New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[tsig]

Your argument is with Mike Wire. Are you saying his obviously unrehearsed recounting of the event immediately after was invented?

Be honest, how do you think Wire would perform on a lie detector test?

Be even more honest, how do you think that bridge would respond if we shot an identical US missile at a 747 in the exact same location?


You people are very good when the playing field involves brave people having both arms tied behind their back by the gov't that committed the crime.

I think it would have a sad.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Alright, I have an honest question for you, Jetblast, and I hope that you will take me seriously despite your adversarial interactions with the other posters in this thread so far. You claim the RADAR data shows a stream of Mach 4 ejecta indicating a warhead strike. Where, then, is the missile itself on this RADAR return? Surely if the RADAR has the ability to pick up a shooting stream of high-velocity particulates and fragments, it can pick up a surface-to-air missile. Please don't tell me that the RADAR data was "altered" to remove any sign of the missile, either, because it would have been just as easy to also alter it to remove your supposed high-velocity ejecta.

 

[tsig]

Sure anything you say. Except a more credible analysis of this crash would include the way the aircraft broke-up and fire exposure as the center tank exploded later in the process. You deny too quickly on too short a basis.

Your offhand expertise has a problem however. You might want to check out MIT professor Graeme Sephton's lawsuit against FBI in a Boston Federal Court. The Long Island Coroner found and removed shrapnel from many of victims. The shrapnel were in pellet form and were tested. The tests showed they consisted of metals not found in Boeing construction (meaning they had to have come from something other than the aircraft). When tested the pellets were found to be made of the exact same metals used in US warhead shrapnel. FBI confiscated the pellets and took them into evidence, making a 30 page report on them.

When MIT professor Graeme Sephton filed a Freedom Of Information Act request for the files FBI refused, saying they couldn't find them. Sephton took FBI to court where a Bush-era judge told Sephton that although he thought FBI acted poorly he was ruling in their favor. Although the law required FBI to return the pellets to the Long Island Coroner they never did.









I believe it was on the version I saw on You-Tube before the documentary came out. The reason the bodies varied so much is because a missile transited the cabin and another one blew up in close proximity sending a terrible lethal force into the jet. Those weapons did what they were designed to do. A fuel tank explosion would have been less violent and more evenly distributed. You're wrong. The injuries witnessed were missile impact injuries. We are talking a proximity detonation and transit followed by center tank fire. Those injuries are just right for this pattern. The Long Island Coroner isn't an idiot. The mutilations were severe yet the person next to them was relatively uninjured. That's a blast injury pal, not a center tank pop.









Stalcup has presented his data publicly. He's presented it through FIRO. You have to remember the authorities are criminally covering this up. You guys pretend everything's normal when the truth is people are being asked to play ball while the baseball field has been chained shut.

So in order for your theory to work we have to assume there was a crime committed to cover up?

I'm dizzy now.

 

[tsig]

You people need to figure-out if you are telling us the Navy lies and keeps secrets for national security or openly tells of its cutting edge experimental missiles?

Shooting down a commercial airliner seems a poor way to keep a missile secret.

 

[tsig]

It's on the ARAP TWA800 site. Google: Sephton vs FBI.


The FBI tested and documented the pellets as containing the exact metals in US warhead shrapnel. The Long Island Coroner documented this.


I'm not the one who should be answering the questions here.










You are doubting something that was witnessed by the Long Island Coroner. Though I'm glad to you correctly detect the unusualness of it. That wouldn't happen to the extent it did with a center tank explosion.







The body could have been ripped by extreme blast forces or missile exhaust blast. The burned bodies could have stayed after the nose was blasted off and burned in the fuel. The relatively unburned body next to them could have been ejected by extreme forces from the blast. Sure there could be a simple explanation for the ejection like no seatbelt but the Coroner found enough of a pattern to detect an anomalous situation. Forces went through the cabin other than those from a fuel explosion.

PETN missile exhaust residue doesn't impress you, eh?

The missile still operating after it's warhead exploded would impress me a lot.

 

[thedopefishlives]

As another point, I see you have yet to post the Long Island Coroner's report and/or testimony, yet you keep referring to what he purportedly said. Why don't you post his exact words for us?

 

[LSSBB]

As another point, I see you have yet to post the Long Island Coroner's report and/or testimony, yet you keep referring to what he purportedly said. Why don't you post his exact words for us?

Yeah, I asked for that too. Seeing as I gave him two names for the sub skipper, and he can't cough up either one as being the guy on the wrong side of the long green table, I see we got someone short on solid facts here.

 

[matt.tansy]

This is the petition to re-open the investigation. The radar debris starts on page 6. http://twa800project.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/petition-final.pdf

Note the "error analysis" on page 7. ACP will tell you which way the antenna is pointed to a high degree of accuracy but actual azimuth accuracy of the radar returns is dependent on beam width. Most radars have a bearing resolution of about 1°, not the .04° mentioned. Besides, the plot of radar data on page 6 proves their error analysis is flawed. The radar returns are jumping around all over the place.

 

[Jetblast]

Alright, I have an honest question for you, Jetblast, and I hope that you will take me seriously despite your adversarial interactions with the other posters in this thread so far. You claim the RADAR data shows a stream of Mach 4 ejecta indicating a warhead strike. Where, then, is the missile itself on this RADAR return? Surely if the RADAR has the ability to pick up a shooting stream of high-velocity particulates and fragments, it can pick up a surface-to-air missile. Please don't tell me that the RADAR data was "altered" to remove any sign of the missile, either, because it would have been just as easy to also alter it to remove your supposed high-velocity ejecta.

Good question better aimed at an expert. I don't know if there was and it was erased or if the incredible speed of a missile, combined with its small size, is underneath the tracking technology of FAA radar. However one thing is sure mach 4, asymmetrical, continuing direction ejecta is trumping proof and we are safely home with missile evidence because of it. A special zone was secured by Navy divers who overtook the New York City Police divers in the underwater search for wreckage. Those Navy divers found something and left.


Be aware US had satellite technology capable of detecting missile launches over the site. When approached they said the satellites were not active at the time and the data was unavailable (sound familiar?).


The human eye is a highly complex organ connected to the universe's most complex device know as the human brain. What I love about you doubters and skeptics is how you show the public that your subjective biased logic requires a careful omission of some of the evidence and witnessing. Never do you view the obvious preponderance of the evidence in its totality or admit what it infers.

 

[CORed]

This is the petition to re-open the investigation. The radar debris starts on page 6. http://twa800project.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/petition-final.pdf

Note the "error analysis" on page 7. ACP will tell you which way the antenna is pointed to a high degree of accuracy but actual azimuth accuracy of the radar returns is dependent on beam width. Most radars have a bearing resolution of about 1°, not the .04° mentioned. Besides, the plot of radar data on page 6 proves their error analysis is flawed. The radar returns are jumping around all over the place.

Looks like we have noisy data with an outlier at mach 4. Amazing how math and science work, when you do it right.

 

[Jetblast]

This is the petition to re-open the investigation. The radar debris starts on page 6. http://twa800project.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/petition-final.pdf

Note the "error analysis" on page 7. ACP will tell you which way the antenna is pointed to a high degree of accuracy but actual azimuth accuracy of the radar returns is dependent on beam width. Most radars have a bearing resolution of about 1°, not the .04° mentioned. Besides, the plot of radar data on page 6 proves their error analysis is flawed. The radar returns are jumping around all over the place.

Specious nitpicking. I love how you go and fetch information that mostly backs my position and proves it correct (Thank You for that) but then add a little tidbit that tries to show why it is flawed. Truth is you error analysis does nothing to disprove the simple data shown on the radar of the ejecta exiting TWA 800 at mach 4. You are trying to break hard evidence with a straw. You're wrong and the returns were quite sufficient for what we need. You're trying to muddy the waters with incorrect technical objections.

If we study the radar data it clearly shows mach 4 ejecta exiting the 747. That was impossible with a 300 foot per second fuel explosion and it also has the condemning characteristic of the continuing direction pattern and behavior of a missile strike like that seen going from north to south by hundreds of witnesses. While some dwell in obfuscating distractions like beam width others, who are more honestly interested in finding out what happened to Flight 800 for the people who perished and can't defend themselves, look at the obvious and come to the correct conclusion.

Honestly, what kind of a morally sick place is America? What do you people represent? All hail the power of the state over reality and democracy? While Tansy picks out a little speck that isn't even accurate our expert flaw detector ignores the huge body of provable flaws committed by the original investigation that the petitioners point-out in the document he links. We have some posters ridiculing Stalcup for being a guy who goes to the Coroner to make his case. However any look at the petition will recognize the seriousness of it and serious professional credentials and formal approach. I suggest people read it. It clearly shows the original investigation to be the criminal event it was. Something Tansy, our great flaw detector, allows without any comment.

 

[carlitos]

Yes, assuming a bearing resolution 25 times the actual resolution would be "a straw" and an "obfuscating distraction." Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Jetblast - might I ask what your interest in this subject is? Did you invest in the "documentary" or something?

Having had it explained about 7 or 8 different ways, have you started to figure out why a small missile explosion can't be felt from 10 miles away?

 

[CORed]

That sort of thing seems to be endemic among CTers. Basically, they seem to think eyewitness testimony is inerrant, so they invent a scenario, no matter how absurd, that covers all the descriptions.

I mean, three missiles? And nobody has owned up, and no other evidence, in all the intervening years?

You know, it's just barely conceivable that a Navy vessel would accidentally shoot down an airliner, an having made that major screw-up, Naval officers would try to cover it up. It is a few orders of magnitude less conceivable that the NTSB and FBI would participate in the cover-up.

But three missiles? That's no-plane, directed energy weapon level stupidity. One would have to believe that the government intentionally conspired to shot down an airliner and make it look like an accident ... because ... well I guess they're just that evil.

 

[thedopefishlives]

So the "small size and incredible speed" of the missile is enough to keep it off the RADAR data, but the small size and incredible speed of the debris ejecta is not? Now I'm really confused.

 

[Jetblast]

Looks like we have noisy data with an outlier at mach 4. Amazing how math and science work, when you do it right.

Ah ha. I think we know what the "noise" is here.


That's a clear radar return of mach 4 ejecta exiting the starboard side. You expose yourself because you don't admit that the plume happens in a one-sided direction that was impossible for a fuel explosion.


I suggest you read the petition. Specifically the part where they were asked if they conveyed Fred Meyer's testimony accurately. The board said they had. When asked to re-read what they said they quoted Meyer as saying he saw a streak and then a fuel explosion. Of course they were lying there because Meyer had detailed his VietNam experience and ordnance expertise in his testimony. Especially the part about the star-like brilliant High Explosives flash he witnessed against the side of Flight 800. There's something called linguistic forensics the government doesn't hesitate to use when prosecuting people. When you apply those forensic to your cheap denials and the government's pattern of covering-up testimony we are well into evidence the government usual honors.

 

[Jetblast]

So the "small size and incredible speed" of the missile is enough to keep it off the RADAR data, but the small size and incredible speed of the debris ejecta is not? Now I'm really confused.

I'm not sure. However I do know that the ATC controllers were on record as saying they witnessed evidence of a shootdown when the event happened and reported it. They were told not to speak about it and when the radar tapes were returned the missile blips were removed.


You said don't tell me they removed the data because they would have removed the ejecta if they were altering the tapes. However you make an assumption there that isn't absolute, and a true analysis of cover-ups shows they can't think of or hide everything and the plume of ejecta might not register right away to the alterers because, as Tansy's link shows, the radar data was dense and not easy to sort-out at first look. Maybe it would have taken them too long? Ever think of that?


Don't cherry-pick spun information. Involve ALL of the evidence.


You are forgetting, with the witnesses, we already have your side being caught lying about the Zoom Climb. You haven't accounted for that so it should temper your attitude. We have a brilliant flash and unidirectional plume that don't seem to cause you any confusion. Why don't they, since you're so smart?

 

[BangBang]

So the "small size and incredible speed" of the missile is enough to keep it off the RADAR data, but the small size and incredible speed of the debris ejecta is not? Now I'm really confused.

This.

 

[BangBang]

As I suspected would happen. It's hand waved away.

 

[matt.tansy]

Specious nitpicking. I love how you go and fetch information that mostly backs my position and proves it correct (Thank You for that) but then add a little tidbit that tries to show why it is flawed.

The "little tidbit" is based on my knowledge and experience of operating and repairing radars for 20 years. I immediately recognized the error analysis was flawed because it used ACP rather than beam width and then I referred to the radar plot that debunks the error analysis one page later. Look closely at the plot. If the error analysis was accurate all the radar returns from all the radars should fall within 0.1 nautical miles. Do they? No. Some returns are three quarters of a nautical mile apart. How about just the returns from Islip, the closest radar to the crash? Nope, it jumps around about a quarter of a mile.

Truth is you error analysis does nothing to disprove the simple data shown on the radar of the ejecta exiting TWA 800 at mach 4.

I get the feeling that everything you know about radar you learned from Hollywood.

You are trying to break hard evidence with a straw. You're wrong and the returns were quite sufficient for what we need. You're trying to muddy the waters with incorrect technical objections.

Every radar operation manual in the world disagrees with you. Here is the simplest radar manual I know of. It's designed for beginners. Knock yourself out. http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

If we study the radar data it clearly shows mach 4 ejecta exiting the 747. That was impossible with a 300 foot per second fuel explosion and it also has the condemning characteristic of the continuing direction pattern and behavior of a missile strike like that seen going from north to south by hundreds of witnesses.

Yes, let's study the radar data. Let's see the math that proves the largest SAM warhead in existence could eject debris 3000 feet in 8.5 seconds. Pay special attention to the fact that the missile(s) were claimed to detonate on the left side of the aircraft, which means the ejecta had to transit through the hull, emerge out the right side, and continue for another 0.5 nmi.

 

[thedopefishlives]

As I suspected would happen. It's hand waved away.

He keeps dragging in additional hypotheticals to try to explain away the holes in his theory. I'm pretty sure we're on a runaway train to the inflationary limit of conspiracy theories at this point.