perceptions.

In light of the above, bofors, please comment on your understanding of why Meyer's claim to have witnessed a missile attack cannot be accepted without substantial corroboration.
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
Obviously, I think there is overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was inside job.

Duh?
Click to expand...

Hmm...so why not apply the same critical thinking you used to dismiss the moon hoax evidence as "underwhelming"?

I don't find the evidence in support of a 9/11 CT any more overwhelming than the evidence in support of the moon landings being hoaxes.

DGM said:
I bet it was that kind of thinking that got you banned from LCF. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Must have been. The fight against logic lives on at LCF.
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
Nah, not really.

For one thing, the people who post here do not represent the JREF, it just so happens that, much to the chagrin of CT believers, the JREF attracts people who don't swallow extraordinary claims without first seeing extraordinary evidence for those claims. We know that many in the 'truth' movement see the JREF as their natural home but that it's been usurped by a load of government shills. But, unfortunately for 'truthers', simply claiming to be skeptical simply because you don't believe anything anyone in authority says does not a skeptic make.

Now, your comment should really read :

(1) Skeptics prejudicially decide that the any and all "conspiracy theories" should be based on hard evidence, good science, technical expertise and logic or they can be considered false.

(2) (some) Skeptics attack any and all people who base their beliefs on prejudice, faith, ignorance, lies, distortions and woo which forms the basis of their "conspiracy theories".
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, when I say "JREF", I usually mean the people who regularly post in this CT forum, like you for example.

While there may be some legitimate skeptics in other JREF forums, the majority of people here are obviously are something else.

Real skeptics would be skeptical of the stories told by the US government, the majority residents of the CT forum are not nor are capable of genuine skepticism.

Real skepticism is for intellectuals, this forum is dominated by a group of reactionary knee-jerks who support each other's weak egos in some clearly pathological need to be "right".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom