New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[jhunter1163]

When you've seen it all, there is nothing new under the sun. Ho, hum, just another random nut out for the big bucks by promoting BS.

Is it possible we're wrong? Yes, but the odds are extremely in our favor.

I was just about to say something along these lines. To paraphrase Dashiell Hammett, "The JREFer isn't ALWAYS right, but that's how you bet."

 

[tsig]

Typical JREF thread.

Only 2 people even saw the subject of the thread, yet many are quick to denounce.
Outrageous comments are made and it suppresses an interesting exchange.
Critical observations of JREFers are not tolerated.
Degenerates into personal attacks.

I read the book and a power wire short circuiting to an instrument wire producing a spark in a vapor laden fuel tank makes more sense than an anonymous group using an unknown weapon blowing up a random jet for unknown reasons.

 

[tsig]

Interesting twist on the CT. Apparently not satisfied with the complexity of covering up downing a 747, this one adds in an explosives laden terrorist plane attempting to "kamakazi" the 747!

[q]The best theory...The small commuter plane was flown by a terrorist with 1000 lbs of explosives on it, on a "kamakazi" mission to take down a "wide body"....The P-3 Orion was tracking it and the Navy shot at the Kamakazi...First missle missing the small plane and going through FLT 800, taking out the front leading edge of the right wing and an engine..(found in the closest of the debris field) the second missle hitting the small plane and detonating the explosives while the plane was almost along side of FLT 800[/q]

Part of the "If I can imagine it, it must be true" school of CT.

That seems to be imagination above and beyond the call of duty.

 

[Vermonter]

I read the book and a power wire short circuiting to an instrument wire producing a spark in a vapor laden fuel tank makes more sense than an anonymous group using an unknown weapon blowing up a random jet for unknown reasons.

I think it comes down to something like this: a mundane explanation always loses against a fantastical explanation. It really seems that, in the mind of many CTs, nothing "just" happens for no good reason. So yes, an anonymous group (or perhaps the US Navy, FBI, CIA, Al Qaida, the Mormons, etc) using an unknown weapon (directed-energy weapon, super-secret missile launchers, invisible fighter planes) to blow up a random jet for an unknown reason (no idea on this one) makes more sense.

It's never a case of "people make mistakes, people get sloppy and cut corners".

 

[Robrob]

It's never a case of "people make mistakes, people get sloppy and cut corners".

It's a conundrum, in all our lives we constantly encounter mistakes, sloppiness and incompetents yet in CT everything is 100% directly planed and intentional.

 

[JayUtah]

I think it comes down to something like this: a mundane explanation always loses against a fantastical explanation.

And for some kinds of conspiracism, an accident scenario always loses against deliberate malfeasance. When a person focuses on conspiracy theories as a way of coping with disappointment or perceived failure in their lives, they create a fantasy world in which they are the hero. This requires creating villains. Happenstance events are easy to co-opt into nefarious plots by mysterious enemies, and the conspiracy theorist's diligent work "exposing" the plot is his payoff.

So yes, an anonymous group (or perhaps the US Navy, FBI, CIA, Al Qaida, the Mormons, etc) using an unknown weapon (directed-energy weapon, super-secret missile launchers, invisible fighter planes) to blow up a random jet for an unknown reason (no idea on this one) makes more sense.

So a fun Poe web app might give you a set of drop-downs from which you choose perpetrators, modes of operation, motives, etc. and generates a conspiracy theory based on it. Minutes of fun!

It's never a case of "people make mistakes, people get sloppy and cut corners".

Normalization of diligence and risk are things I deal with when I work in forensic engineering. This is the concept that everyone tends to approach what they do with a similar level of diligence regardless of the objective importance of the task. It combines with complex social models to explain a lot of incidents and accidents. It explains things such as a tanker captain exercising no more care on the job than if he were driving his own car. This is the brain's response to high-stress occupations. When you do something day-in and day-out, it becomes the norm for you. Your ordinary "Hey, this is important, we should pay attention," responses get dulled over time.

Airplane maintenance is a good example. You get dulled to the fact that you're working on a machine that hundreds of people trust their lives to a dozen times a day. It's your daily grind, so you normalize to it. You start thinking things like, "If I make a mistake, one of my colleagues will catch it," or "There so much redundancy in these things that it's really not as critical as you'd think."

But because this fact of human nature is counterintuitive, it's hard for conspiracy theorists to imagine. It's hard to believe a designer would design something unsafe, that an operating company would allow a dangerous situation to persist, and that people whose job it is to maintain and inspect airplanes would ever treat their jobs with anything but the utmost diligence and care. These become powerful falsifying propositions for many mundane hypotheses. But it comes down to the sentiment that, yeah, you'd think these people wouldn't ever make preventable mistakes, but the fact is they do.

 

[Jetblast]

From looking at the posts I'm not sure many have done much reading on this on the available websites. Stalcup pretty much proved Flight 800 was shot down by examining the radar tapes which showed an asymmetrical debris pattern shoot out the starboard side of TWA 800 at mach 4. A fuel explosion is a soft explosion. It occurs at 300 feet per second. It would be impossible for a center tank explosion to eject materials at mach 4. The ejection plume pattern caught on radar was in the continuing direction of the missile seen streaking towards Flight 800 by hundreds of witnesses. A fuel tank would explode symmetrically.

Mike Wire was a union ironworker working on a highway bridge 20 miles from Flight 800. He said when the shockwave from Flight 800's explosion hit his bridge it shook violently. Some smart researchers saw Wire's statement and realized a 300 foot per second fuel explosion wasn't strong enough to shake a bridge at 20 miles. 2000 foot per second missile warhead ordnance would shake a bridge 20 miles away however. When Wire told FBI the rising light he saw rose from low on the horizon FBI said he changed his story later on in a second interview. When researchers spoke to Wire and told him this he said he never did any second interview.

We could take a 747 and explode its center fuel tank right in the same spot and Mike Wire's bridge wouldn't shake. Both these cases are simple forensic proof Flight 800 was shot down.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

a 300 foot per second fuel explosion wasn't strong enough to shake a bridge at 20 miles. 2000 foot per second missile warhead ordnance would shake a bridge 20 miles away

Both these cases are simple forensic proof Flight 800 was shot down.

It must have been a very powerful anti aircraft missile (of about 500 kilotons) to shake a bridge 20 miles away. What exact missile was it?

 

[catsmate]

From looking at the posts I'm not sure many have done much reading on this on the available websites. Stalcup pretty much proved Flight 800 was shot down by examining the radar tapes which showed an asymmetrical debris pattern shoot out the starboard side of TWA 800 at mach 4. A fuel explosion is a soft explosion. It occurs at 300 feet per second. It would be impossible for a center tank explosion to eject materials at mach 4. The ejection plume pattern caught on radar was in the continuing direction of the missile seen streaking towards Flight 800 by hundreds of witnesses. A fuel tank would explode symmetrically.

Mike Wire was a union ironworker working on a highway bridge 20 miles from Flight 800. He said when the shockwave from Flight 800's explosion hit his bridge it shook violently. Some smart researchers saw Wire's statement and realized a 300 foot per second fuel explosion wasn't strong enough to shake a bridge at 20 miles. 2000 foot per second missile warhead ordnance would shake a bridge 20 miles away however. When Wire told FBI the rising light he saw rose from low on the horizon FBI said he changed his story later on in a second interview. When researchers spoke to Wire and told him this he said he never did any second interview.

We could take a 747 and explode its center fuel tank right in the same spot and Mike Wire's bridge wouldn't shake. Both these cases are simple forensic proof Flight 800 was shot down.

 

[LSSBB]

From looking at the posts I'm not sure many have done much reading on this on the available websites. Stalcup pretty much proved Flight 800 was shot down by examining the radar tapes which showed an asymmetrical debris pattern shoot out the starboard side of TWA 800 at mach 4. A fuel explosion is a soft explosion. It occurs at 300 feet per second. It would be impossible for a center tank explosion to eject materials at mach 4. The ejection plume pattern caught on radar was in the continuing direction of the missile seen streaking towards Flight 800 by hundreds of witnesses. A fuel tank would explode symmetrically.

Mike Wire was a union ironworker working on a highway bridge 20 miles from Flight 800. He said when the shockwave from Flight 800's explosion hit his bridge it shook violently. Some smart researchers saw Wire's statement and realized a 300 foot per second fuel explosion wasn't strong enough to shake a bridge at 20 miles. 2000 foot per second missile warhead ordnance would shake a bridge 20 miles away however. When Wire told FBI the rising light he saw rose from low on the horizon FBI said he changed his story later on in a second interview. When researchers spoke to Wire and told him this he said he never did any second interview.

We could take a 747 and explode its center fuel tank right in the same spot and Mike Wire's bridge wouldn't shake. Both these cases are simple forensic proof Flight 800 was shot down.

Where and what are your firing platform and what was the missile?

 

[Jetblast]

It doesn't matter what missile. I think most honest people would see the answers I got here don't necessarily deny the missile or disprove the forensic evidence I posted.

There's a treasure trove of evidence on the TWA 800 d o t c o m website. That website is run by some serious aviation professionals. I would not hesitate to compare their credentials and qualifications to internet posters. The site is run by ARAP (The Association Of Retired Airline Pilots). It's content is derived from top experts, scientists, airline industry professionals, investigators, police, and other qualified individuals.


One piece of evidence on that site was the nose gear assembly which possessed blast striations in the direction of an external explosion under the aircraft. Not only would a fuel explosion not be able to create blast gouges in the metal alloys of the nose gear, but the direction was from a source that would also be impossible for a center fuel tank explosion.


One of the hangar investigators complained to friend and retired New York City cop James Sanders that the investigation was not being done seriously. That NTSB investigator told Sanders that there was a strange reddish purple stain across several rows of seats that wasn't being analyzed. Soon after, that investigator smuggled several swatches of seat fabric bearing that stain to Sanders. Sanders took it to an independent laboratory in New Mexico. Tests showed that the material staining the seat was the chemical PETN, which is used as a rocket propellant. When word got out of Sanders finding FBI descended on him and threatened him with 5 years in jail based on a law designed to prevent souvenir hunters from removing crash wreckage from a crash scene. That law was not designed to prevent people from exposing rotten government corruption and a cover-up. FBI even went after Sanders' wife to put pressure on him. FBI then confiscated all the swatches, including the ones given to CBS News. FBI then said it sent the fabric samples to NASA where they claimed the material was proven to be seat glue in tests. There was one problem with that however. The NASA scientist whom FBI claimed did the tests protested that he never did any such tests. There was no follow-through on this and the media didn't seem to show any interest. Well, except for CBS's Kristina Borjesson, whom CBS fired for trying to pursue the evidence. Never did FBI try to explain how seat glue ended up sprayed in a plume pattern across several rows of seats. Nor did anyone ever bother to ask what color missile residue is when it is sprayed on airline seat fabric (hmm, I'm guessing reddish purple).

Now I suppose I'm going to be asked what brand the seat fabric was.


.

 

[carlitos]

You didn't understand the graphic and how much force it would take to shake a bridge 20 miles away, did you? You're talking about something 20 or 30 times bigger than the atom bombs dropped on Japan in WWII.

 

[Jetblast]

Where and what are your firing platform and what was the missile?

I can't find the reference right now because Google probably scrubbed it. However there were three submarines in the area during the Whiskey Testing ground maneuvers the government lied about that night. The subs were the Albuquerque, Wyoming, and Trepang. A crewman for one of those subs told a reporter they had loaded experimental missiles a week earlier.

I believe it was the Wyoming that was on its inaugural mission that evening. When it returned to Groton its captain was relieved of duty. Relief of duty for a captain is a serious matter in the Navy. It isn't done lightly. There was never public explanation given for this action.

There were dozens of witnesses who saw the missile rise from the sea surface. FBI went to conspicuous lengths to deny their witnessing.


When the crash happened the controllers at the Air Traffic Control center in Connecticut told FAA they thought they had just witnessed a missile shootdown. Their radar tapes were then taken away as evidence. In the meantime they were told not to talk about it. When the tapes were given back to them the controllers said the blips showing the shootdown had been removed. The head controller then made a public statement that it was against his moral conscience to withhold this witnessing and that he had a duty to come forth and tell of it. This is a true story.

 

[Hokulele]

I can't find the reference right now because Google probably scrubbed it.

Google is in on it, too?

 

[jhunter1163]

Think about it. This explosion supposedly shook a bridge 20 miles away. There wouldn't have been an intact window within five miles or so. There wouldn't have been a building standing within a mile of ground zero. The fact that these effects weren't seen argues strongly against the 500 KT missile theory.

 

[Jetblast]

You didn't understand the graphic and how much force it would take to shake a bridge 20 miles away, did you? You're talking about something 20 or 30 times bigger than the atom bombs dropped on Japan in WWII.

I don't know what you are talking about but it smells like a ridiculous diversion you are making-up to avoid the evidence. The bridge shaking was told by Mr Wire when he gave his first statement. Mr Wire had witnessed the whole event and felt an obligation to come forward. When he gave his account he told it as he experienced it and had no idea of the forensic evidence he was revealing. It was Mr Wire who innocently described the bridge shaking violently.

I'd love to see you go confront Mr Wire, a union ironworker who was actually there and witnessed the event, and tell him he is a silly Hiroshima story-teller.


The only credible science here is a graph of the forces involved with a 300 foot per second fuel explosion and 2000 foot per second US military warhead ordnance high-explosives blast. I believe my statements will be validated if this test were done. As I already said, you can take a 747 today and blow-up its center tank in the same spot and the explosion would not be able to shake the superstructure of the highway bridge Mike Wire was working on. It's scientifically impossible and is, therefore, forensic proof. That's why they do forensics. Unless some people consider themselves above this.


Also, VietNam helicopter pilot Fred Meyer was on National Guard duty that night flying nearby off Long Island. Meyer was a seasoned veteran of anti-aircraft fire over the Iron Triangle in VietNam. He said he saw a missile streak across his view from the cockpit and impact Flight 800. He specifically said it exploded with the familiar star-like flash and brightness of the anti-aircraft fire he saw in VietNam. Fuel doesn't explode with a brilliant star-like flash. It explodes with the yellow-orange color the witnesses described in the secondary explosion briefly after.


Could you please show us a graph for the mach 4 ejecta clearly written in stone on the radar tapes and give us an explanation for it? Why did the media ignore this when the new documentary was released?


You can't beat the science.

 

[Jetblast]

Think about it. This explosion supposedly shook a bridge 20 miles away. There wouldn't have been an intact window within five miles or so. There wouldn't have been a building standing within a mile of ground zero. The fact that these effects weren't seen argues strongly against the 500 KT missile theory.

That's a specious argument. First off, the circumstances of that witnessing were from Mr Wire coming forward to tell of what he witnessed right away. So it was an unrehearsed memory of the event immediately after. What is your point? That Mr Wire fabricated the story? I'd love to see you say that Mr Wire's face. I'm confident you'll find that science backs the shockwave pattern at 20 miles from a high-explosives ordnance blast to be capable of violently shaking the superstructure of a highway bridge because of its particular exposed steel girder length and sympathy to the wavelength frequency of the shockwave.


"There wouldn't have been a building standing within a mile of ground zero"


Ah, ground zero was at 13,000 feet, 20 miles offshore over the Atlantic.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I don't know what you are talking about but it smells like a ridiculous diversion you are making-up to avoid the evidence.

I'm going to stop you right there. If you don't know what someone is talking about, 1) don't accuse them of making up a diversion, and 2) maybe you should find out before continuing on.

 

[LSSBB]

I can't find the reference right now because Google probably scrubbed it. However there were three submarines in the area during the Whiskey Testing ground maneuvers the government lied about that night. The subs were the Albuquerque, Wyoming, and Trepang. A crewman for one of those subs told a reporter they had loaded experimental missiles a week earlier.

I believe it was the Wyoming that was on its inaugural mission that evening. When it returned to Groton its captain was relieved of duty. Relief of duty for a captain is a serious matter in the Navy. It isn't done lightly. There was never public explanation given for this action.

There were dozens of witnesses who saw the missile rise from the sea surface. FBI went to conspicuous lengths to deny their witnessing.


When the crash happened the controllers at the Air Traffic Control center in Connecticut told FAA they thought they had just witnessed a missile shootdown. Their radar tapes were then taken away as evidence. In the meantime they were told not to talk about it. When the tapes were given back to them the controllers said the blips showing the shootdown had been removed. The head controller then made a public statement that it was against his moral conscience to withhold this witnessing and that he had a duty to come forth and tell of it. This is a true story.

If the USS Wyoming had just been commissioned, and was on it's way to it's homeport, how would it have missiles onboard? Also, ICBMs are not Surface to Air missiles. I think the explosion would have been a bit larger with an ICBM...

 

[LSSBB]

I can't find the reference right now because Google probably scrubbed it. However there were three submarines in the area during the Whiskey Testing ground maneuvers the government lied about that night. The subs were the Albuquerque, Wyoming, and Trepang. A crewman for one of those subs told a reporter they had loaded experimental missiles a week earlier.

I believe it was the Wyoming that was on its inaugural mission that evening. When it returned to Groton its captain was relieved of duty. Relief of duty for a captain is a serious matter in the Navy. It isn't done lightly. There was never public explanation given for this action.

There were dozens of witnesses who saw the missile rise from the sea surface. FBI went to conspicuous lengths to deny their witnessing.


When the crash happened the controllers at the Air Traffic Control center in Connecticut told FAA they thought they had just witnessed a missile shootdown. Their radar tapes were then taken away as evidence. In the meantime they were told not to talk about it. When the tapes were given back to them the controllers said the blips showing the shootdown had been removed. The head controller then made a public statement that it was against his moral conscience to withhold this witnessing and that he had a duty to come forth and tell of it. This is a true story.

Which captain was relieved, Captain Randall D. Preston in command of the Blue Crew or Commander Seth F. Paradise in command of the Gold Crew?