New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[carlitos]

Here's a link to the blast radius calculator. You have to enter the latitude and longitude in decimal form. I used 40.64056,-72.63944 for the location of the plane crash. The Nagasaki bomb looks like a tiny circle 10 miles off the coast. I think that it would have really rocked that P-3, though...

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

 

[Jetblast]

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.

Hot air. The suspended, cantilevered bridge is automatically more vulnerable if you have even the most basic knowledge of engineering. You're just exposing your own ignorance with your silly replies.

 

[tsig]

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.

How dare you guys to use facts to disprove his fantasies.

 

[Jetblast]

Here's a link to the blast radius calculator. You have to enter the latitude and longitude in decimal form. I used 40.64056,-72.63944 for the location of the plane crash. The Nagasaki bomb looks like a tiny circle 10 miles off the coast. I think that it would have really rocked that P-3, though...

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

That's clownish.


The only valid calculator is one for US warhead High-Explosives on a cantilevered steel drawbridge compared to one for a fuel explosion on same.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Hot air. The suspended, cantilevered bridge is automatically more vulnerable if you have even the most basic knowledge of engineering. You're just exposing your own ignorance with your silly replies.

Blatant handwaving. Try again. This time with math, please.

 

[DGM]

Hot air. The suspended, cantilevered bridge is automatically more vulnerable if you have even the most basic knowledge of engineering. You're just exposing your own ignorance with your silly replies.

Actually your attack on my intelligence while avoiding any science is far more telling.

A bridge like this is not suspended in anyway shape or form (unless you turn off gravity). In fact. while it's down it's far heavier than a comparable fixed bridge of the same span. I know this because it has to be to move.

I can prove my opinion. You won't.

 

[JayUtah]

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

No, you don't know what you're talking about. First, drawbridges are cantilevered only when in transit, not when seated. Second, cantilevers require more robust structure than beam bridges that are always supported at both ends; this includes bascule bridges. Third, bascule bridges rigidly fasten a counterweight to the movable span, doubling the effective mass for inertia computations.

 

[carlitos]

That's clownish.


The only valid calculator is one for US warhead High-Explosives on a cantilevered steel drawbridge compared to one for a fuel explosion on same.

Buddy, if you want to test explosives ten miles away, you can stand on a bridge, you can stand on a chair, you can stand on your head... It ain't going to matter; there won't be a blast wave. Because you're ten miles away.

ETA - this discussion of the guy on the bridge ten miles away reminds me of the 9/11 truthers and their silent explosives that don't blow out windows. Simply delusional.

 

[JayUtah]

The only valid calculator is one for US warhead High-Explosives on a cantilevered steel drawbridge compared to one for a fuel explosion on same.

You have yet to supply a single data point or computation to support your claim on this point.

 

[JayUtah]

Actually shockwaves do have frequencies.

No, they don't.

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.

Word salad. Do an example computation of such a thing right here, to illustrate your claim.

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

Meaningless bluster.

Seeing Mike Wire's linguistic forensic pattern vs yours who do we trust?

I trust physics.

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?

Ad hominem. His claim is contradicted by physics. It is, for that reason, simply not credible.

You're not even worth answering.

Why do your arguments increasingly include reasons why you think you should not have to answer your critics?

 

[JayUtah]

Hot air. The suspended, cantilevered bridge is automatically more vulnerable if you have even the most basic knowledge of engineering. You're just exposing your own ignorance with your silly replies.

Where did you obtain your engineering degree?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Nobody here is accusing Mike Wire of lying. We are saying he was mistaken. If you don't see a difference, you may want to go out and do a cursory examination of the reliability of witness testimony. But of course, you're a conspiracy theorist, so I already know you believe eyewitnesses are above reproach.

 

[DGM]

Word salad. Do an example computation of such a thing right here, to illustrate your claim.

Strange thing is. If he could compute this he would find his claim to be false (he's been shown this already).

 

[Hans]

Well gentlemen

What I see here is a poorly informed person using limited data, refusing to provide links and evidence, not really discussing anything while screaming at and insulting those who reply to him.

I'm calling troll you might want to reconsider whether engaging him is worth the effort.

Is he really trying to provide an convincing argument or using a CT as an excuse to shout abuse?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well gentlemen

What I see here is a poorly informed person using limited data, refusing to provide links and evidence, not really discussing anything while screaming at and insulting those who reply to him.

I'm calling troll you might want to reconsider whether engaging him is worth the effort.

Is he really trying to provide an convincing argument or using a CT as an excuse to shout abuse?

And parroting criticisms that have been legitimately levelled at his claims. Rather dull stuff.

 

[Hans]

....not that we haven't seen this same type of trolling before, lol

However I do realize that some of the worthy's here DO like engaging in this type of banter.

 

[carlitos]

Nobody here is accusing Mike Wire of lying. We are saying he was mistaken. If you don't see a difference, you may want to go out and do a cursory examination of the reliability of witness testimony. But of course, you're a conspiracy theorist, so I already know you believe eyewitnesses are above reproach.

I'm not even sure if it's Wire that has it wrong.

Seeing Mike Wire's linguistic forensic pattern vs yours who do we trust?

Speaking of which, I did some googling. Neither Mike Wire's affadavit, his NTSB testimony, or the video he made in 2007 seem to mention the bridge moving. He talks about seeing something that looked like "cheap fireworks," and then seeing a big orange fireball in the sky.

Here's the video of him not mentioning the bridge moving.


Here's the affadavit in which he doesn't mention the bridge moving.


Here's an article written by an author who believes in a cover-up, and who wants a new investigation. He describes himself as a "good friend" of Mike Wire and his wife Joan. He doesn't mention the bridge moving.

Here is a video from the NTSB hearings, where Mr. Mayer discusses Mike Wire and doesn't mention the bridge moving.



What we have here is a conspiracist claiming that someone said that something impossible happened, first from 20 and now 10 miles away. I suppose Mr. Wire could have embellished his story, having re-told it so many times over the years. That would be completely natural; he'd probably even believe that his version is true. But I can't find evidence that the guy even made the claim, so perhaps Jetblast could provide such evidence here.






Then again, Hans is probably right.

 

[Jetblast]

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

I suppose the military-restrained P-3 pilot would be free to come forward to tell what he saw? Right? After all he was right there at 1 mile.

Page 18: 'First Strike' - P-3 captain Ray Ortt became defensive when interviewed about the crash and asked "Are you questioning my patriotism?" His superiors told investigators they were told as much as they could be told as far as what they needed to know. The P-3 had its transponder turned-off. What Tansy forgot to tell you in his post is that the Orion was headed to meet the Trepang for exercises. The Trepang was one of the 3 subs in the area participating in the exercise off Long Island. Those exercises were performed south of the crash site later on.

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?

First, there was a US warship cruiser seen unusually close to Long Island that day so you need to catch-up on the facts. Check out page 3 of Cashill's book 'First Strike' where he tells of Navy man Dean Stewart who saw a missile cruiser about 3 miles offshore Long Island at 3pm that day. Others saw it later closer to the crash site. Kallstrom said the Normandy was miles away.

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.

Mr Stewart, an 8 year Navy man, shows us you are pulling that out of your hat. I think we know what your expert Navy word is worth from this one example.

If it wasn't a Navy ship then what was it? I don't believe you and I think there's more to this that shows it was a Navy vessel. It's common sense that your invisible ship that nobody saw managed to be picked-up on FAA radar at the coastal level.

What satellite system would that be?

US has launch-detection satellites. You need to learn more about this case. They already said the satellite's data was not available.

 

[jhunter1163]

Well gentlemen

What I see here is a poorly informed person using limited data, refusing to provide links and evidence, not really discussing anything while screaming at and insulting those who reply to him.

I'm calling troll you might want to reconsider whether engaging him is worth the effort.

Is he really trying to provide an convincing argument or using a CT as an excuse to shout abuse?

I've been reading along, and I find the detailed technical refutations of Jetblast's theory informative and entertaining. And nothing in this thread has reached the level where I would consider putting on my Mod Hat. I am watching, though.

ETA: Ah, I spoke too soon.

 

[Jetblast]

I'm not even sure if it's Wire that has it wrong.

You guys need to get out more:



Page 7: Jack Cashill's 'First Strike' -

"You could feel the concussion like a shock wave," reports Mike Wire of the initial blast. Indeed it shook the bridge on which he was standing in Westhampton, even at 10 miles distance.
"The sounds shook the house," remembers Angelides. "My wife, who was on the bathroom floor drying our son from his bath, felt the floor shaking as she heard the noise and I heard her cry out, "What is going on?"



I love it when two pages of innocent testimony demolishes several pages of ignorant doubt and deception.

"Mistaken" LOL!!!