• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

how do you know that anders are you now an explosives and ballistics expert?
 
Dcdrac said:
how do you know that anders are you now an explosives and ballistics expert?
Click to expand...

And you believe the experts telling you it was a spark? Just asking. Do I know that a shape charge would leave zero traces? No. But I know that it wouldn't cause the same kind of damage as a missile.
 
DGM said:
You should before you start making up "theories".
Click to expand...

In either case, either the shape charge would leave only very little trace which means it's a piece of cake to cover up. Or it would leave no trace, and wouldn't even need to be covered up.

Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory.
 
Anders Lindman said:
In either case, either the shape charge would leave only very little trace which means it's a piece of cake to cover up. Or it would leave no trace, and wouldn't even need to be covered up.

Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. The FBI was able to find traces of an explosive used weeks before in a training exorcise. A shape charge would paint the whole area with residue and would be impossible to cover up. Unless of course you're including the FBI in your conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
In either case, either the shape charge would leave only very little trace which means it's a piece of cake to cover up. Or it would leave no trace, and wouldn't even need to be covered up.

Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory.
Click to expand...


Your bomb would leave real evidence.

And a spark, really does light off fuel air in an "empty" tank because of the temperature and pressure. Try science
 
Anders Lindman said:
Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is incredible that a spark could ignite a flammable gas.



AAiMaIE.jpg
 
beachnut said:
Your bomb would leave real evidence.

And a spark, really does light off fuel air in an "empty" tank because of the temperature and pressure.
Click to expand...

Got to love conspiracy theorists sometimes. What Anders doesn't seem to realize is that even though a fuel tank has no more fuel in it, it still has vapors in it from the fuel. Without proper ventilization a fuel tank can become a ticking time bomb.

This is the reason for FAR Part § 25 Section 981. Yes, I know you're familiar with that just pointing it out to Anders and the other conspiracy theorists.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Your bomb would leave real evidence.

And a spark, really does light off fuel air in an "empty" tank because of the temperature and pressure. Try science
Click to expand...

But how much of evidence? A shape charge placed directly on the outside of the tank could make a tiny hole and still be able to ignite the fuel/air mix.

And the question is not whether a spark could do the same but if such spark could have happened. Not according an FAA expert it couldn't (see my previous post).
 
Mudcat said:
Got to love conspiracy theorists sometimes. What Anders doesn't seem to realize is that even though a fuel tank has no more fuel in it, it still has vapors in it from the fuel. Without proper ventilization a fuel tank can become a ticking time bomb.
Click to expand...

Counterintuitive concepts often trip up ct's.

Ann empty fuel tank is way more dangerous than a full one.

You are way more likely to cut yourself with a full knife than a sharp one.

Etc...
 
anders what are your qualifications to comment on explosives and ballistics?
 
Dcdrac said:
anders what are your qualifications to comment on explosives and ballistics?
Click to expand...

The experts said that the fuel-air mix in the tank caused a large explosion. I can believe that. At the same time a shape charge placed on the outside of the tank could punch a small hole which would be a vastly different damage than claims of a missile.

Many witnesses CLAIM they saw something shoot up from the surface towards the plane before the explosion. That in itself is curious, because what if the official report is correct, as it may very well be about there was no missile or anything like that. Then a possibility is that those are false witnesses! And that in itself makes it a kind of conspiracy theory.
 
matt.tansy said:
No, I don't.

But since you quoted the MSM without a moment of critical thought, it is obvious you do.
Click to expand...

In this case I don't see a reason for why the report about what the FAA person said should have been fabricated.

I actually do trust mainstream media in most cases. It's only when it's about conspiracy theories that I start to doubt some reports. And even then the media may be telling the truth! Because they could have been given false information.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Many witnesses CLAIM they saw something shoot up from the surface towards the plane before the explosion. That in itself is curious, because what if the official report is correct, as it may very well be about there was no missile or anything like that. Then a possibility is that those are false witnesses! And that in itself makes it a kind of conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

That's not right, that's not even wrong!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom