New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[Jetblast]

Do you have a source the P-3 was operating with the Trepang? Because if you follow its course it will skirt the coast and head for Virginia? You keep ignoring that I told you submarines don't operate anywhere near Long Island. They operate in the deep water off the continental shelf.

Interview of the P-3 crew by Kallstrom's FBI agents. On pages 18 and 19 of 'First Strike'. The P-3 was to rendezvous with the Trepang for exercises.


Sure, subs don't operate in near-shore waters just like warships. I've personally witnessed a US sub cruising on the surface not a mile from shore in Norway. Navy man Dean Stewart saw a Navy warship 3 miles offshore that afternoon that was also seen by two women closer to the crash scene later that day. Cashill wrote of a sub near the crash cruising on the surface that submerged right after. Government lied about those assets. A sub seaman was quoted by his father as saying "We shot down Flight 800."

You have firm footing in the mushy swamp of your saying that Navy lies about its doings while assuring us of their routines at the same time. At your word, of course.

 

[CORed]

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.

That sounds about right, It's very popular with UFO believers, as is the notion that if the witness is a cop, pilot or member of the armed forces, he couldn't possibly be lying or mistaken.

 

[matt.tansy]

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

For blast striations to be on the nose landing gear then it must also be on the nose landing gear doors and surrounding fuselage and the wheel well. For blast striations to be on the nose landing gear then the warhead must have detonated extremely close to the aircraft which means the entire gear assembly and wheels and landing gear doors and surrounding fuselage and wheel well must be peppered with thousands of high velocity penetrations.

Aircraft wheels are tough but are they tough enough to remain completely intact while an explosion leaves striations marks on the landing gear only a few feet away? The answer is no. http://i.imgur.com/FILwNlS.gif

Here is a table that lists the warhead masses of the Rooskie Strela shoulder-fired missile. The curious observer will note the high explosive component is only about one third of the warhead weight; the rest is the metal casing that is designed to fragment.

 

[CORed]

...
A sub seaman was quoted by his father as saying "We shot down Flight 800."
...

Wow an anonymous secondhand report. You really just don't get this whole quality of evidence concept, do you?

 

[Jetblast]

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.

That's silly. What I wrote is directly connected to the confirmed happenings, evidence documented by the official investigation, and multi-witnessings.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Wow an anonymous secondhand report. You really just don't get this whole quality of evidence concept, do you?

Sure he does. Anything that agrees with him is quality evidence, anything that doesn't isn't.

 

[Jetblast]

Wow an anonymous secondhand report. You really just don't get this whole quality of evidence concept, do you?

You mean like the unidirectional ejecta plume you're ignoring?



Don't forget, your side never came up with any evidence of a center fuel tank explosion causing the crash.

 

[carlitos]

multi-witnessings.

 

[Hans]

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

Well no in1939 both Germany and the Soviet Union existed....if I understand your comments correctly

 

[carlitos]

That sounds about right, It's very popular with UFO believers, as is the notion that if the witness is a cop, pilot or member of the armed forces, he couldn't possibly be lying or mistaken.

I think that Jay made a good point with ad baculum as well. We should be so ashamed that we wouldn't dare confront these witnesses and accusing them of "lying."

 

[thedopefishlives]

You mean like the unidirectional ejecta plume you're ignoring?



Don't forget, your side never came up with any evidence of a center fuel tank explosion causing the crash.

Reversal of burden of proof. The evidence is all there, you're just cherry-picking and ignoring the bits that conveniently disprove your chosen fantasy. Prove your case.

 

[Hans]

You mean like the unidirectional ejecta plume you're h.

Trolling jetblast ....this has been addressed but you ignored it and now are denying it was covered

Reported

 

[CORed]

Well no in1939 both Germany and the Soviet Union existed....if I understand your comments correctly

Oops! I read that as WWI, not WWII.

 

[Hans]

Oops! I read that as WWI, not WWII.

I thought you might!

But I've reconsidered my theory and will blame the bastards in Luxembourg for doing the dirty deed

 

[matt.tansy]

Interview of the P-3 crew by Kallstrom's FBI agents. On pages 18 and 19 of 'First Strike'. The P-3 was to rendezvous with the Trepang for exercises.

Can you ever give a reference that isn't from a conspiracy kook?

Sure, subs don't operate in near-shore waters just like warships. I've personally witnessed a US sub cruising on the surface not a mile from shore in Norway.

How did you know it was a US sub?

Subs have to surface to enter port, you know.

I've been to Tromso and Haakonsvern many times on the various subs I've served on.

Navy man Dean Stewart saw a Navy warship 3 miles offshore that afternoon that was also seen by two women closer to the crash scene later that day.

You said this before and I called BS. You also conveniently ignored my question asking if Cashill was smart enough to ask the women what the number was they saw on the ship. I guess from your silence we know the answer to Cashill's intelligence.

Cashill wrote of a sub near the crash cruising on the surface that submerged right after.

Bwahahahaha! Cashill's depth of knowledge of submarine operations must have come from Hollywood. It takes an hour to submerge a modern nuke sub! You have to haul down all the crap you hauled up, shift the watch below, grease, shut, and secure the clamshells, silicone and secure the bridge box connection, rig the bridge for dive, shut, drain, and seal the upper hatch, rig the bridge access trunk for dive, shut, drain, and seal the lower hatch, blah, blah, blah. I'm afraid he fell for another BS story.

 

[Jetblast]

For blast striations to be on the nose landing gear then it must also be on the nose landing gear doors and surrounding fuselage and the wheel well. For blast striations to be on the nose landing gear then the warhead must have detonated extremely close to the aircraft which means the entire gear assembly and wheels and landing gear doors and surrounding fuselage and wheel well must be peppered with thousands of high velocity penetrations.

The nose gear blast striations were witnessed by the investigators. Your entry is invalid because it assumes one form of forensic pathology. However a blast could have bared the assembly and a second shrapnel warhead could have done the job. So you argument doesn't conform to your own standards. Yes, it did detonate in close proximity to the aircraft which is a sign of a common-known proximity detonation. That's why they found explosives residue all over the aircraft. They also got caught lying about the source of that residue. Anyhow, the investigators found blast gouging striations in the nose gear assembly that were impossible for a fuel explosion. All other arguments are moot according to forensic science. You can't account for them beside transparent attempts to get around this.

By the way, the nose gear doors were found blasted inward. That would be opposite what an internal fuel tank explosion would do.

Aircraft wheels are tough but are they tough enough to remain completely intact while an explosion leaves striations marks on the landing gear only a few feet away? The answer is no.

Several times now you have entered stuff that you pose as refuting me that actually works in my favor. This is one of those cases. I suggest you read more on the ARAP site. What you say of aircraft tires is exactly true. So true in fact that the investigation commented that the nose gear tires on Flight 800 were unusually shredded as if they had undergone an enormous force. Just like the gouges in the assembly. To give you an example of why this is important look at the aircraft tire that passed through the World Trade Center tower. It was virtually unscratched after passing through a steel framed building and falling 70 stories onto concrete. I thank you for this it backs my case. Thanks for the "interesting rebuttal".

 

[jhunter1163]

Could the inward bending of the nose gear doors have resulted from impact with the ocean at terminal velocity?

 

[JayUtah]

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.

What typically happens, as you guessed, is that they feel their bodies shake and assume the bridge must have as well. When we watch ordnance detonations, rocket deflagrations, or other near-seismic acoustic events such as SRB tests (ATK is a client), we tend to feel it in our torsos even though objective measurements of acoustic loading are relatively quiescent.

Because my office downtown is nestled among the city, state, and federal courthouses, we routinely get bomb threats, suspicious packages, and the attendant deliberate detonations by the bomb squad. These produce concussive noises that are indeed felt, even within the building. (Often we'll go up on the roof to watch.) But the building does not "shake." I set up my executive offices in a hundred-year-old brick building. Ain't nothin' gonna shake that. And how close are we? Well, the stuff they typically blow up is mislaid or abandoned luggage, and we had a singed pair of jeans land on our roof.

SRB tests are the best. There is a whomping load of acoustic energy, a veritable wall of "sound" but cars don't shake. (We all line up on the country highways surrouding the ATK plant and test sites.) You do, however, feel it very viscerally. You don't "hear" it.

Of course, we haven't actually established that said witness actually even reported that.

Indeed. We have Cashill and one FBI field agent reporting those observations second- or third-hand. They are, at best, subjective recollections and not forensically valid estimations of shock wave strength.

 

[Jetblast]

Can you ever give a reference that isn't from a conspiracy kook?

You are referring to Kallstrom, right? The information came from FBI's interview. When you check it out you'll be wrong just like you were with the shaking. You need to come up with a less obvious dodge.

You said this before and I called BS. You also conveniently ignored my question asking if Cashill was smart enough to ask the women what the number was they saw on the ship. I guess from your silence we know the answer to Cashill's intelligence.

Perfectly reasonable, sure. Don't look at the elephant in the room - count its numbers. I'd love to see you tell Navy man Dean Stewart he was full of "BS" to his face.

Bwahahahaha! Cashill's depth of knowledge of submarine operations must have come from Hollywood. It takes an hour to submerge a modern nuke sub! You have to haul down all the crap you hauled up, shift the watch below, grease, shut, and secure the clamshells, silicone and secure the bridge box connection, rig the bridge for dive, shut, drain, and seal the upper hatch, rig the bridge access trunk for dive, shut, drain, and seal the lower hatch, blah, blah, blah. I'm afraid he fell for another BS story.

No, a ship designed for warfare can't dive quickly, sure. The Navy engineers must have screwed-up there.


I've found in my internet debates that as far as linguistic forensics the first person to "blah, blah, blah," is usually the first person to blink.

 

[Jetblast]

Trolling jetblast ....this has been addressed but you ignored it and now are denying it was covered

Reported

That's not true. The radar being capable of adequately showing a unidirectional plume and its relevance to the CIA's own depiction of a symmetrical fuel tank blast in its animation was not discussed. If you need that explained to you Tansy made a methodology error argument against the mach 4 ejecta (that wasn't valid by the way). I returned that Tansy's methodology arguments did not answer the fact the radar caught a unidirectional plume that connotes a missile transit and couldn't be caused by the fuel tank explosion, as its own damage showed. Tansy didn't answer it.