JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
So not a direct quote from Wire, then.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
New TWA Flight 800 film coming out
- Thread starter patchbunny
- Start date
So not a direct quote from Wire, then.
You're trying to get out of answering the evidence.
The worth of your opinion is how much you honestly engaged the arguments (which was virtually never). You're the troll.
Last edited:
It's obviously a quote from Wire given to Cashill for his book.
Why did you avoid answering Angelides' corroboration of his house shaking?
You guys aren't doing that well.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It isn't a quote. Wire is quoted as saying he felt a concussion. Then in the next sentence, which is not a quote from Wire, Cashill reports the bridge shook. You are quoting a secondary source, not a primary source.
This is important because you have pinned authority for the shaking bridge entirely on Wire, and have employed considerable bluster telling us we are too afraid to tell Wire this to his face. It continues to be important because we have other direct quotes from Wire where this all-important detail is never mentioned. And it remains important because there is considerable physical counter-evidence challenging the bridge-shaking claim.
In the final analysis the authority for the specific statement is ambiguous. If, as may be the case, Cashill is the one who embellished Wire's story for his book, then a great many things fall more parsimoniously into place.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Because someone else's house is not the bridge Wire was standing on. Therefore it is not a corroboration of Cashill's second-hand claim that the bridge shook.
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.
Why don't you join in in the evidence discussion?
For your amusement, regarding the author of the book being referenced:
Here's an amusing anecdote about Cashill's investigative prowess.
And another.
Oh I see. I suppose this is an example of what the moderator calls a "technical refutation".
Tansy:
You said as a 10 year veteran of Naval operations in that area you knew no warships operated that close to shore. I posted the statement of Navy veteran Dean Stewart who was quoted in Cashill's 'First Strike' as witnessing a Navy warship only 3 miles off Long Island that day. It was also seen by others later on closer to the crash scene.
I'd be interested in your response.
You said as a 10 year veteran of Naval operations in that area you knew no warships operated that close to shore. I posted the statement of Navy veteran Dean Stewart who was quoted in Cashill's 'First Strike' as witnessing a Navy warship only 3 miles off Long Island that day. It was also seen by others later on closer to the crash scene.
I'd be interested in your response.
Most people who can't answer the facts go right to ad hominem in linguistic forensics...
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It is not an ad hominem argument to show that researchers whom you have trusted have a poor reputation for truth-telling and a propensity to manufacture evidence. You are asking us to trust that Cashill has accurately reported the facts. If he does not have a good reputation for doing so, then we have adequate basis not to trust him.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Straw man. Apples are not oranges.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 84,664
If Mr Wire told me the bridge shook I woul call him a liar. At best I would say he was mis-remembering.
I know the effect of missiles and bombs and even exploding ships from first hand experience. there is no way an AA missile would shake anything 10 miles away.
I know the effect of missiles and bombs and even exploding ships from first hand experience. there is no way an AA missile would shake anything 10 miles away.
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
I forgot to mention the P-3 was going to play with a sub in a post proving to you the P-3 wasn't orbiting??? How on Earth could that be germaine? Oh I see now. You are trying to imply I am being dishonest in another attempt to deflect attention away from your errors of fact.
Yes, "off" meaning 70-260 miles away. This chart encompasses most of the NBOA operating areas were the subs out of Groton play. Except the actual oparea chart extends another 15 minutes of latitude (15 nmi) south and another 46 minutes of latitude (36 nmi) east.
http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/12300.shtml
3 miles off of Long Island??? That doesn't even pass the laugh test. The residents on the shore would have taken hundreds of photos of it. Cashill is a sucker if he believed that.
Suddenly it gets quiet as the facts come out that there was more than one witness to the shockwave and shaking.
It is science that a 300 foot per second fuel explosion cannot shake a bridge or a house at 10 miles.
You people are done.
It is science that a 300 foot per second fuel explosion cannot shake a bridge or a house at 10 miles.
You people are done.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
As you've been shown, it would take a nuke to produce that kind of concussion at 10 miles.
No, showing that author's lack of reliability in his prior work is not an ad hominem. On the other hand, your use of "linguistic forensics" is a good example of technobabble.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You've received several posts in response to that, which you have ignored. Nor can you explain why Wire, in direct quotations, never mentions the bridge shaking.
You've provided no credible evidence that the bridge shook as described. You cannot account for the physical evidence that counter-indicates your belief.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I think the gentlemen in question got his degrees in Engineering/Physics from the same college where Jenny McCarthy got her degree in Medicine from.....