New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[DGM]

I doubt very highly they will. However, as quoted above, Ms. Nantel indicated they will first welcome comments from former investigators. From this it cannot be ascertained with certainty if the petition should bypass the NTSB from the get go.

Thank you for your input.

You're welcome.

As for the post I originally responded to:

Finally, any re-opening of the investigation would seem futile based on a cover-up being so prominent. NTSB re-opens investigation only to conclude they acted illegally, thus destroying their hard-earned credibility? Not in my lifetime.

You do agree this would not be the job of the NTSB? I suspect you didn't really think this through before you typed it.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Let's say that there were false witness reports and the radar data an anomaly rather than actual evidence of a missile, then this part is still unexplained:

From the Petition:

"More than 100 spike tooth fractures were found on various aluminum wreckage items from areas throughout the aircraft." -- http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/06/20/petition[3].pdf

The official explanation for the spike tooth fractures is:

"Since May 1997, the scientist has been researching the location, morphology, and formation fracture mechanics of small holes with "spike tooth" fractures, the only metallurgically significant indicator present at a high strain rate. However, the holes are relatively small (none of which could reasonably have been responsible for "instantaneous" cessation of the recorders), exhibit no apparent preferred concentration, exhibit no apparent isotrophy, and are in matrices which exhibit no characteristics of impulsive loading or proximity to explosive (ordnance) materials." -- http://www.100megspopup.com/ark/800Tobin.html

So, lack of missile damage and the spike tooth fractures tiny, could it have been a shape charge placed on the outside of the fuel tank?

This image shows how the shape charge forms a narrow, straight and focused beam: http://defense-update.com/images/shaped-charge-penetration.jpg

But there is also sideways splatter caused by the shape charge. Could that explain the small spike tooth fractures?

*bump*

 

[chris lz]

You're welcome.

As for the post I originally responded to:



You do agree this would not be the job of the NTSB? I suspect you didn't really think this through before you typed it.

I would be more apt to describe this exchange as a series of relatively minor miscommunications - for which I will take the brunt of responsibility - leading to some misunderstanding. Such is the nature of the Internet forum beast.
The comment of mine was intended as a reaction to the actual submission of the present NTSB petition. They chose it, not me. I really didn't consider it a matter of great importance the exact protocol to be pursued.

For the record, I don't think a missile was likely, as I've consistently argued here. I give credit to the film mainly for exposing the various unprofessional aspects of the investigation. As William Tobin of the FBI remarked, this was indeed a model investigation: a model of precisely how NOT to conduct a joint-agency investigation. And who could argue with that?


Cheers

 

[chris lz]

Of all the conspiracy theories I think this is the most plausible.

Actually, I think the strongest contender -at least among aviation related CTs- is Pan Am 103. An Iranian connection of some sort seems plausible to me. While I grant only an off chance of a TWA missile - and even less for a cover-up, there remains much more explaining to do with the credibility of 103 skeptics- in my humble and tentative opinion.

regards

Chris

 

[Sherman Bay]

Yet the CTS go to incredible lengths, as witnessed in the latest film to make their claim fit the eyewitness evidence, which is why we now have three missiles fired at the plane (From what I suspect are widely dispursed locations.) rather than one.

Witness One: "I saw a streak of light from the south."

Witness Two: "I saw something strange coming from the north."

Logical conclusion: One or more witness statements were inaccurate.

Troofer conclusion: Must be TWO missiles!

 

[Anders Lindman]

I think the U.S. Navy helped so much and did a tremendous job recovering the TWA 800 wreckage because they wanted to make sure that it was clear that it was NOT any missile that brought down the plane.

How did the Navy know that no missile was involved? Because they had like hundreds of radars recording the event! Well, maybe not hundreds , but many anyways.

 

[Dcdrac]

Its either that or the Navy did the professional job they are paid to do and not carry out some fantasy conjured up by CTers.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Its either that or the Navy did the professional job they are paid to do and not carry out some fantasy conjured up by CTers.

So you think the Navy can just be ordered around, like being told to hand over their radar data?

 

[DGM]

I would be more apt to describe this exchange as a series of relatively minor miscommunications - for which I will take the brunt of responsibility - leading to some misunderstanding. Such is the nature of the Internet forum beast.

This is true.

The comment of mine was intended as a reaction to the actual submission of the present NTSB petition. They chose it, not me. I really didn't consider it a matter of great importance the exact protocol to be pursued.

Not meaning any offense but, it seemed like it was to get a reaction.

For the record, I don't think a missile was likely, as I've consistently argued here. I give credit to the film mainly for exposing the various unprofessional aspects of the investigation. As William Tobin of the FBI remarked, this was indeed a model investigation: a model of precisely how NOT to conduct a joint-agency investigation. And who could argue with that?

Cheers

I would disagree. Both agencies did an excellent job on their parts of the investigation. There was stepping on toes but, I've seen no evidence this had any effect on the quality of the investigation.

No one will argue the FBI tends to be a bit gung ho where the NTSB is painfully methodical. The important thing is to understand the reasoning behind this. This is not unprofessional, it's simply conflicting objectives.

 

[tsig]

So you think the Navy can just be ordered around, like being told to hand over their radar data?

I would hope they can be ordered around, otherwise we have a rogue armed force.

 

[chris lz]

I would disagree. Both agencies did an excellent job on their parts of the investigation. There was stepping on toes but, I've seen no evidence this had any effect on the quality of the investigation.

No one will argue the FBI tends to be a bit gung ho where the NTSB is painfully methodical. The important thing is to understand the reasoning behind this. This is not unprofessional, it's simply conflicting objectives.

Yes, one doesn't expect a frictionless interface between two different agencies. But I believe TWA 800 went quite beyond this. Have you by chance read William Tobin's sworn testimony? It's absolutely fascinating reading- perhaps the most fascinating I've read on F800. Here is some of it.

GRASSLEY: How did Mr. Kallstrom inform you when the third incident, the high explosive RDX was found on a piece of the recovered plane? What did he say?

TOBIN: When I was advised of that third finding of the residues, I was approached in a very excited manner and the statement was, was, we've got it, we've got it, it's confirmed. And I asked what was confirmed and he said, we got it, proof of the bomb and I saw in the very agitated or hyper emotional state that he was in that I needed to do some significant calming or try to bring it back down to earth or to urge prudence and caution in interpretation of those RDX residues.

I then decided that I probably should -- I used the analogy of a cardboard box at that particular time and what I was trying to convey to him was that a simple materials analogy. My representation was, I said, Jim basically from a material science standpoint this is what you've got. You've got a cardboard box, your chemists are finding residues inside the cardboard box and the sides of the box are not even bulged out. In my business, that's called a clue.

That didn't sit well, and at that point he got about six inches from my face and prompted - proceeded to advise me in rather graphic terms that it was a bomb. And that's the most suitable presentation I can put on for prime time right now.

GRASSLEY: Was the insinuation when he six inches away from your face is that he says it's a bomb and you as a scientist had better say it's a bomb?

TOBIN: I don't know what he intended to insinuate or intended for me to - how he intended for me to use that. I do know that he was rather graphic in his approach that it was a bomb and in fact I ended up wearing several particles of his saliva from that presentation.

GRASSLEY: Did you tell Mr. Kallstrom that if there was to be a public pronouncement that Flight 800 crashed due to a bomb that you would not support that announcement from a material science standpoint?

TOBIN: Yes, Senator, that's correct.

GRASSLEY: Why did you say this to Mr. Kallstrom?

TOBIN: After the finding of the third explosive residue hit and I saw the reaction and the fervor and the intensity and the frenzied reaction and I also saw the clothes that he had that day and I recognized the behavior immediately preceding most of the press announce - press conferences. And at that particular time. . . .I saw that a major PR gaffe was imminent, was in the making and I think in large part due to my loyalty to the FBI, I decided at that point that, as we would say in Vietnam, I needed to throw my body on the grenade at that particular time. And I wanted to preclude or prevent a major, major PR gaffe that in my view was about to happen from which I don't believe the FBI would have recovered for a very long time.

 

[LSSBB]

Yes, one doesn't expect a frictionless interface between two different agencies. But I believe TWA 800 went quite beyond this. Have you by chance read William Tobin's sworn testimony? It's absolutely fascinating reading- perhaps the most fascinating I've read on F800. Here is some of it.

FBI guy was excited in evidence that appeared to support his foregone conclusion I was a bomb, therefore it was a missile?

 

[jadebox]

FBI guy was excited in evidence that appeared to support his foregone conclusion I was a bomb, therefore it was a missile?

In fairness to Chris, he was quoting that as evidence of the friction between the NTSB and the FBI, not as evidence of a missile.

But I understand that a CTer might use it as evidence of a missile (and of an NTSB coverup).

-- Roger

 

[CORed]

In fairness to Chris, he was quoting that as evidence of the friction between the NTSB and the FBI, not as evidence of a missile.

But I understand that a CTer might use it as evidence of a missile (and of an NTSB coverup).

-- Roger

To anybody bot a CT, it seems incredible that it could have been anything but the fuel tank explosion in the "official story".

Let's look at the possibilities:

Accidental shoot-down by US military. It is slightly plausible that the military might accidentally shoot down an airliner, and then attempt to cover it up. It is considerably less plausible that the NTSB and FBI would go along with the coverup. One would have to assume a high level (President or White House staff) decision to cover it up, and that everybody in the FBI and NTSB was willing to go along without blowing the whistle. This requires the CT belief that everyone in the government is evil and corrupt, or so fearful of reprisal from above that they would knowingly participate in the coverup. In the real world, this just doesn't happen.

Terrorist activity: Missile or bomb. The same CT's that seem to believe every other accident or terrorist action is a false flag operation to further some evil agenda of the government believe that this time, the government covered it up. Even though the government needs phony terrorist attacks to justify declaring marital law, going to war, or trampling on the rights of citizens, apparently a real terrorist attack has to be covered up.

 

[LSSBB]

To anybody bot a CT, it seems incredible that it could have been anything but the fuel tank explosion in the "official story".

Let's look at the possibilities:

Accidental shoot-down by US military. It is slightly plausible that the military might accidentally shoot down an airliner, and then attempt to cover it up. It is considerably less plausible that the NTSB and FBI would go along with the coverup. One would have to assume a high level (President or White House staff) decision to cover it up, and that everybody in the FBI and NTSB was willing to go along without blowing the whistle. This requires the CT belief that everyone in the government is evil and corrupt, or so fearful of reprisal from above that they would knowingly participate in the coverup. In the real world, this just doesn't happen.

Terrorist activity: Missile or bomb. The same CT's that seem to believe every other accident or terrorist action is a false flag operation to further some evil agenda of the government believe that this time, the government covered it up. Even though the government needs phony terrorist attacks to justify declaring marital law, going to war, or trampling on the rights of citizens, apparently a real terrorist attack has to be covered up.

You would also need to assume that it is plausible that the US Navy could "accidentally" shoot down an airliner in a non-combat situation outside any target range...

 

[chris lz]

FBI guy was excited in evidence that appeared to support his foregone conclusion I was a bomb, therefore it was a missile?

The point of this is to show just how difficult the FBI made things for the NTSB. The FBI - contrary to what missile proponents would have us believe - had a pronounced sabotage bias that took many months to eradicate. It even got to the point that the FBI tried to suppress (so it has been claimed in sworn testimony) an ATF memo to the NTSB in support of a mechanical failure. Kallstrom was upset as late as the fall of 1996 that a missile was being eliminated from consideration. This sabotage bias is examined in a 3-hour C-span presentation from 1999 containing credible testimony from several NTSB and FBI investigators. It makes a strong case that the force of personality resulted in running rough shod over basic issues of evidence handling, and the scientific aspect of the investigation. This is why I feel justified in saying that the FBI does not deserve high marks overall in its handling of the investigation. Only gradually did they have to be dragged back down to reality before they would let go of the bomb/ missile theory. As to the question of Kallstrom favoring a bomb explanation over a missile, is hard to explain. But he seems to have preferred any form of sabotage over a mechanical explanation. He was driven by emotion much of the time, and many of his statements to the press were in fact inaccurate.

Hope this helps resolve some of your confusion.

 

[LSSBB]

The point of this is to show just how difficult the FBI made things for the NTSB. The FBI - contrary to what missile proponents would have us believe - had a pronounced sabotage bias that took many months to eradicate. It even got to the point that the FBI tried to suppress (so it has been claimed in sworn testimony) an ATF memo to the NTSB in support of a mechanical failure. Kallstrom was upset as late as the fall of 1996 that a missile was being eliminated from consideration. This sabotage bias is examined in a 3-hour C-span presentation from 1999 containing credible testimony from several NTSB and FBI investigators. It makes a strong case that the force of personality resulted in running rough shod over basic issues of evidence handling, and the scientific aspect of the investigation. This is why I feel justified in saying that the FBI does not deserve high marks overall in its handling of the investigation. Only gradually did they have to be dragged back down to reality before they would let go of the bomb/ missile theory. As to the question of Kallstrom favoring a bomb explanation over a missile, is hard to explain. But he seems to have preferred any form of sabotage over a mechanical explanation. He was driven by emotion much of the time, and many of his statements to the press were in fact inaccurate.

Hope this helps resolve some of your confusion.

I will agree it does make that particular representative of the FBI appear to have been driven emotionally.

 

[Hans]

To anybody bot a CT, it seems incredible that it could have been anything but the fuel tank explosion in the "official story".

Let's look at the possibilities:

Accidental shoot-down by US military. It is slightly plausible that the military might accidentally shoot down an airliner, and then attempt to cover it up. It is considerably less plausible that the NTSB and FBI would go along with the coverup. One would have to assume a high level (President or White House staff) decision to cover it up, and that everybody in the FBI and NTSB was willing to go along without blowing the whistle. This requires the CT belief that everyone in the government is evil and corrupt, or so fearful of reprisal from above that they would knowingly participate in the coverup. In the real world, this just doesn't happen.

It also assumes everyone on the ship would have gone along with the conspiracy which is so highly unlikely as to border on fantasy. Not only them but the supply people and contractors who would have noted a missing missile.........

 

[LSSBB]

It also assumes everyone on the ship would have gone along with the conspiracy which is so highly unlikely as to border on fantasy. Not only them but the supply people and contractors who would have noted a missing missile.........

My God, the ammo admin paperwork alone! Those things have serial numbers and a stack of paperwork each.

 

[Hans]

My God, the ammo admin paperwork alone! Those things have serial numbers and a stack of paperwork each.

One time guys sent a weapon to be painted and didn't log it down properly and a random inspection came in and found it missing ----- oh my warrant & commissioned officers were dropping like flies that day.

I can see somebody asking the Captain of a ship. Sir where is SM-1MR/SM-2MR, serial number 123456789?

Er, ah.... it fell overboard and the executive officer forgot to report it, sorry.....