New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[thedopefishlives]

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

Perhaps because the ship's design is that it is already underwater in combat conditions? You are, as usual, so far out of your depth you need a periscope.

 

[kookbreaker]

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.

My bet is that this person just didn't notice a truck downshifting on the bridge at the time.

 

[matt.tansy]

The nose gear blast striations were witnessed by the investigators.

Citation needed.

Is this going to be another example of you substituting words to bolster your case? Was it "striations" or was it "high energy event"?

Your entry is invalid because it assumes one form of forensic pathology.

"one form of forensic pathology"?

"One form of forensic pathology" can never invalidate the known physical laws of the universe.

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.

Not without shredding the door and assembly with high velocity fragments.

"fragments" is the right word btw. You've been using "shrapnel" incorrectly for the context of a missile warhead.

Anyhow, the investigators found blast gouging striations in the nose gear assembly that were impossible for a fuel explosion.

It would also be impossible for a missile warhead to do without leaving thousands of high velocity penetrations in it.

All other arguments are moot according to forensic science. You can't account for them beside transparent attempts to get around this.

Draw a straight line from 'a' to 'b' without touching the line in the middle:

a | b

If you can do it then I will agree to your claim that a blast fragmentation warhead could make striations on the nose landing gear without a single piece of the ten thousand fragments hitting the landing gear door.

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

Yes and everybody knows an aircraft impacting the water at 200 knots couldn't possibly cause that.

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.

Only if you ignore the laws of physics.

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.

Unscathed?

Compared to a tire that was exposed to a missile warhead detonation.

 

[matt.tansy]

You are referring to Kallstrom, right?

No. It was obvious I was referring to the author of the book you yourself cited.

I'd love to see you tell Navy man Dean Stewart he was full of "BS" to his face.

I would love to tell him to his face. Do you know how to contact him?

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

Ask any nuclear submariner about it. Contact your local chapter of the USSVI: https://www.ussvi.org/home.asp and ask how long it takes to de-rig and submerge a modern nuclear submarine. For added lulz you can ask them how a nuke sub does a "crash dive".

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.

Gee. All this time I thought you were interested in discovering the truth.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Nonsense. You tried to refute the methodology challenge by simply re-asserting the conclusion. Reasoning doesn't get any more circular than that.

 

[Dcdrac]

you know Jets MO is very similar to RPs

 

[LSSBB]

you know Jets MO is very similar to RPs

[meta-discussion]Critical key words (crickets, baloney, head in sand, back-bencher) are missing[/meta-discussion]

ETA:Arrogant dismissal in general is the key point of commonality

 

[matt.tansy]

That's not true. The radar being capable of adequately showing a unidirectional plume

No one is disputing the existence of the plume so stop using it as a strawman. What is in dispute is the velocity it was ejected from the aircraft which is dependent on the distance between the aircraft and debris. Radars have errors and those errors increase with range.

... Tansy made a methodology error argument against the mach 4 ejecta (that wasn't valid by the way).

I was simply pointing out the errors inherent in any radar.

Before a sub gets underway it tests its radar for bearing and range accuracy. Many, many times we've been moored to the pier testing the radar on a fixed radar-prominent object like a pier or a jetty a mile away and the range will jump around by 20 yards.

20 yards in one nautical mile. TWA 800 was 22 nautical miles from the Islip radar. Do the math.

 

[matt.tansy]

Christine Negroni, who wrote her own book about the crash, interviewed the radar expert who was hired to examine the radar records for the investigation.

Full story here: http://christinenegroni.blogspot.com/2013/07/hubris-has-starring-role-in-twa-800.html]

Crunchy bits here:

As a hired consultant to several agencies looking into the crash, O’Roark analyzed radar data from a number of reporting stations. When contacted by Stalcup to appear in the documentary, O’Roark agreed. They met at a hotel near Dulles Airport.

“He wanted to know about the radar,” O’Roark told me. That was fine with O’Roark. He knew the blips Stalcup was referring to. “He’s got one little hit that first appears simultaneously with the fragmentation,” about a mile and a half off the right side of the airplane.

O’Roark said he told Stalcup, it could be the airplane, it could be a boat or a ship, it could be a false high-speed target. Since a primary radar return doesn’t give altitude, there’s no way of knowing where in space the object actually is, or as O’Roark said, “Things that appear to be close together could be quite far apart.”

O'Roark quibbled with making any conclusion about the speed either. "Specifically I said, you can't tell velocity by the primary return until you get a second return." But by the time the radar swept by four and a half seconds later, there were 700 primary returns. Whatever happened to the plane had already happened.

Curiously, not a frame of this interview appears in the film. Perhaps because O’Roark also told Stalcup he thought the missile theory was nonsense. When I pushed O’Roark to think long and hard, asking “Is there any possible way, even if it is extremely remote, that the radar images you guys talked about could be interpreted to be a high-velocity explosion next to the airplane?” O’Roark said, “Call me in 3 hours, maybe then I’ll be drunk enough to think so.”

A mile and a half??? That's (a mile and a half/half a mile)^6 times more amazing than half a mile! I guess they dropped the mile and a half claim because it was so ludicrous and decided to go with the half mile claim.

 

[matt.tansy]

A good description how the warhead of an anti-aircraft missile works: How Sidewinder Missiles Work

 

[jhunter1163]

OK, now I've got my Mod Hat on. Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite. Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Jetblast]

Google: WND Did Navy Sub Missile Hit TWA 800



Specifically look how Kallstrom found out the subs Trepang, Wyoming, and Albuquerque were on classified maneuvers that evening in the area and that 4 unidentified tracks were seen on radar. The disappearance of several of those tracks immediately after the crash suggests submarine behavior.

 

[Dcdrac]

Google: WND Did Navy Sub Missile Hit TWA 800



Specifically look how Kallstrom found out the subs Trepang, Wyoming, and Albuquerque were on classified maneuvers that evening in the area and that 4 unidentified tracks were seen on radar. The disappearance of several of those tracks immediately after the crash suggests submarine behavior.

None of which proves that a missile hit the plane

 

[carlitos]

Google: WND Did Navy Sub Missile Hit TWA 800

There is no reason why you can't google whatever and post it here. Post a link and a summary. Quote a paragraph or two.

You can even use youtube tags and post a video right in the thread. Just type [yt] videocode [/yt] . The videocode is the 11 characters that appear after "v=" in the youtube URL.

 

[LSSBB]

Google: WND Did Navy Sub Missile Hit TWA 800



Specifically look how Kallstrom found out the subs Trepang, Wyoming, and Albuquerque were on classified maneuvers that evening in the area and that 4 unidentified tracks were seen on radar. The disappearance of several of those tracks immediately after the crash suggests submarine behavior.

Say, who was the Captain of the Wyoming at the time?

 

[Jetblast]

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

I'm glad you asked that. If you look at hangar photos of the reconstructed nose the type of 747 TWA 800 was had unused window slots in the fuselage. The unused window slots on the starboard side of the 1st Class section were all blown-out, as is seen in the wreckage. The unused window slots on the port side were all intact and still in their places. The fact these plugs were all blow-out on the starboard side is forensic proof the nose section impacted the water on that side. As is the confirming forensic proof of the port side still having its window plugs in place. Google Image the wreckage and you'll see this.

A nose section that falls on its starboard side doesn't have the correct impact position to blow the nose gear doors inward. Don't forget this is backed-up by shredded tires and blast gouges in the nose gear assembly.

 

[jhunter1163]

He's using World Nut Daily as a source? Methinks I'd need to see a little higher quality journalism...

 

[LSSBB]

I'm glad you asked that. If you look at hangar photos of the reconstructed nose the type of 747 TWA 800 was had unused window slots in the fuselage. The unused window slots on the starboard side of the 1st Class section were all blown-out, as is seen in the wreckage. The unused window slots on the port side were all intact and still in their places. The fact these plugs were all blow-out on the starboard side is forensic proof the nose section impacted the water on that side. As is the confirming forensic proof of the port side still having its window plugs in place. Google Image the wreckage and you'll see this.

A nose section that falls on its starboard side doesn't have the correct impact position to blow the nose gear doors inward. Don't forget this is backed-up by shredded tires and blast gouges in the nose gear assembly.

Mathematical analysis, please. If you can't do it yourself, refer to someone else's work.

 

[Jetblast]

Say, who was the Captain of the Wyoming at the time?

I'll work on that and you can work on where NASA scientist Charley Basset admitting he never did any tests showing the strange reddish purple residue streaked across the seats in a missile exhaust plume pattern was seat glue leaves us? That means FBI was caught lying and has no explanation for the residue which it then illegally dumped in a dumpster behind the hangar. When I find your Captain maybe he can help us with that too?

 

[jhunter1163]

I'm glad you asked that. If you look at hangar photos of the reconstructed nose the type of 747 TWA 800 was had unused window slots in the fuselage. The unused window slots on the starboard side of the 1st Class section were all blown-out, as is seen in the wreckage. The unused window slots on the port side were all intact and still in their places. The fact these plugs were all blow-out on the starboard side is forensic proof the nose section impacted the water on that side. As is the confirming forensic proof of the port side still having its window plugs in place. Google Image the wreckage and you'll see this.

A nose section that falls on its starboard side doesn't have the correct impact position to blow the nose gear doors inward. Don't forget this is backed-up by shredded tires and blast gouges in the nose gear assembly.

The fuselage might not have landed flat on its side; it may have hit at an angle of maybe 20 or 30 degrees, enough to pop out the slots on the impacting side but not on the "uphill" side. And matt.tansy has already explained that the damage to the nose gear assembly is not consistent with a close-by missile explosion.