New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[Jetblast]

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.

Deniers will try to remove the conversation to off-point idle speculation. But anyone can see the reason and motive they are doing it for is to avoid discussing the direct evidence.

3 missiles (if they occurred) would be perfectly understandable if a drone missile accidentally locked-on to a commercial jetliner. Or if an Al Qaeda suicide pilot had dove towards a 747 out of JFK hoping it would be an El Al flight. Go ahead mock the notion of Al Qaeda using suicide aircraft.

A Navy P-3 Orion electronic surveillance aircraft was a mile from Flight 800 when it exploded. They told investigators they had their equipment turned-off at the time (Ya).

You guys are very trusting for the 'skeptic' position you pretend to take. You should be told you come-off as sounding like military party members (which is also probably a true resonance).

 

[matt.tansy]

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.

The NTSB report said on page 245, "He stated that he observed the streak
for about 1 to 2 seconds after which he saw an explosion. He described the streak as
having the trajectory and image of a shooting star. In an interview with the Safety Board’s
initial Witness Group (conducted on January 11, 1997), he indicated that he observed a
red-orange streak of light moving horizontally for about 3 to 5 seconds in a gradually
descending arc that he described as a “gentle descending trajectory”—similar to a
shooting star. He then saw what he described as an explosion, followed 1 to 2 seconds
later by a second and possibly a third explosion.⁵⁰⁵"

Footnote 505 reads: ⁵⁰⁵ The witness described the explosions as being "like flak... …a hard explosion."

I suggest you read the report and stop reading what other people have said about the report.

 

[AtomicDog]

Why don't you just come out and call us "Government Lovers? " You know you want to.

 

[matt.tansy]

A Navy P-3 Orion electronic surveillance aircraft was a mile from Flight 800 when it exploded. They told investigators they had their equipment turned-off at the time (Ya).

P-3s are anti-submarine aircraft, not electronic surveillance aircraft.

 

[carlitos]

Jetblast,

Please try to understand why you can't feel a missile explosion from 10 miles away. It's the most ludicrous thing you've said here, and that's really saying something. If your version of physics were correct, we'd all be killed while watching a fireworks display.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I suggest you read the report and stop reading what other people have said about the report.

Yeah, but then he'd have actual facts to deal with, rather than the convenient straw men he keeps setting up and knocking down.

Hey -- where's the Long Island Coroner's report and/or testimony? The one you keep paraphrasing from but refuse to post verbatim for us?

 

[matt.tansy]

This will help to put explosive blast and fragmentation into perspective: https://www.llis.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/DHS-BombThreatChart-6-5-09.pdf

Note the outdoor standoff distance for 1000 lbs TNT equivalent is 2400 feet. That is 0.4 nmi. 2400 feet is the greatest distance shrapnel will travel from that size of explosion. And we are told to believe a warhead with 15% the power can eject something 25% farther.

 

[Jetblast]

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.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/nFetDwQ.png[/qimg]

You didn't answer the unidirectional nature of the plume. I'm impressed with your expertise however my eye is drawn to the giant donut hole in your response.


I know how you people work. You get a flagrant insider like yourself who would never go against the government because of your position. I mean who are you trying to fool? If you were a radar operator that means you were a military or government agent. Gee, I wonder what bias you have? Right? The US government has all sorts of dirty programs where they violate posse comitatus and get government or military members to operate in a predatory manner serving the government's interests against the defenseless public and their trust. I don't know if you're a hired gun for the government or not but those programs have been admitted to by the government. Just Google: Sunstein and conspiracy theory. I see your address is listed as Groton.

What you people do is try to bamboozle the public with learned technical knowledge knowing the average person couldn't argue against what was said. However I think your strawman above is simply answered by pointing-out that if you took one radar tape and analyzed the plume separately you would see that the lead piece of ejecta travels at mach 4. Have you looked at all the radar tapes separately? Though not versed in the radar science you quote I think I have enough of a grasp to understand that you are constructing a phony argument that takes advantage of the normal disparity between radars in order to contrive a false argument. You are trying to exploit the difference in detection between those radars to falsely conflate an inaccuracy argument. But that's a phony strawman that doesn't answer the science of what was captured enough to prove mach 4 ejecta. Nor is it enough to overturn the preponderance of evidence associated with it as you show by ignoring the fact that all your radars caught an asymmetrical plume that can't be accounted for by the official story.

I think you're bluffing and an honest analysis of the Islip radar would show enough accurate data to exclude a fuel explosion. You're obviously trying to take advantage of radar quirks but I think what you are using it to avoid admitting is that the data is there enough even with your contrived quirks. You think you're hot **** but I'd bet a recovery algorithm could be created to compensate for your jumps that would put us squarely back in line with Stalcup's claims.


I'd like to see the Stalcup side answer your criticisms.


And I'd also like to see you answer the unidirectional pattern of the plume and how it relates to your radar claims.

 

[carlitos]

And we are told to believe a warhead with 15% the power can eject something 25% farther.

....and that the blast wave would "shake a bridge" ten miles away...

 

[Jetblast]

Jetblast,

Please try to understand why you can't feel a missile explosion from 10 miles away. It's the most ludicrous thing you've said here, and that's really saying something. If your version of physics were correct, we'd all be killed while watching a fireworks display.

Tell it to Mike Wire. (I'd love to be there when you did)

 

[carlitos]

Tell it to Mike Wire. (I'd love to be there when you did)

Mike Wire can't suspend the laws of physics any more than you can. Why won't you try to think logically about this?

 

[Jetblast]

The NTSB report said on page 245, "He stated that he observed the streak
for about 1 to 2 seconds after which he saw an explosion. He described the streak as
having the trajectory and image of a shooting star. In an interview with the Safety Board’s
initial Witness Group (conducted on January 11, 1997), he indicated that he observed a
red-orange streak of light moving horizontally for about 3 to 5 seconds in a gradually
descending arc that he described as a “gentle descending trajectory”—similar to a
shooting star. He then saw what he described as an explosion, followed 1 to 2 seconds
later by a second and possibly a third explosion.⁵⁰⁵"

Footnote 505 reads: ⁵⁰⁵ The witness described the explosions as being "like flak... …a hard explosion."

I suggest you read the report and stop reading what other people have said about the report.

You're flagrantly misquoting what was written in the petition. Go back and read it again it's your own link. Meyer clearly describes seeing a brilliant ordnance flash that he then detailed was familiar to him from VietNam. There's no doubt the panel covered-up and altered what Meyer said. As did you.


Could you tell me why you are making such an obvious effort to avoid what Meyer clearly described and why?

 

[Jetblast]

From what I could find on Google the bridge in question was the "Beach Lane Bridge" in Westhampton, New York which is right on the shore and about 10 miles or so from the explosion. You can Google satellite view it. It is pretty interesting.

 

[Jetblast]

Mike Wire can't suspend the laws of physics any more than you can. Why won't you try to think logically about this?

I'm sure if you said that to Mr Wire's face he would address your patronizing condescension appropriately. Especially considering its intent.

I think we'd see Mr Wire apply some strong logic where it was deserved.

 

[Jetblast]

P-3s are anti-submarine aircraft, not electronic surveillance aircraft.

Hello.


Another case of backing my point while taking a supposed critical position.


The P-3 was the Navy's most packed electronic surveillance aircraft.


You have no curiosity what their assignment was that night or why they said they were turned-off? I don't think they ever turn-off when they are in flight. Your honesty is really impressive!


These are good examples of the brave free Americans we entrust in these positions. People who have no problem with the satellite data not being available or the P-3 saying they were turned-off. Where do I sign-up for the party guys? These are tough guys who specialize in beating-up members of the public with both arms tied behind their back.

 

[carlitos]

From what I could find on Google the bridge in question was the "Beach Lane Bridge" in Westhampton, New York which is right on the shore and about 10 miles or so from the explosion. You can Google satellite view it. It is pretty interesting.

I know, I already looked it up and noted that even a 20 kiloton nuclear detonation wouldn't shake a bridge at that distance. It didn't happen. Mr Wire is mistaken.

 

[LSSBB]

Hello.


Another case of backing my point while taking a supposed critical position.


The P-3 was the Navy's most packed electronic surveillance aircraft.


You have no curiosity what their assignment was that night or why they said they were turned-off? I don't think they ever turn-off when they are in flight. Your honesty is really impressive!

The P-3 is a dedicated sub hunter. You yourself raise the issue of a sub being on sea trials in the area. That would be one perfectly plausible reason for it to be there.

I suggest you look up the difference between a P-3 and an E-2 or E-3. It's not how much electronics you have, it's what the electronics are for.

 

[matt.tansy]

You didn't answer the unidirectional nature of the plume. I'm impressed with your expertise however my eye is drawn to the giant donut hole in your response.

No one is disputing the unidirectional nature of the plume; only its cause. The radar data is too sloppy to support the Mach 4 claim.

I know how you people work. You get a flagrant insider like yourself who would never go against the government because of your position. I mean who are you trying to fool? If you were a radar operator that means you were a military or government agent. Gee, I wonder what bias you have? Right?

Yes, all people who have served in the military are brainwashed peons who are incapable of questioning their beloved government. Like Fred Meyer. Would you like to tell that to him in person?

You're obviously trying to take advantage of radar quirks...

They're not quirks; it's the nature of the beast, it's the intrinsic inaccuracy of radar.

 

[matt.tansy]

You have no curiosity what their assignment was that night or why they said they were turned-off?

They were enroute to an exercise. I've flown on P-3s during ASW exercises. The crew comes onboard, the pilot, co-pilot, and engineer man the cockpit, and the rest of the crew goes to sleep! Just before they arrive at the exercise area the crew is woken up, they man their stations, conduct the exercise, start heading home, and the crew goes back to sleep. Stop making everything sound nefarious.

 

[Jetblast]

I know, I already looked it up and noted that even a 20 kiloton nuclear detonation wouldn't shake a bridge at that distance. It didn't happen. Mr Wire is mistaken.

Sure that makes sense. That's perfectly reasonable. An internet poster corrects Mr Wire, who was there and witnessed the whole thing, and shows why his immediate accounts, fresh from the shock of the memory, where he describes the bridge shaking violently, and has no reason to make it up, is wrong and must be mistaken.


Please, try to sell that somewhere else. Let me be there to video you telling Mr Wire that to his face. People will quickly see who was 'mistaken'. Dishonest people disgust me.