This is a well-worn conspiracy theory tactic, and it's not fooling anyone.
What's not fooling anyone here is the hot wind you are using to avoid answering the evidence.
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.
He's well qualified because the data being interpreted is so basic anyone with any basic academic ability could do so. You're making spurious points. Besides, you keep ignoring that Stalcup is associated with both ARAP and FIRO - both organizations being well-staffed with experts in the aviation and radar fields. Your replies are noticeably weak in comparison.
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.
Stalcup has shown reasonable evidence that no one has reasonably disproven. And he's well-qualified to do so, despite your flagrantly-deceptive denials.
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.
That's simply false. Here's where you destroy your credibility. The radar data clearly shows debris ejecting to the starboard side. No serious investigator involved with this questions this. There is no ejecta to the port side. There's no "poor interpretation" possible with this kind of unquestionable data. You are just adding non-truths to obfuscate the facts.
You are making irrelevant trivial points designed to distract from the real arguments. Besides, your own CIA animation clearly shows a symmetrical fuel explosion pattern. So you are contradicting what your own people said. Well done! lol
I think this one example alone shows your input to be fatally deficient and not worth responding to.
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.
Since when have you had any objections to pseudo-science since your side has specialized in it and had to back-off many of its claims including the Zoom Climb? Your pre-existing center fuel tank explosion is what is the invalid premise here seeing how the investigation never found any real evidence of it as the initiating cause. While you pretend high standards don't forget your side offered the seat glue explanation. Where is your haughty protest over that? You're just filibustering sophist filler material. Stalcup has satisfied the science by showing the leading piece of ejecta got to that point at mach 4. What's painfully obvious here is that your contrived, hollow protests have failed to disprove that.
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.
You're obviously in denial and that method validation protest you make is disingenuous. Meanwhile your side doesn't offer anyone to explain the results besides this technical dishonesty. They all ran and hid.
Where is your explanation for NASA scientist Charley Basset who protested he never did the tests FBI lied about and said he did? Where is YOUR validation? Besides, what you're saying isn't true and Stalcup did legitimately show a piece of ejecta that traveled at mach 4.
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?
Your in contempt of commonly-known science. It isn't me who should be answering these obscene reversals. It is you who should be explaining how a 300 foot per second fuel explosion created such a quickly-traveling ejecta plume? You're in denial of that plume, but it's clearly smack right there on the radar evidence. I'm satisfied with this debate because your desperation to get around the science is obvious and your evasive demands don't come anywhere close to meeting the requirements of what has been shown.
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?
Says the guy who tolerates the Zoom Climb blowing up in your side's face; evidence tampering; lying by FBI over residue tests; proven falsehoods with the St Louis bomb test; denial of witness testimony, and many many more examples of government duplicity.
Not as big as your double standard considering what you haven't come close to disproving here.
No, I don't. Subversion of support: you first need to prove there was a Mach 4 ejecta cloud that requires an explanation.
I already have. The first pieces of ejecta reach a point on the radar that required mach 4 to get them there. You can't argue this. It's hard science written in stone in the radar data. You can't get around it nor do any of your transparent excuses disprove it. Let's always keep in mind that your side never proved any forensic evidence showing a center fuel tank explosion as the cause. So you're a hypocrite. You don't demand the same from your side. Anyone who argues the ejecta itself is not credible since none of the officials from your side do this. It's right there on radar. Anyone who argues it dismisses their own credibility.
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.
False obfuscation. The necessary forensic observations can be made from the wreckage as it exists in the hangar. What you are obviously doing (and it isn't fooling anyone) is you are trying to bamboozle with highly technical challenges based on contrived esoteric knowledge but what's pathetically obvious here is that the original point hasn't been answered and that the diverting high science that was used to distract from it wasn't necessary. It was just being used as a diversion because its author thought people would be fooled by it. It's rubbish and a specious argument. If we go back to my original point the uniform failure of the forward center fuel tank wall in the forward direction shows the blast happened symmetrically. Therefore this fatally conflicts with the asymmetrical plume forensic data shown on the radar.
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.
Don't you understand that the more you offer these substance-devoid protests without being able to disprove the actual evidence the stronger it becomes? You have yet to give a credible answer to the mach 4 ejecta besides painfully transparent sophist technicalities over methodology. Meanwhile the evidence itself stands and you haven't touched it.
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.
The confession that you are ignoring the sound evidence that it is.
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.
OK. Let's discuss the particular point of FBI criminally lying about the seat glue test.
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?
Another falsehood. The TWA 800 site is run by pilots and top credibility industry professionals.
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.
You're excuse-making again. Boeing protested because the science CIA used to create the Zoom Climb was obviously unsupportable. Boeing wanted to distance itself from it exactly for the legal reasons you cite. You're not being honest about the true context. 747 captain, and Aviation Science post-grad, Captain Ray Lahr sued CIA over its Zoom Climb science. Did you know CIA never released it? You really have real credibility here backing the side that is the biggest offender of what you describe. Meanwhile Lahr used his aviation science knowledge to present the formulas that proved a nose-less 747 couldn't possibly Zoom Climb. Lahr's lawsuit is still being stalled in the courts. So where are your methodology complaints with Lahr who has satisfied all of your scientific demands? Where is your demand that CIA come forth with its science? You're not being honest.
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
You can't afford such a luxury in front of the facts. Very self-forgiving of you considering what you demand from others. And considering what you've failed to answer and how.
Irrelevant. No amount of "flops" identified by eager armchair investigators constitutes proof for any given affirmative claim.
In some sophist theoretical heaven I suppose but not in the real world. To me you look like a laughable lord guarding his burnt-out gilded crack house of deception.
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?
Because TWA 800 was shot down and covered-up.
Anyone can compare the evidence content of my posts to the hot air content of yours.
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.
We both know it would.
Right.....................
