Overlap between TWA 800 & 9/11 theorists

[bofors]

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

The process of my thinking is a constant here.

I have recently looked over a number of other "conspiracy theories". I was studying TWA 800 for a second time when this thread came. I revisited the case for the "Moon hoax" last week.

The difference is not my thinking process but differences in the case for the "Moon hoax" versus the case for 9/11 conspiracy.

Again, this should be obvious.

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.

No kidding...

Seriously, like a number of regular posters here, you do not appear to be capable of critical thinking or real skepticism.

 

[Par]

...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".

Personally, I do indeed feel a need – and it may even be pathological – to be right.

 

[nicepants]

The difference is not my thinking process but differences in the case for the "Moon hoax" versus the case for 9/11 conspiracy.

Again, this should be obvious.

What is obvious is that for some reason you WANT to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, even though there isn't any solid evidence supporting them.

Seriously, like a number of regular posters here, you do not appear to be capable of critical thinking or real skepticism.

I was skeptical of both sides going in to this. The difference between what I believe and what you believe (about 9/11 anyways) is that what I believe is supported by the physical evidence and the scientific community. Critical thinking means that I side with the evidence and the experts, not my emotions or personal beliefs.

 

[AMTMAN]

After TWA Flight 800 crashed back in 1996 there was a 'bloom' of internet based conspiracy theories, most of which to my memory centered around the claim that the US Navy accidentally shot the plane down and then covered it up.

It would be interesting to see just what 'overlap' there is between the people peddling conspiracy theories back then and those who started peddling 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Also it might be interesting to look at the 'dynamics' of the two events and what similarities/differences there are between them.

Graham

The whole Navy shot it down by accident does not hold water. First one would have to assume the Navy was conducting live fire exercises off Long Island. One would think the Navy would be doing that sort of thing in a better place. Let's say they were and one got away from them. Since the SM-2 is semi-active it needs a fire control radar to provide illumination. Turn off the fire control radar and the missile is blind.

Then there's the warhead on the SM-2. With a little over 100lbs of high explosives there would have been evidence all over that aircraft. The kind of evidence that would be hard to hide from people.

 

[Corsair 115]

No, Benton K. Partin, Brigadier General, United States Air Force (Ret) says TWA 800 was brought down with Continuous-Rod Warhead that he himself helped to develop...

I notice he talks a lot about the warhead but neglects to mention which missile type carried this alleged warhead. So which missile system was it?

 

[beachnut]

Yet again, JREFers appear not too bright.

Yet again, JREFers appear not too bright.[/quote]
You are a JREFer!

General P is nuts on CT issues! He is a CTER on OKC and 800! You have no facts and sound like General P

The weapon General P said did it, would leave evidence; more evidence than a regular weapon. Darn the thing would be there! What is this Fred! Gee it is a warhead thing from that new weapon thing we never use. If you have problems understanding 9/11 and 800, please get an education so you can discuss things with adults.

Ignoring all the evidence as you have pretty much makes you the topic of your own post.

You are wrong on 9/11 topics and 800. It happens.

 

[beachnut]

This is something I always find a bit perplexing. Perhaps it comes from me having flown a lot of computer flight sims over the years in which one has to trust the instruments in the program (since there is no physical feedback to flying when one is seated at a computer), but I can never quite figure out why sometimes it seems real pilots don't trust their basic flight instruments. Especially when that mistrust can, and has, resulted in crashes.

Instrument Flight Procedures, two volumes. There are 93 hits on illusions. These are large documents 35 megs or so. The Volume 2, V2, has some information you can use to fly with.
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFMAN11-217V1.pdf

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFMAN11-217V2.pdf

If these items have moved search for instrument flying or go to http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/ , Choose Departemtntal, then pick 11 flight operations, then go down to the AFMAN11-217.

These may be of interest on flying and explain why aircrews have problems and must be familiar with illusions so they can counter the problems with instruments and training.

 

[WildCat]

I saw a National Geographic episode of "Final Report" on TWA 800 a few days ago. While the FAA thinks they have a good idea what happened (frayed wires in a nearly empty center fuel tank ignited fumes) they were never able to issue a definitive report. So this crash is ripe for CT scenarios.

eta: according to the web site it's on again Saturday at 1pm Eastern.

This is on again in 5 minutes if anyone's interested.

 

[Graham2001]

I'd like to congratulate Bofors on his shining demonstration of just how CTs work to 'twist' threads from their original objectives.

I started this thread out to discuss a possible overlap between the TWA800 CT community and the 9/11 CT community as these are both internet based phenomenon.

Instead we seem to have ended up discussing TWA800 itself, I wonder what Bofors was afraid we would uncover?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Still waiting for Bofors to explain why shrapnel from a continuous rod warhead (also commonly referred to as "annular blast fragmentation warheads") isn't really shrapnel.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Also waiting for him to comment on James Oberg's article about pilots as observers of unusual aerial phenomena.

 

[Cheap Shot]

I was involved in a small part of the investigation regarding TWA800, I was resposible for gathering information regarding any military activity that might have had an impact on TWA800, Warning Area 105 was cold, no activity, the only military aircraft was a C-130 and a Canadian P-3 200 miles northeast of the incident. We found out later that there was a ship south of W-105, but it was not condcuting any training.

I have numerous other experiences where two pilots saw two different things. One comes to mind about 120 east of Boston over the ocean one aircraft reports of a UFO that exploded about 20 miles south of him, the other response from an aircraft probably 40 miles and 90 degrees from the other aircraft was it was a metoer which the pilot watched all the way to the ocean, two totally different responses to the same incident.

 

[beachnut]

I'd like to congratulate Bofors on his shining demonstration of just how CTs work to 'twist' threads from their original objectives.

I started this thread out to discuss a possible overlap between the TWA800 CT community and the 9/11 CT community as these are both internet based phenomenon.

Instead we seem to have ended up discussing TWA800 itself, I wonder what Bofors was afraid we would uncover?

You have proved there is an overlap for some. I have found some at other forums. If the 9/11 CT people find 800, many will glom on to the CT side of 800 I expect. Bofors did.

 

[chris lz]

After TWA Flight 800 crashed back in 1996 there was a 'bloom' of internet based conspiracy theories, most of which to my memory centered around the claim that the US Navy accidentally shot the plane down and then covered it up.

It would be interesting to see just what 'overlap' there is between the people peddling conspiracy theories back then and those who started peddling 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Also it might be interesting to look at the 'dynamics' of the two events and what similarities/differences there are between them.

Graham

I've seen a fair amount of overlap. But there are some key differences that tended, I believe, to keep these two types of theorists at odds. The F800 theorists were divided on the question of friendly fire vs terrorism. My sense is terrorism was somewhat more dominant. That works against the inside job 9/11 mentality. F800 was a much more limited theory, and that made it, IMO, considerably less fanciful. Jack Cashill, who is now probably the most well known 800 missile theorist, does not buy into the 9/11 theories.

On the missile evidence, I agree there was little to be had. I don't think there was a missile. But I can well understand why a case can be made: what makes flight 800 intriguing, and at least open to some discussion, is the lack of hard evidence for any particular initiating event. It's not at all stupid, IMO, to ask, "when has a 747 ever blown up in flight before, without any external shock present?" The answer is never. Same with all models of western built aircraft since the dawn of the jet age. There is at least an off chance for a missile, as the NTSB's "China Lake" missile study stated. That being the case, I would not tend to lump TWA800 CTists and 9/11 truthers into the same bin. One is considerably less outrageous than the other.


Just my two late cents.

 

[gumboot]

I was involved in a small part of the investigation regarding TWA800, I was resposible for gathering information regarding any military activity that might have had an impact on TWA800, Warning Area 105 was cold, no activity, the only military aircraft was a C-130 and a Canadian P-3 200 miles northeast of the incident. We found out later that there was a ship south of W-105, but it was not condcuting any training.

Wouldn't that tend to suggest Major Frederick Meyer is a liar? Or alternatively that he witnessed the accident from over 200 miles away?

I'm also amused by the claim of Brigadier General Partin that a continuous rod warhead does not produce shrapnel. I'm also interested in his claim that he worked on CRWs for the Boeing CIM-10 Surface to Air Missile. The CIM-10A had either a nuclear or conventional HE warhead, and the CIM-10B only ever used a nuclear warhead.

As for the CRW, it was developed for Air to Air missiles like the AIM-9 and AIM-7. Most notably these are Navy missiles. Likewise, the CRW was developed by the Navy and tested at a Navy facility at China Lake. The patent for the Continuous Rod Warhead is registered in 1970 to the US Navy.

One must wonder what a USAF officer was doing in a Navy weapons program, especially given the rivalry between the two agencies (the USAF only very reluctantly started using the navy missiles well after it was obvious they were superior).

In other words, Brigadier General Partin is a liar.

 

[ellindsey]

It's not at all stupid, IMO, to ask, "when has a 747 ever blown up in flight before, without any external shock present?"

March 3, 2001:
Center wing tank on a Thai Airlines 737 spontaneously explodes.

11 MAY 1990:
Philippine Air Lines 737 center wing fuel tank spontaneously explodes.

Neither were in flight, and neither were 747s, but the explosions were otherwise very similar to what seems to have happened with flight 800.

 

[chris lz]

March 3, 2001:
Center wing tank on a Thai Airlines 737 spontaneously explodes.

11 MAY 1990:
Philippine Air Lines 737 center wing fuel tank spontaneously explodes.

Neither were in flight, and neither were 747s, but the explosions were otherwise very similar to what seems to have happened with flight 800.

Correct, and there have been other cases as well. It seems to happen most often during fueling, probably where static charges are more likely. There was also a case of an Air Canada plane in the 80s, which was parked and spontaneously ignited. So it's not completely unheard of. But rare enough to make alternative speculation understandable. People who ridicule the mere suggestion of a missile seem to forget how seriously the possibility was taken at the time. The NTSB invested a considerable amount of time on the question, as can be seen by their "China Lake" report, and the test firing of a missile. They were also on the verge of announcing terrorism as the likely cause - perhaps within hours - until the FBI's William Tobin put his foot down, and silenced Jim Kallstrom.

I used to be much more doubtful of the internal ignition theory. But with time and more reading, I came to the realization the evidence just wasn't there. The missile case is sutained primarily by the lack of hard evidence of an ignition source, and the many bits of "suggestive" evidence. The missile theorists seem also not to grasp that many of their assertions have valid explanations in agreement with the NTSB's probable cause.

 

[grmcdorman]

The other thing that should be pointed with respect to "it never happened before" is that this is true of many aircraft accidents - especially ones that aren't pilot error. The system is set up to correct errors after a single incident.

Unfortunately, there have been times where the root cause wasn't caught after the first accident - most notably the DC10 cargo door (see Turkish Airlines Flight 981 [Wikipedia]).

 

[stilicho]

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.

I am sceptical when I see the US President announce that the American economy is doing fine when clearly it isn't. I am not sceptical when I see a weighty inquiry into air disasters such as TWA800.

The NTSB doesn't immediately announce "everything is just fine" if it isn't.

Can you detect any distinction between analyses like these-- http://www.avweb.com/other/us427vue.html --and a simple political statement?

 

[twinstead]

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.

This is an incredibly ignorant statement. You act as if the only information we get about ANYTHING comes directly from the US government. Yea, that's it, GWB told us 19 Arabs hijacked planes and flew them into the WTC, and we believe him no questions asked. Yea, that's it, GWB told us TWA800 was an accident and we believe him no questions asked.

Give me a break. Real skeptics wouldn't automatically BELIEVE something just because the government says so. They would come to the conclusion that what the government says is basically correct because thorough investigations and the preponderance of evidence verifies it.

Bofors you are no skeptic. A real skeptic wouldn't, if he KNOWS how many people on this forum despise GWB, simply use a more articulate, subtle albeit transparent version of the "if you disagree with me, you must be Bush lovers" tactic. It's a garbage tactic and you KNOW it.

You're no different than Terral with his "Senor Bushie Lover" crap, but at least he is honest about his bias. You just use different words to try to make it sound legitimate.

You fail.