New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[JayUtah]

Ah ha. Answer the unidirectional ejecta plume vs your CIA animation showing a symmetrical fuel tank explosion.

Asked and answered. Your claims of plume dynamics are solely the unscientific opinion of a non-expert working with data inappropriate to such methods. Asking someone to explain them without allowing them to challenge the premise of the question is one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions. In case it's not obvious, people are seeing right through those little rhetorical traps.

Meanwhile your side...

Tu quoque and straw man.

 

[kookbreaker]

I'd have to think that if there were some way to make bridges shake a bunch via 'resonance' from 10 miles away that this might have been useful in our nation's assorted wars.

 

[JayUtah]

I'd have to think that if there were some way to make bridges shake a bunch via 'resonance' from 10 miles away that this might have been useful in our nation's assorted wars.

The military has experimented with acoustic weapons, but the resonant frequencies of large civil engineering structures are such that the energy is not directable. Plus, as has been discussed, using the air as a transmission medium for such energy is absurdly inefficient. And the range of such weapons is harshly limited in theory by the inverse square law.

 

[carlitos]

Nice try but no. If you follow his statement the first explosion happened in isolation with no echo. The second one had one immediately following. If it was an echo the first one would have echoed too. This is science. The same science you pretend to demand and then run roughshod across yourself.


The other witnesses also described numerous explosions. They couldn't all have echoes. It was the seashore. Unlikely to have any echo source.

1 - Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, your ignorance notwithstanding. Unless he recorded the event, there is no chance that he has the timing right.
2 - I said that the multiple sounds probably were echoes, not that they had echoes. The different location of the witnesses would make the sound and number of echoes different, which could help explain why their stories don't all match. That, plus human memory.
3 - All an echo requires is a hard surface to reflect the sound. It doesn't require a cliff-sized monolith.

The FBI testimony is a direct quote of his interview so you're just plain wrong.

He referred to himself in the third person. Really? "Mike stated after the fireball disappeared behind the house, he heard the first of four explosions" is not a direct quote. It's a characterization of what he said, written by an agent. A direct quote would be "After the fireball disappeared...I heard the first of four explosions. Here, you can learn something about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_mode

Let me know if you need correction on anything else.

NO thanks, I'm all good

 

[Hans]

Wouldn't a bomb in the aircraft be a lot easier as our other resident conspiracy fan already suggested?
Why go to all the complication of fitting out a sub with an experiemntal missile and then using it to shoot down an airliner in full view of the coast?

Why include all those extra crewmen, dockyard fitters and logistics people when a bomb could be put aboard?

WHy do these conspiracies always have to be so big and complicated?

What would be the fun of doing it logically?

Evil conspiracies must be not only be completely wacky, but also not logical and full of clever clues for the brave hero to find out....

I particularly like this CT because it imagines that the gub'mint is actually a monolithic organization where all the departments like and support each other even in illegal activities to which the other departments could gain great merit in exposing.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Most people who can't answer the facts go right to ad hominem in linguistic forensics...

So, source criticism has now become 'ad hominem in linguistic forensics'?

Interesting.

 

[swright777]

Is anyone else thinking "300 fps rebar on mach 4 centers?"

Should we realisticely be calling him Jetblasta?

ETA: I don't think he's the same guy, but the mantra is similar.

 

[JayUtah]

The FBI testimony is a direct quote of his interview so you're just plain wrong.

Patently untrue. It is a report by the interviewing agents, who have subscribed their attestation to the document, not the witness's. A witness statement, which would be considered verbatim testimony, is sworn by the witness.

 

[tsig]

You are comparing apples and oranges with a nuclear shockwave and missile warhead high-explosives. I beg to differ with you that that nuclear chart is not valid according to what we are talking about. The only valid chart would be for warhead explosives. So in my opinion I haven't been shown anything that is valid.


Besides we have two witnesses who were there who testified the blast shook their bridge and house. I think you should ask them.

A shock wave is a shock wave whether produced by nukes or conventional explosives.

 

[tsig]

Wouldn't a bomb in the aircraft be a lot easier as our other resident conspiracy fan already suggested?
Why go to all the complication of fitting out a sub with an experiemntal missile and then using it to shoot down an airliner in full view of the coast?

Why include all those extra crewmen, dockyard fitters and logistics people when a bomb could be put aboard?

WHy do these conspiracies always have to be so big and complicated?

Well these are government jobs. Gotta expect a little feather bedding.

 

[CORed]

I'd have to think that if there were some way to make bridges shake a bunch via 'resonance' from 10 miles away that this might have been useful in our nation's assorted wars.

Well, in CT land, the government only uses its best weapons against its own people. For example, directed energy weapons were used only to bring down the WTC buildings. In Iraq and Afghanistan, they had to use bombs to knock buildings down.

It doesn't make sense to me either.

 

[CORed]

So, source criticism has now become 'ad hominem in linguistic forensics'?

Interesting.

A certain recently banned member misused 'ad hominem' similarly. Jetblat's posting style is enough different that I don't think he's an RP sock, but his debating tactics, using both words very loosely, are quite similar. The frequency of fringe resets is much higher, though.

 

[Hans]

Using his technique of denial, demands for evidence that will be ignore plus constant resets -I think I could 'win' an argument that supposed that Denmark started WWII by attacking Germany and the Soviet Union

 

[fess]

Jetblast

I have a few things I would like to make comments on.

I don’t thing that if I met Mr. Wire, I would call him a liar. But, I certainly would question the fact that the bridge he was working on actually shook from an explosion 10+ miles away. Do you have a link for this statement?

In the case of Major Meyers, I would like to ask him how many SAM missiles were fired at him. It is very unusual to use a SAM to shoot down a helicopter when a machine gun or AA gun will do just fine. Not to mention that; if a SAM had been fire at his helicopter, he would be toast. At his altitude, he would not have the time to take evasive action.

ETA: After reading Major Meyers affidavit, I see no mention of SAM’s.

Just one question, where were these Subs conducting their exercises at? It certainly wasn’t any where near where the wreckage of Flt 800 landed. The reason I ask is; the range of the AA missile may come into question.

 

[LSSBB]

Hey JetBlast, what was the name of the nefarious sub captain?

 

[Hans]

Hey JetBlast, what was the name of the nefarious sub captain?

Nemo?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Hey JetBlast, what was the name of the nefarious sub captain?

Old Fred?

What colour was the Sub?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Hey JetBlast, what was the name of the nefarious sub captain?

Also still waiting on the testimony and/or report of the vaunted Long Island Coroner.

 

[LSSBB]

Nemo?

Nah, he wasn't Blue or Gold. I gave two candidates a while back, still waiting. Great try, you get an Internet and two Kraken.

 

[catsmate]

Big Anti Aircraft Missiles are designed in to ships. Ships are built round the major weapon systems, the need a launcher, fire control systems a magazine to store them and handling systems to put them up in to the launchers.
Modern systems have a missile sat in a fixed vertical bin that is both the launcher and magazine.
You can't just put a missile aboard a ship that isn't designed for it. Even if you bolted a launcher on you would still need to install the fire control and radar systems associated with it.
Retro-fitting a new weapon system into an existing ship is a big job, it involves design teams, manufacturers, dockyard teams and the crew of the ship.
You have no idea of the resources involved in designing, testing or fitting a new weapon system into a ship.

Just look at the amount of work that was needed to adapt the Ohios to carry Tomahawks in place of Trident. And that was a missile already capable of sub-surface launch and requiring none of the fire control of a SAM.

Specious nitpicking.

Pointing out that your supposed "sources" are claiming levels of accuracy that isn't possibly true is now "specious nitpicking"?

If we study the radar data it clearly shows mach 4 ejecta exiting the 747.

No, as you've been told, it doesn't.

Honestly, what kind of a morally sick place is America? What do you people represent?

Truly (and pathetically) hilarious given how many of the people correcting your lies, distortions and unsubstantiated claims aren't USAian.

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).

Of course if the bridge trembling explosion you claim occurred had actually happened, that plane would have been destroyed.

Sure that makes sense. That's perfectly reasonable. An internet poster corrects Mr Wire, who was there and witnessed the whole thing,

You mean when someone who know what they're talking about points out your claims are rubbish.