New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[JayUtah]

From looking at the posts I'm not sure many have done much reading on this on the available websites.

From looking at your post count I'm not sure you've had much experience in what the regulars on this site habitually do by way of research and how much practical experience many of them bring to the table.

Stalcup pretty much proved Flight 800 was shot down by examining the radar tapes...

Nope. He examined radar tapes, found something he couldn't explain through a simplistic straw man and leapt immediately to his preferred explanation by inference. Please learn the difference between inference and evidence.

which showed an asymmetrical debris pattern shoot out the starboard side of TWA 800 at mach 4.

And what makes you think ATC radars interpreted by a novice can give you that kind of information? What makes you believe his interpretation of the radar data over that of the many qualified experts with whom his opinion disagrees? Radar is not just a "magic eye."

A fuel explosion is a soft explosion.

A fuel-air explosion is not.

It would be impossible for a center tank explosion to eject materials at mach 4.

The only evidence for a "Mach 4" ejection is a novice's interpretation of the returns from a cloud of radar-reflective debris as recorded by a radar without proper track-establishment methods like range-gating.

The ejection plume pattern caught on radar was in the continuing direction of the missile seen streaking towards Flight 800 by hundreds of witnesses.

Nope. In your mad rush to try to prove the TWA 800 break-up doesn't fit your idea of a canonical fuel-tank explosion, you've postulated something that doesn't match a missile strike either. Nor do you have any actual evidence of a missile. You've just pasted a missile hypothesis onto your perception of the evidence and told us it's what has to be true.

As I said, learn the difference between inference and evidence.

A fuel tank would explode symmetrically.

Nope. And yes, I used to be an engineer for Boeing.

2000 foot per second missile warhead ordnance would shake a bridge 20 miles away however.

Nonsense.

We could take a 747 and explode its center fuel tank right in the same spot and Mike Wire's bridge wouldn't shake.

You could explode a tactical nuclear warhead at the same spot and the bridge wouldn't shake.

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

Well, since I make my living in part doing forensic engineering, let me just say you don't have the faintest idea what constitutes a finding in that field or proper supporting evidence. You're still stuck on the basic difference between evidence and conjecture.

You have an unproven supposition supported only by question-begging and vague allusions to quantitative arguments. Not even close to evidence, let alone proof.

 

[Jetblast]

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...

What makes you say they were ICBM's?


And why did you ignore the point about the captain being relieved of duty?

 

[JayUtah]

That's a specious argument.

Nonsense, it's a perfectly good "check" on your claim. You can't have selective acoustic loading.

What is your point? That Mr Wire fabricated the story?

The point is that his story is not credible. Whether he fabricated it or simply misremembered or innocently exaggerated it is immaterial. There are other means we can use to check up on the validity of his story. From a theoretical physics standpoint it makes no sense. From the lack of expected corroborating evidence (i.e., other evidence of extreme acoustic loading) we find it not likely to have happened the way he said.

I'd love to see you say that Mr Wire's face.

Gladly. Bring him here and I'll do just that. Half my job is interviewing witnesses to happenstance events in order to determine how much of it is factual.

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...

It doesn't. Kindly don't argue that "science backs you up" unless you're willing and able to actually reproduce the science here for us. Otherwise it's just frantic handwaving.

...because of its particular exposed steel girder length and sympathy to the wavelength frequency of the shockwave.

Shockwaves don't have a frequency. And you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

It's your argument, so show me the math to prove it.

 

[LSSBB]

What makes you say they were ICBM's?


And why did you ignore the point about the captain being relieved of duty?

It was an SSBN. They carry ICBMs. They do not carry Surface to Air Missiles. They are not even fitted for them. There is a substantial difference between a Trident and an SM-2. There is also no Guided Missile equipment mounted anywhere on an SSBN, to guide the SAM to the target.

 

[LSSBB]

And why did you ignore the point about the captain being relieved of duty?

vvvvv

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?

 

[JayUtah]

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

Oh, please.

However there were three submarines in the area during the Whiskey Testing ground maneuvers the government lied about that night.

The Navy routinely lies in public about where its submarines may be at any moment. It's kind of how the submarine fleet works.

A crewman for one of those subs told a reporter they had loaded experimental missiles a week earlier.

Name the crewman. Name the reporter. What kind of "experimental missile?"

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.

How long did you serve in the Navy, that you would know this on your own?

There was never public explanation given for this action.

Commands are assigned and reassigned all the time. You're reading something nefarious into something that is rather ordinary. Further, your admission that you can't find an explanation for the relief of command tells me you have absolutely no evidence that the action had anything whatsoever to do with TWA 800.

There were dozens of witnesses who saw the missile rise from the sea surface.

No. There are witnesses who say they think they saw something rising up to the airplane. To say they "saw a missile" is dishonest. That's substituting interpretation for evidence.

FBI went to conspicuous lengths to deny their witnessing.

"Deny" is an interesting word. Conspiracy theorists are forever trying to promote minority evidence to pre-eminence. In any happenstance occurrence witnessed by many people there will be outlying evidence. We know from long experience that the reasons outlying testimony arise are myriad and largely innocent. One does not necessarily have to explain each and every outlier in order to maintain an honest investigation.

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.

At best that's knee-jerk, on-the-spot speculation. The subsequent investigation, which considered all the subsequently recovered and developed evidence, showed that to be an unlikely explanation. There are a ton of happenstance occurrences that some initially interpret to be nefarious plots which later turn out to be tragic accidents. "Oh my deity, somebody did this to us/them," is a pretty standard human reaction to tragedy.

Their radar tapes were then taken away as evidence. In the meantime they were told not to talk about it.

Per standard procedure.

When the tapes were given back to them the controllers said the blips showing the shootdown had been removed.

Any documentation from this aside from conspiracy web site rumors?

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.

What statement, exactly? You'll forgive me if I don't trust your paraphrasing.

 

[JayUtah]

What makes you say they were ICBM's?

What kind of missile does an SSBN carry?

And why did you ignore the point about the captain being relieved of duty?

Because while you claim it is extraordinary, you haven't shown that it is. Nor have you shown that it's extraordinary for the reasons you insinuate. Go look up what "begging the question" is. Since you're still in single-digit post counts here, you might not realize how adept the JREF regulars can be at catching elementary reasoning errors.

 

[DGM]

. 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.

Just a simple suggestion that might help you in life. When you're trying to convince people of something, it's best not to insinuate they are being dishonest.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Just a simple suggestion that might help you in life. When you're trying to convince people of something, it's best not to insinuate they are being dishonest.

Especially since Jay's traditionally thorough point-by-point decimation has rendered that statement false.

 

[JayUtah]

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

No, you're simply being asked to support your claims.

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.

Gladly. You seem very adamant to defend a man you've likely never met and who likely has no clue who you are. Kindly lay aside the exaggerated indignance. Your borrowing his claim. You can either support it as if it were your own, or you can produce him so that we can question him. Otherwise you're just trying to foist evidence you won't let us cross-examine.

The only credible science here...

You mean the only credible science you know of and can produce.

...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.

At what ranges? And according to what natural law do these forces fall off as distance increases?

I believe my statements will be validated if this test were done.

Supposition. If you really knew anything about the physics of detonation, high- or low-order, you'd realize in just a few seconds how ludicrous your argument is.

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.

True, but irrelevant. You could detonate a ton of RDX there and it won't shake the bridge.

It's scientifically impossible and is, therefore, forensic proof.

There is absolutely no science in what you're doing. You've done half the though experiment and just begged the desired conclusion as the other half you didn't do. It's certainly not proof of a missile, or of any other affirmative claim.

That's why they do forensics. Unless some people consider themselves above this.

You're not doing forensics, and clearly you have no idea how it's done. And yes, there are very many more people here who have demonstrated they are more knowledgeable and qualified than you on the points you bring up. If you want to turn this into a urination contest, you can. But you'll lose.

Also, VietNam helicopter pilot...

Gish gallop. You've put a number of points on the table here and you're evading a discussion on all of them.

Could you please show us a graph for the mach 4 ejecta clearly written in stone on the radar tapes...

Oh, please. You're completely evading the necessity to prove that the gobbledy-gook on a radar not designed to track such things must necessarily be "Mach 4 ejecta," and not (as is more likely) the conjectural ravings of an untrained physicist who suddenly declared himself competent to interpret ATC radar.

You can't beat the science.

You can't do the science. What you're doing is the opposite of science.

 

[Jetblast]

Nope. He examined radar tapes, found something he couldn't explain through a simplistic straw man and leapt immediately to his preferred explanation by inference. Please learn the difference between inference and evidence.

That won't work. First, I'd like to see you confront Dr Stalcup directly with that. Next, what you say is factually incorrect. If you view the radar tapes Dr Stalcup showed on the new documentary there were radar registrations of debris shooting out from the starboard side of Flight 800. When Dr Stalcup (a physicist) applied scientific examination to this he discovered that the lead pieces of debris showed up on the progressive radar sweeps at a distance that would have required a mach 4 speed to reach that point. Since the sweeps are calibrated and timed precisely the calculation of their speed was scientifically done and could not possibly be labeled "inference" since the labeler has offered nothing to disprove Stalcup's methods or results (nor has the government).

Also, the FBI/NTSB conclusion for the cause of the crash showed a front tank wall that allegedly blasted forward in a uniform manner. How could this blast pattern produce a one-sided asymmetric plume to one side of the aircraft? These are scientific points that require credible answers. So far I haven't seen any. The radar tapes are hard evidence.

And what makes you think ATC radars interpreted by a novice can give you that kind of information? What makes you believe his interpretation of the radar data over that of the many qualified experts with whom his opinion disagrees? Radar is not just a "magic eye."

Well, I guess the answer to that is no "expert" has disproven Stalcup's results. Stalcup is highly qualified. Nor have you shown any flaw in his calculations. You also ignore that Stalcup is backed by some top experts in the field who helped him and endorse his findings.

You need to show how a pattern of debris clearly caught on radar could reach a point that would require a mach 4 sped to get there could be wrong? So far you haven't offered anything. Don't forget the lack of loss forward speed caught by that same radar disproved CIA's zoom climb claim which they publicly backed-off of.

Why don't you show us your credibility and answer how a fuel tank explosion created a one-sided ejecta plume while the forensics NTSB presented in the hangar show a forward tank wall that blew-out uniformly?

The only evidence for a "Mach 4" ejection is a novice's interpretation of the returns from a cloud of radar-reflective debris as recorded by a radar without proper track-establishment methods like range-gating.

Obfuscation. You need to explain how a piece of ejecta in the leading portion of that plume could reach a point that would take mach 4 to get it there from a fuel explosion? What a coincidence that an asymmetric plume pattern would just so happen to occur in the continuing direction of the missile witnessed streaking towards the aircraft. You're not answering the totality of the evidence. We already have hard laboratory tested evidence of rocket propellant. Not to mention evidence of FBI lying to cover it up. Did you know the seat fabric in question was illegally dumped into a dumpster by the investigators while FBI was charging Sanders with evidence tampering?

Nope. In your mad rush to try to prove the TWA 800 break-up doesn't fit your idea of a canonical fuel-tank explosion, you've postulated something that doesn't match a missile strike either. Nor do you have any actual evidence of a missile. You've just pasted a missile hypothesis onto your perception of the evidence and told us it's what has to be true.

That's not true. I've already given evidence you didn't answer of impossible shockwaves.

You ignored blast striations in the nose gear assembly. There's a plethora of evidence, not excluding the PETN rocket propellant tested at a credible laboratory. Forgive me if I find your responses somewhat lacking. I've presented evidence. You've presented words.

As I said, learn the difference between inference and evidence.

Pure evasive sophistry. Anyone can see you're not answering the evidence.

Nope. And yes, I used to be an engineer for Boeing.

Which gives you no excuse for your technical delinquency.

Did you know that Boeing made a statement that disclaimed any association with CIA's Zoom Climb? They said they didn't know where CIA got its science from or how it reached its conclusions.

It's funny how people who back the government version ignore the multitudes of flops in evidence the official investigation committed. Not withstanding the fact they never discovered any forensic evidence of the short circuit they claimed, which airline history shows was very hard to miss in other such cases.

Nonsense.



You could explode a tactical nuclear warhead at the same spot and the bridge wouldn't shake.



Well, since I make my living in part doing forensic engineering, let me just say you don't have the faintest idea what constitutes a finding in that field or proper supporting evidence. You're still stuck on the basic difference between evidence and conjecture.

You have an unproven supposition supported only by question-begging and vague allusions to quantitative arguments. Not even close to evidence, let alone proof.

The evasive wordsmithing and opinionating vs the evidence I presented is obvious in this reply. Wire was an honest man. Those nuclear bomb claims are silly. If we shot-off a US missile with 2000 foot per second high-explosives it would shake that bridge, I guarantee you. It already did in July 1996, which is proof enough.

Smart people can see the direct evidence was avoided in this reply and wasn't disproven.


If you watch the new documentary there were NTSB investigators who said when they discovered missile evidence the wreckage it was on was gone the next day. Of course some people think their obvious sophistry is above the witnessing of these criminal acts by the credible professionals who were there and witnessed it.

 

[JayUtah]

It doesn't matter what missile.

Of course it does. Otherwise you've just hung your hopes on a Magic Missile that somehow, by means you can't explain, does everything you need in order for your interpretations of the evidence to hold.

Unless you can show any evidence that such a missile existed and was actually fired from the platform you identify, you're just stuck in circular reasoning.

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.

"Agree with me or else you're dishonest." Yeah, that's a strong argument.

You haven't made anything remotely close to a forensic investigation. You've made an affirmative argument: that a missile was fired at the airplane. But your "forensic" investigation intended to prove it just kicks random holes in the prevailing theory without directing any line of reasoning toward your preferred hypothesis. You just somehow think that pre-determined hypothesis should hold by default. And it's not as if you're even kicking serious holes. You have a random assortment of things that, in your inexpert estimation, don't add up. That's not a meaningful challenge, nor is it a direct argument for your candidate hypothesis.

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'm a serious aviation professional and you haven't been able to answer a single question or rejoin a single rebuttal I've made. You're just Gish-galloping all over the map.

I would not hesitate to compare their credentials and qualifications to internet posters.

Oh, please. You trust one group of internet posters over another group of internet posters -- likely because they tell you what you want to hear.

<more Gish gallop snipped>

 

[Jetblast]

The Navy routinely lies in public about where its submarines may be at any moment. It's kind of how the submarine fleet works.

So at what point does the American public have the right to know what its military is doing? This was just a simple exercise, right? Apparently the Navy also lies about missile shootdowns as well.

Name the crewman. Name the reporter. What kind of "experimental missile?"

Google: Cashill Did Navy Sub Missile Hit 800

(I can't wait for the long reply of superficial criticisms when shown)

How long did you serve in the Navy, that you would know this on your own?

Silly question that conspicuously avoids the main point. What was the captain relieved of duty without explanation for?

Commands are assigned and reassigned all the time. You're reading something nefarious into something that is rather ordinary. Further, your admission that you can't find an explanation for the relief of command tells me you have absolutely no evidence that the action had anything whatsoever to do with TWA 800.

No, no, no. He was relieved of duty - which is completely different from re-assignment. You're not doing well in your replies.

No. There are witnesses who say they think they saw something rising up to the airplane. To say they "saw a missile" is dishonest. That's substituting interpretation for evidence.

A more credible examination of what they saw would admit they spoke of classic zig-zagging homing behavior and the color and appearance of a missile exhaust plume along with white contrail. Again, you're dodging the context of this, that they saw something FBI went to lengths to deny and cover-up. Are you saying "They did NOT see a missile?" LOL CIA's explanation for this has already crashed harder than Flight 800.

"Deny" is an interesting word. Conspiracy theorists are forever trying to promote minority evidence to pre-eminence. In any happenstance occurrence witnessed by many people there will be outlying evidence. We know from long experience that the reasons outlying testimony arise are myriad and largely innocent. One does not necessarily have to explain each and every outlier in order to maintain an honest investigation.

Sophist semantics that are a waste of my time. There's a clear pattern of denial of evidence and even criminal manipulation. The Long Island police caught FBI illegally removing wreckage from the hangar at night without explanation and they weren't charged. Remember Sanders was threatened with jail for the same thing and he wasn't even guilty.

At best that's knee-jerk, on-the-spot speculation. The subsequent investigation, which considered all the subsequently recovered and developed evidence, showed that to be an unlikely explanation. There are a ton of happenstance occurrences that some initially interpret to be nefarious plots which later turn out to be tragic accidents. "Oh my deity, somebody did this to us/them," is a pretty standard human reaction to tragedy.



Per standard procedure.



Any documentation from this aside from conspiracy web site rumors?



What statement, exactly? You'll forgive me if I don't trust your paraphrasing.

The site won't let me see what I wrote in the "Quote" reply, so I'm at a loss. But I think most people can see you're hand-waving.

 

[LSSBB]

So at what point does the American public have the right to know what its military is doing? This was just a simple exercise, right? Apparently the Navy also lies about missile shootdowns as well.

You are missing the point. The Navy does not state where it's vessels are because it needs to maintain operational secrecy to avoid exploitation of the information by enemies.

Google: Cashill Did Navy Sub Missile Hit 800

(I can't wait for the long reply of superficial criticisms when shown)

Why do we have to do your work for you? Can't you tell us yourself?

Silly question that conspicuously avoids the main point. What was the captain relieved of duty without explanation for?

Who was the captain?

No, no, no. He was relieved of duty - which is completely different from re-assignment. You're not doing well in your replies.

Show me the proceedings of the hearing.

A more credible examination of what they saw would admit they spoke of classic zig-zagging homing behavior and the color and appearance of a missile exhaust plume along with white contrail. Again, you're dodging the context of this, that they saw something FBI went to lengths to deny and cover-up. Are you saying "They did NOT see a missile?" LOL CIA's explanation for this has already crashed harder than Flight 800.

What missile was this again? How was it able to target a plane from a submarine?

Sophist semantics that are a waste of my time.

Calm down there. What semantics?

The site won't let me see what I wrote in the "Quote" reply, so I'm at a loss. But I think most people can see you're hand-waving.

Appeal to the invisible "lurkers". Did you survey them?

 

[JayUtah]

That won't work. First, I'd like to see you confront Dr Stalcup...

Gladly. Bring him here.

Don't play games. You hide behind these witnesses and pseudo-experts. You don't understand their testimony and you refuse to defend it. Again, that's like being foisted with witnesses we can't cross-examine. You insinuate that we are afraid of your witnesses, but in fact it is who who are afraid of a refutation of them, because you can't answer it. This is a well-worn conspiracy theory tactic, and it's not fooling anyone.

When Dr Stalcup (a physicist)...

Interpreting ATC radar is not part of any physics curriculum I'm aware of. I'm not prepared to accept him as an expert in the interpretation of radar records.

...applied scientific examination to this he discovered that the lead pieces of debris showed up on the progressive radar sweeps at a distance that would have required a mach 4 speed to reach that point.

Not a valid method for establishing a radar track.

...since the labeler has offered nothing to disprove Stalcup's methods or results (nor has the government).

No such burden of proof exists. Stalcup has the burden to prove his method is valid. He has not done so, hence we have no obligation to trust the results of his analysis.

Also, the FBI/NTSB conclusion for the cause of the crash showed a front tank wall that allegedly blasted forward in a uniform manner. How could this blast pattern produce a one-sided asymmetric plume to one side of the aircraft?

For two reasons. First, the only evidence of an "asymmetric plume" is poorly-interpreted radar data. Second, debris dispersal patterns are not expected to be symmetrical in an airframe breakup. Stalcup is an expert neither in the interpretation of radar nor in the aerodynamics of airframe failure.

These are scientific points that require credible answers.

No, it's pseudo-science designed to support a pre-existing conspiracy theory. The proponents have the burden to prove their methods are valid and that the results they derive by those methods are reliable to an extent they can demonstrate. There is a procedure for validating methods. Stalcup has not followed those methods.

This is common pseudo-scientific practice. Conspiracy authors drag up some expert who has valid credentials, but who -- in the case in question -- abandons reliable methods and just "goes off the reservation" to make wild claims with the semblance of science about them. What makes a scientific finding valid is its adherence to the scientific method, not the credentials of its proponent. Stalcup did not validate his method. That's the most colossal error one can make in science.

So let me put the burden of proof back on you, where it belongs. You keep throwing around the word "forensic," and you keep claiming that "forensic" science disproves the prevailing theory. However I note a conspicuous lack of any similarly rigorous forensic science to prove that your theory also answers the evidence. You simply tell us that a missile strike will produce the "Mach 4 ejecta cloud," you say you observe, but where's your science to prove that? You simply tell us that a high-order ordnance detonation will shake a highway bridge from 20 miles away. Where's your empirical experiment to show that?

You clearly have a double standard when it comes to proving forensic engineering hypotheses. Apparently only handwaving suffices to establish or falsify your hypothesis, but any competing hypothesis has to be empirically valid clear out to your arbitrary, layman's standard of proof. How does that work?

So far I haven't seen any. The radar tapes are hard evidence.

Nonsense. It's classic pseudo-science, for the reasons already stated.

Well, I guess the answer to that is no "expert" has disproven Stalcup's results.

No such burden of proof exist.

Stalcup is highly qualified.

Irrelevant. His study does not follow the scientific method.

Nor have you shown any flaw in his calculations.

Unnecessary. He did not validate the method of which those calculations form a part. You're putting the cart before the horse.

You also ignore that Stalcup is backed by some top experts in the field who helped him and endorse his findings.

Name them and show where they did the necessary science to reproduce his results, in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

You need to show how a pattern of debris clearly caught on radar...

No, I don't. Subversion of support: you first need to prove there was a Mach 4 ejecta cloud that requires an explanation.

So far you haven't offered anything.

Shifting the burden of proof. I have shown that your "expert's" claim lacks foundation. Since everything subsequent to that in your line of reasoning depends on his conclusion as a premise, your argument fails right there and then.

Don't forget the lack of loss forward speed caught by that same radar...

Same premise, ergo same fallacy (subversion of support).

Why don't you show us your credibility and answer how a fuel tank explosion created a one-sided ejecta plume while the forensics NTSB presented in the hangar show a forward tank wall that blew-out uniformly?

Bench experiments can only prove general congruence. If the hangar and featured a full airframe in flight with proper aerodynamic loading then you can expect it to be of suitable fidelity. But I have already answered this twice now.

Obfuscation. You need to explain how a piece of ejecta in the leading portion of that plume could reach a point that would take mach 4 to get it there...

No. It's not obfuscation -- I'm showing you the flaw in your reasoning. The "Mach 4" straw-man is an inference based on the interpretation of radar data made by an unqualified individual according to an unproven method. I don't have to explain anything that you can't prove is a fact. You desperately want me to accept that pseudo-scientific conclusion as a valid requirement for any credible explanation.

Sorry, that's not how science works. It's most certainly not how a forensic engineering explanation works. A forensic engineering finding has to stand up not only to the rigors of science, but to the probing and prodding of adverse attorneys and their experts who are well-motivated to poke any hole your theory. I'm probing your theory in its weakest spot. I realize that may not be where you want me to poke it, but I'm not sorry about that.

That's not true. I've already given evidence you didn't answer of impossible shockwaves.

Of course I answered it. You are completely unable to rejoin the argument on that point in the face of rebuttals and questions.

You ignored blast striations in the nose gear assembly.

No, it's in the queue. But you're Gish-galloping in order to avoid a detailed discussion of any one particular point. We're quite familiar with this tactic. So we're intentionally limiting you to a few points at a time so you can't dart from topic to topic evasively -- which is quite obviously what you're trying to do.

Pure evasive sophistry. Anyone can see you're not answering the evidence.

Why are you trying to make up the readers' minds for them? I'm happy letting them decide which one of us is being evasive.

Which gives you no excuse for your technical delinquency.

I'm happy letting the readers decide for themselves which of us is technically delinquent. You've all but admitted you're just quoting conspiracy web sites. How does that give you superior technical understanding?

Did you know that Boeing made a statement that disclaimed any association with CIA's Zoom Climb? They said they didn't know where CIA got its science from or how it reached its conclusions.

That's because Boeing was in deep litigation over potential design and maintenance flaws. They have to do such things to establish, in a legal sense, their position on the objective validity of their engineering designs. If a government agency comes out with some particular theory, and that theory might end up in court, then Boeing has to be on record regarding it. They would not have exercised due diligence by not publicly contesting the finding, regardless of the scientific or engineering rationale behind it.

It's funny how people who back the government version...

Whoa! Who said anything about "backing" any version? You presented your theory and I'm showing you what's wrong with it. No one is making any counterclaims or arguing from some desired or entrenched position. Your inability to support your specific theory with any credible evidence has nothing to do with

...ignore the multitudes of flops in evidence the official investigation committed.

Irrelevant. No amount of "flops" identified by eager armchair investigators constitutes proof for any given affirmative claim.

Not withstanding the fact they never discovered any forensic evidence of the short circuit they claimed...

And from your vast experience in forensic engineering investigations, please tell me how often those sorts of things actually are found?

...which airline history shows was very hard to miss in other such cases.

I'm sure you'll be able to cite a compendium of NSTB findings to that effect.

The evasive wordsmithing and opinionating vs the evidence I presented is obvious in this reply.

I'm comfortable letting the readers decide which of us is making the most credible argument. You, on the other hand, seem very, very eager to plant a vote in the readers' minds. Why is that?

You presented several points. I answered each of them in turn, with rebuttals that you're simply scoffing away as "obfuscation" and "sophistry." At a certain point, when your Gish Gallop became apparent, I started tabling points. But that's only because we see your tactic here.

Wire was an honest man.

I make no assertion about his honesty, either generally or specifically. I merely point out that his testimony is not credible for the reasons I've already stated. You can either address those reasons or you can keep trying to buttress a clearly ad hominem rejoinder.

Those nuclear bomb claims are silly.

Do the math to show why. You keep alluding to engineering principles such as resonance and the "frequency" of a shock wave. But to date you have failed to produce any evidence that the airplane, the submarine, a missile, or a bridge would in any way behave as you claim.

If we shot-off a US missile with 2000 foot per second high-explosives it would shake that bridge, I guarantee you.

Begging the question. You claim science backs you up, but you are unable to do the science. Hence you cannot know that. You can't produce computations to show that, even though you've alluded to such computable things as resonance. You can't even discuss the nature of the forensic engineering claim in general terms.

Do not "guarantee" me anything. I'm an engineer and you're discussing an engineering problem. Your "guarantee" in that context would be an engineering proof that shows me your answer is correct.

Smart people can see the direct evidence was avoided in this reply and wasn't disproven.

"If you disagree with me, you're just not smart." Again, such a strong argument.

Of course some people think their obvious sophistry is above the witnessing of these criminal acts by the credible professionals who were there and witnessed it.

Asked and answered. One does not arrive at the proper picture of an event by focusing on outlying evidence to the exclusion of all else.

 

[Jetblast]

Gladly. You seem very adamant to defend a man you've likely never met and who likely has no clue who you are. Kindly lay aside the exaggerated indignance. Your borrowing his claim. You can either support it as if it were your own, or you can produce him so that we can question him. Otherwise you're just trying to foist evidence you won't let us cross-examine.

You're silly. If you bother to study this subject Mike Wire is well-known. He's also in the new documentary. Why don't you study this and get back to me when you know what you're talking about.

At what ranges? And according to what natural law do these forces fall off as distance increases?

You must not be paying enough attention. I already said at 20 miles from Flight 800's explosion. Your questions are inherently self-exposing because the science is the simple science of shockwaves according to their source as was already stated. You have yet to answer the point. If you asked experts they would bear me out and you haven't shown otherwise. You're clearly stumbling over your own ignorance and inability to give a credible answer.

Supposition. If you really knew anything about the physics of detonation, high- or low-order, you'd realize in just a few seconds how ludicrous your argument is.

Hand-waving. The science backs me.

True, but irrelevant. You could detonate a ton of RDX there and it won't shake the bridge.

That simply isn't true.

There is absolutely no science in what you're doing. You've done half the though experiment and just begged the desired conclusion as the other half you didn't do. It's certainly not proof of a missile, or of any other affirmative claim.

Except for the science that you've been conspicuously unable to disprove. If we were to bother to do an academic study of what I said you would be disproven and I would be validated.

You're not doing forensics, and clearly you have no idea how it's done. And yes, there are very many more people here who have demonstrated they are more knowledgeable and qualified than you on the points you bring up. If you want to turn this into a urination contest, you can. But you'll lose.

Ah ha. There was never any examination of the shockwave pattern for obvious reasons (because it would prove a shootdown). Are you referencing the goofy nuclear shockwave graph above? That's laughable and has no relationship whatsoever to the shockwave science I quoted nor could you show any. Surely you're not serious?

Oh, please. You're completely evading the necessity to prove that the gobbledy-gook on a radar not designed to track such things must necessarily be "Mach 4 ejecta," and not (as is more likely) the conjectural ravings of an untrained physicist who suddenly declared himself competent to interpret ATC radar.

Specious evasion. If we put you next to Dr Stalcup we would quickly see the radar caught evidence of mach 4 ejecta your thinly-transparent desperate evasions haven't accounted for. Again, you are ignoring that many qualified radar experts backed Stalcup on his claim. Stalcup is hardly a "raver" as you called him. He's a very quietly methodical professional who I think restrained himself too much. Much of what you write is laughable if you know the true facts of this case. When all the bluster clears you haven't come up with an explanation for the mach 4 ejecta and especially have ignored the asymmetrical pattern that conflicted with the fuel tank forensics. Answer how the lead piece of ejecta reached a point the required mach 4 to get it there. It's fun seeing someone blow so hard then flop!

 

[carlitos]

Name the crewman. Name the reporter. What kind of "experimental missile?"

Google: Cashill Did Navy Sub Missile Hit 800

Surely neither the crewman nor the reporter were named Google.

Oh Captain, My Captain:

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.

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?

Hmm.

And why did you ignore the point about the captain being relieved of duty?

vvvvv

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?

Silly question that conspicuously avoids the main point. What was the captain relieved of duty without explanation for?

...

No, no, no. He was relieved of duty - which is completely different from re-assignment. You're not doing well in your replies.

Who was the captain?

Well?

 

[JayUtah]

So at what point does the American public have the right to know what its military is doing?

Irrelevant. You are telling us the Navy is remiss. That means you are the one arguing that a certain standard of disclosure exists and was violated in this case, or should have existed and was inappropriately disregarded.

It is your belief and claim that the U.S. Navy was involved. It is your responsibility to prove whatever it is you claim about them. Do not simply beg the question.

Google: Cashill Did Navy Sub Missile Hit 800

No, "Google for my argument" is not acceptable. How do I know what claims someone else has made elsewhere are the ones that you are prepared to argue here?

Silly question that conspicuously avoids the main point. What was the captain relieved of duty without explanation for?

Nonsense. You have claimed the commanding officer was relieved of duty. I do not know if that's factually true, but until it becomes an issue I'm willing to stipulate that it's true.

You have claimed captains are rarely relieved of duty in the manner you claim USS Wyoming's commanding officer was. You present no evidence for that other than your ipse dico.

You have claimed the circumstances of the relief are being withheld from the public. At best that's an argument from silence. You have suggested it is suspicious to do so. But again you provide only your say-so in support of that. Have you not considered the possibility that something you claim is a rare occurrence might properly not be publicly disclosed?

You have insinuated that the reasons for this action have something to do with TWA 800. But by the fact of your admission not to know the reason for the relief, you cannot possibly know whether your insinuation is true. You're stabbing the dark.

Hence I have carefully evaluated your argument and find it to be pure conjecture based on unfounded assumption, and therefore to be not especially persuasive.

No, no, no. He was relieved of duty - which is completely different from re-assignment.

Yes, but you have laid no foundation for your insinuation that either is an untoward occurrence.

You're not doing well in your replies.

I'm content to let the reader determine which of us is doing well.

A more credible examination of what they saw would admit they spoke of classic zig-zagging homing behavior and the color and appearance of a missile exhaust plume along with white contrail.

Well, no, this is cherry-picked.

Again, you're dodging the context of this...

No. What you call "context" is your desperate need to paste the desired interpretation onto their statements. This is exactly what a forensic investigation does the opposite of. Forensic investigators are trained to interview witnesses such that interpretation (conscious or otherwise) is pared away and the factual aspects of the testimony can be extracted without bias or embellishment.

...that they saw something FBI went to lengths to deny and cover-up.

Appeal to conspiracy. The only way your interpretation of the testimony stands up is when it's framed within the begged-question conspiracy claim. Purely circular reasoning.

Are you saying "They did NOT see a missile?"

I'm saying that they cannot know whether what they saw was a missile. You're the one pushing the eyewitness testimony in a particular direction. I'm the one trying to return it to the semblance of evidentiary value by removing the aspects of your handling it that are clearly misdirected and clearly predisposed.

Sophist semantics that are a waste of my time.

You may keep sidestepping my responses with any excuse you wish. But when you do so, it becomes increasingly more difficult for you to claim I'm ignoring your points.

There's a clear pattern of denial of evidence and even criminal manipulation.

Gish gallop. When confronted with the inability to answer specific evidentiary points, the conspiracy theorist retreats to the "big picture" argument, so that the only examination of his argument remains the 10,000-foot (or shall we say, 13,000-foot) level -- unlikely to discover its flaws.

But I think most people can see you're hand-waving.

I don't consider you an expert on what "most people" would think about me or my arguments. You do realize that I have literally thousands of posts here while you are a newcomer. I'll admit it's amusing watching you try to poison the well, but I'd really rather discuss the few points we started on, until we reach some sort of closure.

 

[Corsair 115]

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.

Except, as I pointed out ages ago in this thread, the forensic examination of the human remains from the flight does not support the missile theory.

 

[DGM]

True, but irrelevant. You could detonate a ton of RDX there and it won't shake the bridge.

That simply isn't true.

Explain, I'm listening.