New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[patchbunny]

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.

If the explosion was strong enough to make a bridge shake that far away, I don't think they would have found parts of the plane or passengers/crew in any recognizable form.

 

[catsmate]

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?

Meh, it's amusing to watch his squirm as his much vaunted technical "expertise" is shredded, point by point.

For your amusement, regarding the author of the book being referenced:

Here's an amusing anecdote about Cashill's investigative prowess.

And another.

Dear jeebus, "clownish buffoon" is right; poorly photoshopped pictures and fake awards from fake law schools....

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

Like most woosters you seem not to know what "ad hominem" actually means.

Yep, he'll just keep going with whatever he doesn't need to provide evidence for

Deny and ignore all technical evidence which he cannot refute and continue on forever

Example he's now demanding evidence for the 4 mach thingy which was covered before and he ignored it

If evidence is given again he ignore it once again and demand more, sprinking all of his notes with little barbs.....and demands for more evidence against his contentions - which will also be ignored

I'm just waiting from him to bring up the supposed missile warhead shrapnel and PETN traces again. He went quite about that.

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.

Pink.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

Quite right, I wasn't in the US Navy (Hint, our Navy is Royal)

 

[matt.tansy]

Also waiting for an explanation how three anti-aircraft missile warheads that fragment into tens of thousands of pieces could detonate next to an airliner without leaving thousands of tell-tale high velocity holes in it.

And how the victims were hit with fragments yet there are no holes in the fuselage.

 

[Jetblast]

1 - Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, your ignorance notwithstanding.

Not as unreliable as your FBI investigation which has had numerous cases of its claims proving to be false, criminal, or based on lies. The Zoom Climb for instance. Where is your criticism of that? You give yourself away because you tolerate that yet pose yourself as a skeptic. The moderator says he's interested in the data given in the rebuttals but doesn't mention a peep about Captain Ray Lahr's aviation science proving the Zoom Climb impossible. What that means is CIA therefore has failed to give an explanation for the rising streak. It therefore still needs to come up with one but never did and you guys, who pose as technical-demanders, don't seem to care.


Your echo submission is disproven by the fact others heard the same pattern. Meaning it would be impossible for everyone to have the same sound reflection objects seeing how they were scattered over miles.

You're obviously making-up excuses against the obvious. You violate the principle of reasonability.

Where you people really give yourselves away is the number of excuses you have. You have excuses for all the instances of evidence which, though theoretically possible, is not very likely. You've gone beyond the point of reasonability. An example would be flipping a coin and getting heads 100 times in a row. While theoretically possible, common sense tells us you've used up your quarter on these excuses long ago.


The blast striations in the nose gear assembly was pure stand-alone proof. A fuel explosion can't gouge metal.


We've reasonably shown that not only did the bridge shake but Mr Angelides house shook too. It's your excuses that are lacking and don't pass the reasonability test. I take the absolute 100% proof demands as the phony reaction to what people know is true that it is and it isn't working.

 

[Jetblast]

Also waiting for an explanation how three anti-aircraft missile warheads that fragment into tens of thousands of pieces could detonate next to an airliner without leaving thousands of tell-tale high velocity holes in it.

And how the victims were hit with fragments yet there are no holes in the fuselage.

I say documented proof trumps your hypothetical demands.


The FBI documented the shrapnel pellets found in many of the victim's bodies. It was written in the FBI's 30 page report that the metals were the exact same metals found in US missile warhead shrapnel. Not only that but we have reasonable evidence that the FBI obstructed justice by losing the documents. You guys really have high standards seeing how you unquestioningly accept a playing field where the government abuses it power, betrays democracy, and obstructs justice criminally. This was reinforced by the fact FBI was caught doing that with the illegal removing of wreckage from the hangar with impunity. Furthermore, if you watch the new documentary you'll see the NTSB investigators said they found shrapnel holes in the aircraft. When they reported it the pieces of wreckage in question were gone the next day. You hardly have a right to ignore this while pretending credible argument in my opinion. I think people can see the proof you demand isn't good enough for you when shown.



Speak to MIT professor Graeme Sephton.

 

[Jetblast]

Quite right, I wasn't in the US Navy (Hint, our Navy is Royal)

Which is exactly why you should have a nice little tea with VietNam veteran Fred Meyer and discuss your mutual knowledge of high-explosives ordnances flashes. Please feel free to correct Mr Meyer to his face.


Commander Donaldson, the VietNam veteran fighter pilot who spearheaded the questioning of the official investigation, was also thoroughly versed in this business as evidenced on the ARAP site. Commander Donaldson died of fast-acting brain cancer in 2001. He wasn't going to quit.

 

[Dcdrac]

A key component of planes is metal, plastics and other materials it would be damn surprising if they had not found shrapnel of various kinds after the plane exploded

 

[Andy_Ross]

How come when the FBI evidence or stapements support your point of view they are reliable but when they contradict the FBI ar liars and in onthe conspiracy?

Your Mr Wire for instance, you use the report of his FBI interview as support for the bridge shakes but then say the FBI are part of it.

Also why do you say 'YOur FBI' ? I am not an American, they are not 'my' FBI at all.

Why do you ignore my testimony as a direct witness of AA Missiles shooting down aircraft?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Jetblast]

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.

Except for the two witnesses who were there that said it did.


There's no reason to question their obviously unrehearsed comments.


They were there. Do you put yourself before them?

 

[Dcdrac]

There is plenty of reason to question withnesses who claim to have seen a missile strike the aircraft, what vessel were they on? can any one else corroborate their statements? they can not have been the only ones to have seen this happen if they are telling the truth.

 

[CORed]

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

And by Germany, I have to assume that you mean East Germany, just to make your anachronisms consistent.

 

[carlitos]

Except for the two witnesses who were there that said it did.


There's no reason to question their obviously unrehearsed comments.


They were there. Do you put yourself before them?

I would investigate whether something happened close to where they live, since an AA missile 10 miles away would have nothing to do with anything they felt that night.

Or, again, they are mistaken. Or lying. Or being misquoted. Which happens all the time, and doesn't violate the laws of physics.

ETA - just a thought. When seeing a camera flash, I sometimes jump in shock and "feel" something. That's a pretty parsimonious explanation.

 

[CORed]

Except for the two witnesses who were there that said it did.


There's no reason to question their obviously unrehearsed comments.


They were there. Do you put yourself before them?

So I guess in your world, if a witness says he saw a dragon and a unicorn engaged in an epic fight, we would rather assume that, contrary to all evidence, both of those creatures exist, than think that the witness might me lying or reporting a hallucination. Got it.

 

[CORed]

I would investigate whether something happened close to where they live, since an AA missile 10 miles away would have nothing to do with anything they felt that night.

Or, again, they are mistaken. Or lying. Or being misquoted. Which happens all the time, and doesn't violate the laws of physics.

ETA - just a thought. When seeing a camera flash, I sometimes jump in shock and "feel" something. That's a pretty parsimonious explanation.

This guy carries the whole. "Are you calling the witness a liar?" (does that fallacy have a formal name) theme to a whole new level.

 

[JayUtah]

Not as unreliable as...

Tu quoque dodge.

Eyewitness testimony is variable and unreliable. There is a truckload of science as well as many practical demonstrations proving this. Where eyewitness claims pit against empirical and theoretical factors, the parsimonious path through that dilemma should be fairly clear.

<posturing and bashing snipped>

We've reasonably shown that not only did the bridge shake but Mr Angelides house shook too.

Who is "we?" You've provided two secondary sources for a subjective claim on the part of the witnesses, told in retrospect.

Against that second-hand claim is stacked a huge pile of physics theory that shows just how much force would be required to cause the claimed effect -- and it is orders of magnitude in excess of the force produced by the cause you hypothesize. Further against it is the complete lack of any physical evidence for such a force. Your only response to any of that is vague handwaving about "frequency" and "resonance."

 

[CORed]

I would investigate whether something happened close to where they live, since an AA missile 10 miles away would have nothing to do with anything they felt that night.

Or, again, they are mistaken. Or lying. Or being misquoted. Which happens all the time, and doesn't violate the laws of physics.

ETA - just a thought. When seeing a camera flash, I sometimes jump in shock and "feel" something. That's a pretty parsimonious explanation.

It seems entirely possible that the witness believed he felt the bridge shake after seeing something spectacular and unexpected like the explosion of TWA 800. Of course, we haven't actually established that said witness actually even reported that. Jetblast seems intent on taking that as "evidence" of a missile even though neither a fuel tank explosion nor a missile could have caused the bridge to shake. If the bridge did shake, it seems far more likely that it was movement by the witness and/or other people (if any) on the bridge startled by the sight of the explosion than by the explosion itself.

 

[JayUtah]

This guy carries the whole. "Are you calling the witness a liar?" (does that fallacy have a formal name)...

It's a combination of ad hominem and ad baculum.

The ad baculum part comes from trying to shame one's critics into not challenging evidence. Here Jetblast tries to tack on some sort of imaginary moral responsibility to take evidence on its face without challenge.

The ad hominem part comes from trying to establish the witness' credibility on purely humanistic grounds rather than whether the witness' statements are logical and conform to the rest of the pertinent evidence.

And yes, I've never seen someone try so clumsily and desperately to rehabilitate witness testimony on such shaky, trollish grounds. Even among UFO proponents there is usually some eventual acquiescence.

 

[carlitos]

This guy carries the whole. "Are you calling the witness a liar?" (does that fallacy have a formal name) theme to a whole new level.

I guess it's a specific form of the false dilemma / false choice fallacy? The witness doesn't have to be either right or lying; those aren't the only two choices.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I guess it's a specific form of the false dilemma / false choice fallacy? The witness doesn't have to be either right or lying; those aren't the only two choices.

Which I pointed out above, and Jetblast studiously avoided discussing because it doesn't fit his narrowly defined argument.