New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[matt.tansy]

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?

I didn't quote the petition; I quoted the NTSB report. The report did not try to conceal what Meyer said. You expect every person in the NTSB to remember exactly what every eyewitness said?

 

[Jetblast]

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.

I have to check that because I read they did orbits caught on radar which would suggest participation in an exercise that Gov was already caught lying about. You have to reconcile you yourself saying government lies about maneuvers and your taking them at their word as to what they were up to.

Meanwhile you can cook-up an excuse for the Naval asset caught steaming away at top speed from the crash on radar. A pure violation of the laws of the sea. They got caught lying about that ship. Was their radar turned-off?

Nefarious? Like CIA, an intelligence agency designed for disinformation, being involved in an airline crash? Like their being caught lying about the Zoom Climb?



The satellite data? Let me guess. Coincidence and routine maintenance.

 

[Jetblast]

I didn't quote the petition; I quoted the NTSB report. The report did not try to conceal what Meyer said. You expect every person in the NTSB to remember exactly what every eyewitness said?

How dare you try to get away with that.


The context of what you answered (or should I say dodged?) was the quote from your own link. Now try answering what I wrote without switching reports. Answer your own material.

 

[ehcks]

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.

I get bored, read a thread for 20+ pages, and can't find a single bit of evidence that the very person you got your information from even exists. Googling for the name plus TWA 800 leads to zero results.

I am forced to conclude that there is no such person and that any attempt to pass off your own failings onto him are not just malicious lies, but delusions.

Or you can go ahead and show evidence for any one thing at all. Perhaps that your source of information is even real.

 

[carlitos]

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.

It is perfectly reasonable. This event happened on Earth. There are physical laws that govern how stuff works here. Things like gravity and yes, even the inverse square law. Shock waves don't have "frequencies." Anti-aircraft missile blast waves aren't powerful enough to shake bridges at ten miles. These are observable facts. Your (deliberate?) refusal to understand that doesn't change the tested, predictable ways in which the world works. As I noted earlier, if blast waves traveled in the way you claim, keeping their strength and not losing it at a square of the distance, or traveling long distances based on some kind of "frequency," you'd risk being killed by watching a fireworks show. I think that popcorn makers might have to be made out of reinforced steel. That's not reality. We are in reality here.

On the other hand, we know that witnesses misinterpret and misremember things, especially traumatic events. This is another observable, tested fact, and in no way disrespectful to Mr. Wire. Only in Conspiracy Theory Land do people have perfect memories and eyewitnesses are always 100% correct. Have a look at the literature on this. Again, this is reality.

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.

Folks are patiently explaining how things really work to you and you're imagining and fantasizing about us having confrontations with these witnesses. Imagining or wishing for future physical confrontations is not healthy behavior.

 

[Jetblast]

I get bored, read a thread for 20+ pages, and can't find a single bit of evidence that the very person you got your information from even exists. Googling for the name plus TWA 800 leads to zero results.

I am forced to conclude that there is no such person and that any attempt to pass off your own failings onto him are not just malicious lies, but delusions.

Or you can go ahead and show evidence for any one thing at all. Perhaps that your source of information is even real.

Enter TWA 800 Mike Wire in the You-Tube search.



Recess. Back later.

 

[JayUtah]

Good question better aimed at an expert.

According to you, practically anyone is qualified to interpret radar data, even some off-the-shelf physicist. Now you're telling me that there is such a thing as an expert radar analyst? And you're suggesting you aren't one.

However one thing is sure mach 4, asymmetrical, continuing direction ejecta is trumping proof...

Nope.

The human eye is a highly complex organ connected to the universe's most complex device know as the human brain.

Yes, and if you'd read what I've written here on the subject, in many of my literally thousands of posts here, you'd realize that trying to bluff your way through an analysis of eyewitness testimony is probably not going to help you on that point either.

The human visual perception apparatus and the human memory to which it attaches is a complex system that behaves nothing like most laymen believe it does -- especially in the recall of happenstance events.

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.

Nonsense. With our knowledge of the specific kinds of fallibility eyewitness testimony exhibits, and with (in some of our cases) specific training in how to extract factual data from eyewitness testimonies and interviews, we can reconcile what appears to be outlying evidence with the rest of the evidence.

Never do you view the obvious preponderance of the evidence in its totality or admit what it infers.

Begging the question. You are not dealing with the preponderance of evidence; you are harping solely upon the outlying evidence. And no, I don't take your inferences as fact. I believe I've made that clear. Nor should anyone. An inference is a product of attempts to reason, and if you're not willing to have those lines of reasoning examined and critiqued then you don't have much headway with reasonable people.

 

[matt.tansy]

I have to check that because I read they did orbits caught on radar which would suggest participation in an exercise that Gov was already caught lying about.

If you had bothered to look at the radar plot I posted you would know the P-3 flew a straight course.

You have to reconcile you yourself saying government lies about maneuvers and your taking them at their word as to what they were up to.

Meanwhile you can cook-up an excuse for the Naval asset caught steaming away at top speed from the crash on radar.

You mean the 30 knot track? The one that passed between two eyewitnesses who were on boats and none of whom reported seeing a massive US Navy warship drive by them?

Here is one of the eyewitness location maps with the 30 knot track added. The 30 knot track starts 11 nmi from land. Everybody on shore would have seen it and noticed it because US Navy warships never operate in that area (I have 10 years of operational experience in this area). A warship that close to shore would have stuck out like a ballerina at a biker's rally.

They got caught lying about that ship.

Assuming a fact not in evidence.

A pure violation of the laws of the sea.

Say what? What is a violation?

Was their radar turned-off?

Most likely not. Surface warships almost always run their radars.

Nefarious? Like CIA, an intelligence agency designed for disinformation, being involved in an airline crash? Like their being caught lying about the Zoom Climb?

Citation needed.

The satellite data? Let me guess. Coincidence and routine maintenance.

What satellite system would that be?

 

[matt.tansy]

How dare you try to get away with that.


The context of what you answered (or should I say dodged?) was the quote from your own link. Now try answering what I wrote without switching reports. Answer your own material.

I quoted the report to show you the petition is a bunch of whiney crap. The NTSB wrote in the official report exactly what Meyer said he said.

 

[matt.tansy]

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?

So why do you believe what Meyer says unquestionably? As you so gleefully point out to support the missile theory, he served in the military in Vietnam and knows what ordnance explosions look like but according to you he can never go against the government.

 

[DGM]

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.

Not to mention the inconvenient question as to why was there so much of the plane recovered? A blast large enough to shake a bridge that far away should have vaporized the plane.

I'm sure JetBlast has an explanation for this.

 

[Monza]

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.

So a shock wave from a blast more than 10 miles away violently shook this bridge, but the windows in these homes were not damaged and no one else reported anything unusual?

What about the P-3 aircaraft you said was only 1 mile away? What happened to that? No reports from the pilots about this shock wave?

 

[carlitos]

So a shock wave from a blast more than 10 miles away violently shook this bridge, but the windows in these homes were not damaged and no one else reported anything unusual?


What about the P-3 aircaraft you said was only 1 mile away? What happened to that? No reports from the pilots about this shock wave?

I was just thinking that. This wouldn't be like an earthquake, where the ground shakes and you feel it underfoot. This would be a blast wave. So it would have not only rocked the bridge, it would have hit Mr. Wire himself. And his co-workers. And his car windows.

Here are overpressure damage estimates from "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons", 3rd Edition, by Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan.

15 psi Complete destruction of reinforced concrete structures, such as skyscrapers, will occur within this ring. Between 7 psi and 15 psi, there will be severe to total damage to these types of structures.
7 psi Severe damage to complete destruction of reinforced concrete structures, such as skyscrapers, will occur within this ring.
5 psi Complete destruction of ordinary houses, and moderate to severe damage to reinforced concrete structures, will occur within this ring.
2 psi Severe damage to ordinary houses, and light to moderate damage to reinforced concrete structures, will occur within this ring.
1 psi Light damage to all structures, and light to moderate damage to ordinary houses, will occur within this ring.
0.25 psi Most glass surfaces, such as windows, will shatter within this ring, some with enough force to cause injury.

The claim that the same blast both blew up the plane and rocked this bridge is just crazy.

 

[JayUtah]

So a shock wave from a blast more than 10 miles away violently shook this bridge...

Bwahahaha! I didn't know it was a bascule bridge. Um, just no -- bascule bridges on average employ more than twice the mass of the equivalently load-bearing stationary bridge. No way is that going to be even slightly wiggled by a conventional ordnance detonation 20 miles away.

 

[Jetblast]

Shock waves don't have "frequencies." Anti-aircraft missile blast waves aren't powerful enough to shake bridges at ten miles. These are observable facts.

Yeah right. It's obvious you're just pulling that out of the air.


Actually shockwaves do have frequencies. If you calculate static air pressure resistance in the atmosphere to blast rate it has to result in a unique pattern for each type of blast.


Again, you can repeat that all you want but you wouldn't have the ***** to say that to Mike Wire's face.


Seeing Mike Wire's linguistic forensic pattern vs yours who do we trust? An internet 'poster' (I'm not using the word I wanted to) or Mike Wire who was there and had no possible reason to lie?


I think we all know what wavelength and frequency you post at. You're not even worth answering.

 

[Jetblast]

So why do you believe what Meyer says unquestionably? As you so gleefully point out to support the missile theory, he served in the military in Vietnam and knows what ordnance explosions look like but according to you he can never go against the government.

The first answer would be it was corroborated by numerous other witnesses. But the strongest reason is the obvious lengths both you and the government go to deny it.

 

[Jetblast]

So a shock wave from a blast more than 10 miles away violently shook this bridge, but the windows in these homes were not damaged and no one else reported anything unusual?
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/GFEvkwb.jpg[/qimg]





If you'll notice the cantilevered drawbridge is suspended and probably more vulnerable to air movements or shockwaves.

 

[Jetblast]

According to you, practically anyone is qualified to interpret radar data, even some off-the-shelf physicist. Now you're telling me that there is such a thing as an expert radar analyst? And you're suggesting you aren't one.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[DGM]

If you'll notice the cantilevered drawbridge is suspended and probably more vulnerable to air movements or shockwaves.

Probably? You don't know?

Do the math. See for yourself. This is not something you need to guess at.

I bet you won't because you really don't want to know. I wonder why someone that hates dishonesty refuses to be honest.

 

[Jetblast]

I quoted the report to show you the petition is a bunch of whiney crap. The NTSB wrote in the official report exactly what Meyer said he said.

Flagrant dodge. That's not what I said. I asked you to quote from your own link. The one I was referencing in my post.


Besides that, the whole context and purpose of the Petition was to expose the wrongs of the NTSB Report.


Thank you. You're not credible and don't argue honestly.


Your people were caught altering Mr Meyer's testimony to remove serious evidence and you won't admit it.


You have zero credibility and don't argue honestly.


I'll take that as a concession and admission of guilt.


You just blinked.