New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[carlitos]

It's not really cute when conspiracy theorists use words like "ejecta."

Mr. Jetblast, we are not on a "side." You failing to support your arguments does not put me on another side.

 

[matt.tansy]

Not alleged. The Long Island police caught FBI removing wreckage late at night. This is illegal and they weren't punished. You have a very generous sense of tolerance considering the strict approach you pretend.


What are the odds that shrapnel pellets being discovered and analyzed as shrapnel pellets wouldn't be shrapnel pellets? Especially when your side has no explanation for them and the investigation illegally withheld them?

Stop Galloping and answer the question. 20,000 fragments and they all manage to magically hit only 5% of the aircraft. What are the odds?

I know asking a conspiracy theorist to do math is like asking a dog to do long division so I'll help you out.

The 747-131 fuselage is 68 meters long and 6 meters wide giving a projected area of 408 m². It has a wing area of 511 m² for a total projected area of 919 m². Assume a warhead detonated 10 meters below the fuselage halfway between the nose and the tail. The distance from the warhead to the farthest point on the airplane is 10² + 34² = 35.4² meters. Assume the 10,000 fragments spread out evenly in a sphere of this radius. The surface area of this sphere is 15,783 m². Dividing the number of fragments by the surface area of the sphere then multiplying by the projected area of a 747 will give you the number of fragments that would be expected to hit the airplane. The answer is 582.

The odds 582 fragments would hit 5% of the airplane is .05⁵⁸² = 6.3·10^^-758. And that's just for the missile that detonated outside the airplane.

The proper term is "fragments" btw. "Shrapnel" refers to a special artillery shell invented by a British dude.

You have yet to answer why the ejecta plume all went in one direction and how that corresponds to the alleged fuel tank explosion?

That has been answered. You just didn't like the answer because it disproved the Mach 4 claim.

That's the way forensic evidence works. It's like being a little bit pregnant.

Or like a piece of warhead fragment has first to penetrate the skin of an aircraft before it can hit the people inside?

Ah, Hughes detailed the shrapnel penetrations were cited by his investigators and then disappeared. You argument is tremendously weak.

Wrong. Hughes has said the penetrations are still there in the reconstructed fuselage.

 

[beachnut]

RADAR does not support a missile - hearsay and fantasy does

Ah, but it does, as the unidirectional ejecta plume that no one can answer proves. You can't have a one-sided plume from a fuel tank explosion that the fuel tank forensics in the hangar show blew-out symmetrically, as well as your CIA animation. Tansy's contrived radar excuses don't answer this. So, actually, the radar does support a missile. Tansy's arguments were false, by the way, because you can still extract the mach 4 ejecta from the data. ALL the forensics are on our side. None are on yours, which is why the official investigation was unable to show any evidence of a center tank explosion being the cause.

RADAR data does not support a missile, if it did you would have a real paper, with math and physics to support your claim. But you have hearsay, stuff you googled up on the super duper never false Internet.

You have fallen for the new yellow journalism, were we can all publish BS, and fool people who think what they read is real. What did grandma say about what your hear, see, and read?

You can't get close to refuting the NTSB reports, so you bring in mountains of hearsay to support a fantasy missile story.

You can't explain MACH 4 experience; what would you hear? Have you been close to a MACH 4 missile?

Where is your paper, the math and physics, RADAR data? You know you can get the RADAR data? Do you have it? The NTSB has it all in RAW form, and they have to study it to see what happened. Gee, the real experts did not find your missile fantasy. oops

Show us your MACH 4 ejecta from the RADAR data; where is the paper?

 

[Jetblast]

PETN is not a propellant.

From Wikipedia:


" It is often phlegmatized by addition of 5–40% of wax, or by polymers (producing polymer-bonded explosives); in this form it is used in some cannon shells up to 30 mm caliber, though unsuitable for higher calibers. It is also used as a component of some gun propellants and solid rocket propellants. "

 

[Andy_Ross]

You can't explain MACH 4 experience; what would you hear? Have you been close to a MACH 4 missile?

No, but he has second hand testimony from someone who says a missile ten miles away made a bridge shake.
I tried to tell him that isn't correct but he doesn't want to know about someone who has first hand experience of AA missiles.

 

[Andy_Ross]

From Wikipedia:


" It is often phlegmatized by addition of 5–40% of wax, or by polymers (producing polymer-bonded explosives); in this form it is used in some cannon shells up to 30 mm caliber, though unsuitable for higher calibers. It is also used as a component of some gun propellants and solid rocket propellants. "

OK, which AA missiles is it used in?

What is the fuel used in US missiles?

 

[beachnut]

From Wikipedia:


" It is often phlegmatized by addition of 5–40% of wax, or by polymers (producing polymer-bonded explosives); in this form it is used in some cannon shells up to 30 mm caliber, though unsuitable for higher calibers. It is also used as a component of some gun propellants and solid rocket propellants. "

You never read the NTSB reports on 800. It shows. Gish Gallop some more.

Please read the NTSB reports before spreading the nonsense you google. You could at least relate the lies and BS to stuff NTSB published.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Finding PETN would suggest a Semtex bomb, popular with terrorists.
WHat test was done to find the PETN? does it find just that substance or a range of chemicals?

 

[catsmate]

It would be easier and more secure to just have a fighter intercept Flight 800 and shoot it down. It cuts out experimental missiles, submarines and such. It leaves out people reporting they saw something 'rising' but then, so does the Kamikaze idea.

Indeed, but how often is a CT the simplest explanation of any event?

Most likely the 3 subs were part of some kind of classified missile test maneuver. When it went wrong they did their usual tricks and made cover-stories. You want us to believe your offerings are genuine however anyone can see what you are avoiding. You ask us to produce proof of their maneuvers. Sure. Really, your newsreel propaganda about the crew watching the evening movie is too much in my opinion.

Would they be those three submarines whose presence you have utterly failed to establish?

A missile was launched from Virginia that evening.

Evidence?

FBI head acknowledges terrorist missile could have brought TWA jet down

So? Where's the evidence anyone deliberately down TWA 800?

Kallstrom admits three Navy ships were closer to the TWA explosion than the USS Normandy

Actual evidence required.

An update:

• Jetblast has cited Jack Cashill's book First Strike as a source for his theories on what happened to TWA 800.
• I wrote Mr. Cashill a note with a link to the bomb calculator and how ridiculous those claims are.
• Mr. Cashill hasn't replied to my email.
• Mr. Cashill wrote a book that claimed that William Ayers wrote President Obama's two books.
• I presume that the discipline require to ascertain whether this guy or that guy wrote a book would be Forensic Linguistics^WP.
• Our "Jetblast" uses the word "forensics" and the fairly idiosyncratic phrase "linguistic forensics" with some frequency.

Cashill? He's that nutter who trumpeted his fake award? The one who did inept job of faking the Obama and grandparents picture? Why would anyone
with enough brain cells to be able to breathe unaided, take any of Cashill's self-promoting crap seriously?


Things that make you go hmm...[/quote]

The PETN residue that FBI got caught lying as being seat glue is also hard evidence you haven't explained.

You mean the seat glue? PETN was found in one small sample, in trace amounts. Irrelevant and already explained. And why are you obsessing on the PETN rather than the RDX and nitroglycerine traces also found?

FBI illegally dumped all the seat fabric with this residue into a dumpster behind the hangar. That's illegal.

Evidence?

So the area being chock full of assets they then lied about doesn't affect the level of activity?

You have failed to show the presence of these naval assets.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And why are you obsessing on the PETN rather than the RDX and nitroglycerine traces also found?
.

PETN and RDX?? so it was Semtex?

 

[Andy_Ross]

FBI head acknowledges terrorist missile could have brought TWA jet down

So it wasn't the Navy?

 

[Jetblast]

Stop Galloping and answer the question. 20,000 fragments and they all manage to magically hit only 5% of the aircraft. What are the odds?

You've conceded because you can't explain the pellets that were documented by FBI and witnessed by the Long Island Coroner. We have the pellets in our possession. You have evasive arguments. That's the equivalent of air.

You lose. Thank You.


Some people are trying to say MIT professor Sephton and a federal judge based their Boston lawsuit on fantasy. Wetli clearly witnessed this whole thing. It's all in the lawsuit. On the record is proof a lab tested pellets whose source was not the aircraft. It's from the FBI's own records.

The proper term is "fragments" btw. "Shrapnel" refers to a special artillery shell invented by a British dude.

The proper term is actually US Missile Warhead Pellets as identified by FBI. When I dig up the link I'll quote you the specific metals. Since the metals were not metals used in Boeing construction FBI was required by law to identify their source. They never did. Instead they lost the documents.

That has been answered. You just didn't like the answer because it disproved the Mach 4 claim.

Nope. You didn't answer it then just like you haven't answered it here. You can't account for the unidirectional ejecta. That's why you avoid it.

You've conceded. Thanks.

Wrong. Hughes has said the penetrations are still there in the reconstructed fuselage.

Your answers are a mish mash of deceptive semantics. No, he said they took pieces away that never came back. And if there were pieces that remained they never entered the suspicious holes into the record.

Somebody's not being honest.

 

[beachnut]

You've conceded because you can't explain the pellets that were documented by FBI and witnessed by the Long Island Coroner. We have the pellets in our possession. You have evasive arguments. That's the equivalent of air.

You lose. Thank You.

Some people are trying to say MIT professor Sephton and a federal judge based their Boston lawsuit on fantasy. Wetli clearly witnessed this whole thing. It's all in the lawsuit. On the record is proof a lab tested pellets whose source was not the aircraft. It's from the FBI's own records.

The proper term is actually US Missile Warhead Pellets as identified by FBI. When I dig up the link I'll quote you the specific metals. Since the metals were not metals used in Boeing construction FBI was required by law to identify their source. They never did. Instead they lost the documents.

Nope. You didn't answer it then just like you haven't answered it here. You can't account for the unidirectional ejecta. That's why you avoid it.

You've conceded. Thanks.

Your answers are a mish mash of deceptive semantics. No, he said they took pieces away that never came back. And if there were pieces that remained they never entered the suspicious holes into the record.

Somebody's not being honest.

Failed to provide valid sources for these silly claims. Where are the sources?

... You lose. Thank You.

...

You've conceded. Thanks.
...

Somebody's not being honest.

Time to vote...

I don't think you read the NTSB reports; many of them were posted in this thread. It would be interesting for you to tie your fantasy stuff to the NTSB reports in some way.

 

[carlitos]

From Wikipedia:

A good demonstration of your expertise here.

We have the pellets in our possession.

 

[matt.tansy]

You've conceded because you can't explain the pellets that were documented by FBI and witnessed by the Long Island Coroner. We have the pellets in our possession. You have evasive arguments. That's the equivalent of air.

You lose. Thank You.


Some people are trying to say MIT professor Sephton and a federal judge based their Boston lawsuit on fantasy. Wetli clearly witnessed this whole thing. It's all in the lawsuit. On the record is proof a lab tested pellets whose source was not the aircraft. It's from the FBI's own records.










The proper term is actually US Missile Warhead Pellets as identified by FBI. When I dig up the link I'll quote you the specific metals. Since the metals were not metals used in Boeing construction FBI was required by law to identify their source. They never did. Instead they lost the documents.








Nope. You didn't answer it then just like you haven't answered it here. You can't account for the unidirectional ejecta. That's why you avoid it.

You've conceded. Thanks.









Your answers are a mish mash of deceptive semantics. No, he said they took pieces away that never came back. And if there were pieces that remained they never entered the suspicious holes into the record.

Somebody's not being honest.

Handwaving noted.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We have the pellets in our possession.

We?
You and someone else have the pellets?

When I dig up the link I'll quote you the specific metals

Do we hold our breath?

Somebody's not being honest.

Hhm!

 

[catsmate]

Finding PETN would suggest a Semtex bomb, popular with terrorists.
WHat test was done to find the PETN? does it find just that substance or a range of chemicals?

Aha! You've asked the 64c question. Have a muffin.



OK, smear tests (later confirmed by lab tests) show three spots with explosive residue, in trace amounts, on material from the passenger cabin; one RDX, one RDX/PETN and one nitroglycerine

The problem for the wackjobs, is that the results were weak, there was a valid explanation for trace amounts of explosive and the variety of explosives is odd, inconsistent with bomb or missile.

JB and some of the other CTers mention the reddish-brown residue found on several passenger seats, this was found to be adhesive. This was a major part of one of the earlier CTs about the crash as the binder used in several commercial, PETN derived, explosives is red due to the binder used.

The NTSB looked into the explosive traces and considered if they were the result of the aircraft being used during the Gulf War or traces left from sniffer dog training that had used the plane; however testing by the FAA showed that the amount of time the aircraft had been immersed in seawater would have eliminated any such traces and concluded that they were contamination from the recovery of the wreckage which involved military personnel, vehicles and ships. Which also explains the three different explosives found.

Examination of the wreckage (structure, framing, interior, seats et cetera) found none of the damage that would be expected from an explosion, bomb or missile.
Of course the conspiracy nuts ignore this.

Now I must go molest a Power Ranger.

 

[LSSBB]

Hey JetBlast, what was the name of the sub captain that was relieved of his duties? Time's a wasting (as if the other thread participants haven't noticed yet...).

All Hat. No Cattle.

 

[kookbreaker]

Still would like to know who the 'Long Island Police' are.

 

[JayUtah]

Ah, but it does, as the unidirectional ejecta plume that no one can answer proves.

Your refusal to address the answer doesn't constitute a lack of answer.

You can't have a one-sided plume from a fuel tank explosion that the fuel tank forensics in the hangar show blew-out symmetrically, as well as your CIA animation.

Asked and answered. Other dynamic forces apply in an airframe break-up at speed and altitude. I discussed the factors that affect the fidelity of the test, and your arbitrary expectations to the contrary. Why did you ignore that discussion?

Tansy's contrived radar excuses don't answer this.

Actually it does. Pooh-poohing it because you don't know how radar works doesn't change the facts, which persist despite your unwillingness to believe them.

...because you can still extract the mach 4 ejecta from the data.

No you cannot, despite Stalcup's fervent and wishful handwaving.

ALL the forensics are on our side.

You keep using this word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.