-
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
- Thread starter patchbunny
- Start date
Let me see. What is my problem?
I indicate that this film fails to convince me, degenerates into a twilite zone fantasy of multiple missile attacks, which undermines its credibility.
I thought this was a forum of critical thinking skills, where people read posts before replying to them. This is indicative of a semi-cult like nature I've seen here before. Everyone becomes a single chorus of absolute assumption making. For the record, I don't think a missile brought down the plane, and I don't think a cover-up was likely, though I'm willing to consider an off chance. The fact is, my understanding is correct: if you want to re-open an air crash investigation, you must FIRST petition the NTSB for re-consideration. THEN, if the evidence warrants it, the FBI would come in. This is the established protocol for re-opening any air crash investigation.
cheers
I indicate that this film fails to convince me, degenerates into a twilite zone fantasy of multiple missile attacks, which undermines its credibility.
I thought this was a forum of critical thinking skills, where people read posts before replying to them. This is indicative of a semi-cult like nature I've seen here before. Everyone becomes a single chorus of absolute assumption making. For the record, I don't think a missile brought down the plane, and I don't think a cover-up was likely, though I'm willing to consider an off chance. The fact is, my understanding is correct: if you want to re-open an air crash investigation, you must FIRST petition the NTSB for re-consideration. THEN, if the evidence warrants it, the FBI would come in. This is the established protocol for re-opening any air crash investigation.
cheers
Conspiracy theories are wonderful creatures. First, put forth a completely made up conjecture. When that is thoroughly debunked, don't let that stop you! Just make up an entirely new conjecture. Rinse and repeat as many times as your little heart desires.
Because, gosh darn it, you want to believe there was a conspiracy and that desire will not be diminished by silly things like facts or logic. The desire to believe is all the evidence you need. Besides, it makes a really cool video when you mix in some doom music.
Because, gosh darn it, you want to believe there was a conspiracy and that desire will not be diminished by silly things like facts or logic. The desire to believe is all the evidence you need. Besides, it makes a really cool video when you mix in some doom music.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You still got it wrong. If it was an "external event" that is a crime unless there is evidence of a natural phenomenon. There is none.
The FBI determines the "may or may not". The NTSB might help.
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
I think Chris might be right. Since the cause of the accident is the job of the NTSB then they would be the ones that have to open the investigation again. It was ruled to be an accident, therefore the FBI was not involved.
The NTSB would have to open the investigation, rule it to be exterior AND criminal, THEN the FBI would be involved. I do believe he is right.
DGM: Sorry, I think what you're saying is "it always starts as a crime, then when it's shown not to be it goes to NTSB." The description says the opposite.
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
The FBI got involved in this case because there was intel an airliner might be attacked by terrorists and because of the eyewitness reports. The FBI kept pushing for the terrorist attack scenario so hard the NTSB complained about it when they testified before Congress. The FBI ran the investigation for 16 months then quit when they couldn't find any evidence of an attack.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
This would be true for an initial investigation. For them to reopen this using evidence that "may or not be criminal" would be outside of their scope. The NTSB does not determine (on their own) if a crime was committed. The FBI would need to investigate first and then turn it over to the NTSB if they found evidence of "external cause".
Remember, this has all been looked at before. A "cover-up" is a crime.
Last edited:
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
+1
chris has done nothing but ask questions and not the JAQing off kind of questions. When presented with a rational answer he either understood it or asked for clarification. He never tried to say our obvious right answers were wrong and he certainly never started to Gish Gallop.
Yes, there are many such people, though I'm not one of them.
plague311
Great minds think...
This would be true for an initial investigation. For them to reopen this using evidence that "may or not be criminal" would be outside of their scope. The FBI would need to investigate first and then turn it over to the NTSB if they found evidence of "external cause".
Remember, this has all been looked at before. A "cover-up" is a crime.
Ah, ok. That makes sense, I digress.
Not only that, I'm in agreement with the all the resident anti-missile posters. This illustrates my point. The mere acknowledgement of and fairness to the strong points of a documentary is enough to trigger the "let's just assume he's a conspiracy nut" response. That is the weak aspect of JREF, in my experience. That I agree with everyone here seems not to matter unless it's absolute strict obedience - or better yet, obvious sneering at or belittling of the opposing viewpoint. That goes against the scientific spirit. Especially in a case where, unlike, say, 911, there was reasonable doubt for quite a while even within the NTSB.
This would be true for an initial investigation. For them to reopen this using evidence that "may or not be criminal" would be outside of their scope. The NTSB does not determine (on their own) if a crime was committed. The FBI would need to investigate first and then turn it over to the NTSB if they found evidence of "external cause".
Remember, this has all been looked at before. A "cover-up" is a crime.
Look, I could be wrong about the protocol for re-opening the investigation. There seems to be a disagreement here about how that would work. Given that you said I got it wrong, kindly give us a source on that.
Thanks
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
Of all the conspiracy theories I think this is the most plausible. So many people saw something going up. But then there is the complete lack of evidence of a missile hit. A missile that detonates by proximity fuze uses a fragmentation warhead. The aircraft should be riddled with holes. Could 238 eyewitnesses be wrong. The lack of evidence says they are. But damn.
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 13,833
I'm back. With a vengeance. Listen to this RIDICULOUS story about DNA fusing together between two bodies, so that they showed the same DNA in the tests.
Opie & Anthony - Kristina Borjesson & Tom Stalcup In Studio (7-17-2013) -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6oax637Kv0#t=31m
Dcdrac
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 5,141
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The source is the NTSB:
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process.html
Remember, a cover-up at this point is a crime.
For what it's worth, the NTSB never "ends" an investigation. They establish a probable cause and make recommendations from there. If new information or techniques become available the can always make different recommendations. Their findings can't even be used in court.
Thanks, but unless you work for the NTSB, the above protocol statement, with which I'm quite familiar, does not strictly rule in or out your or my reading of it. In the passage quoted above, it states just what I stated: until it has been DETERMINED that a criminal act occurred, the NTSB retains its authority. There is also no necessary presumption of either a cover or a criminal act per se (the stray missile theory.). It seems to me the circumstances would dictate when the FBI would take over. If there was a smoking gun revelation, the FBI might well be the appropriate agency for a petition. But that is not the situation right now.
What has recently transpired is that Hank Hughes has authored the current petition now before the NTSB. Hughes was a senior NTSB investigator in the original accident probe. Would you assume he's unfamiliar with the appropriate procedures and requirements of the very agency he worked for all these years?
In response to such an unusual request the NTSB held a press conference a few weeks ago. Spokesperson Kelly Nantel "said the board is considering the petition." Note that she did not say Hughes went to the wrong agency, and that the NTSB did not dismiss the request, instead inviting comment from other investigators to determine if the case should be re-opened.
Are you still sure I've got it wrong?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Yes.
As you know there has been no new physical evidence produced that would change the final determination. The request for the reopening is based solely on allegations of evidence tampering and cover-up. The NTSB does not investigate this sort of thing.
I've seen the film and read the petition. Unless you have something else, they are barking up the wrong tree (likely the only "tree" listening). The NTSB has to consider the request and what we have seen is their response. They invited professionals and the media to review all the material.
NTSB said:
Does this sound like the NTSB is considering the petition?
This is incorrect. As you will recall from the film, they also want to re-examine and test the wing parts containing high concentrations of a mineral element, They got Mr. Burky, as you recall, to say he agreed this would be appropriate. I'm not saying I agree. But this would arguably be reason for an NTSB petition, not an FBI one.
Cheers