You're not following the arguments. Boeing said those metals were NOT found in Boeing construction so therefore they had to come from something else. Your side never explained where they came from.
New TWA Flight 800 film coming out
- Thread starter patchbunny
- Start date
You're not following the arguments. Boeing said those metals were NOT found in Boeing construction so therefore they had to come from something else. Your side never explained where they came from.
You have not show any evidence there were pellets, or the pellets match any known missile. You spew woo, and never source to real evidence.
Why has a newspaper not jumped on your claims; this would be an easy Pulitzer Prize, if you had evidence. You got hearsay and BS. Where is the Pulitzer?
Oops, more woo. Where did Boeing say so? Do you make this up as you go, or is all plagiarized BS?
Where is the Pulitzer?
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Theoretically yes, if you restrict your question to speed alone. In reality, interceptions are awfully difficult things to do if you do not have the gear provided in, say, an F15, and Cessna's don't have that. In other words, while they might in terms of sheer speed, I wouldn't want to even attempt it.
It is actually quite difficult to perform a mid air collision by hand. Warplanes are designed intentionally to do it. That's what they are for. Cessna's? Not so much.
And I fully realise that various yootoobs will be wheeled out of collisions at airshows and whatnot, but those are not comparable, for the obvious reason they are intentionally trying to demonstrate their capabilities. Check out the French airforce activities in Chad. They are bonkers.
ETA: Like this in Corsica. Watch for the third aircraft in particular. Wow.
Last edited:
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Or even shown that this amazing shrapnel actually exists.
Plus, if this was (as JB claims) some sort of incendiary material, why was it recovered as intact pellets rather than as combusted byproducts, i.e. why didn't it burn? Rather than conveniently wait for for conspiracy nut to find it.
Your entries are self-defeating because the way airline crash forensics work is you have to explain where the pellets came from. As long as you haven't you're confirming the investigation was bogus at minimum.
That's actually a good question. Maybe one of the missiles blew-open an unexploded drone.
What decision do you think a jury would make if they were forced to decide between MIT's Sephton, the Long Island Medical Examiner, an FBI whistleblower, and an internet poster named "Beachnut"?
(Woo, woo!)
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
swright777
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 897
I have yet to see any evidence posted by JB for anything that he claims. Have I missed something?
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
No, still just words words words.
wow, I don't know "Jetblast". Is that jetblast as in you are a pilot and aircraft accident investigator who... wait, you have zero evidence, you got woo woo, and more woo. Google has mislead you into woo. Next time read the reports about 800 before being fooled by paranoid CTers. Oops, you think 911 was an inside job, JFK, ... what else.
I am only a simple engineer with a masters degree, a pilot with an ATP and some heavy jet time, and a trained accident investigator; the cool part is an English major can beat me at figuring out 800, or any layperson with critical thinking skills can school me. As for your woo, any grade school kid can see have failed to figure out you were fooled by those with the missile fantasy. Good luck.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Begging the question. What would a jury decide based on the claims of a prosecutor named "Jetblast?"
You are bent on trying to dismiss your critics as invariably uninformed. However, you are talking to professional pilots, investigators, and engineers. The fact that they use pseudonyms on the Internet is irrelevant. They are pointing out so many holes in your claims that your sidestepping of them has convinced many you're just trolling. You don't get to approach this debate from the a priori assumption that you are an expert and that you know what you're talking about. The fact that you haven't responded to a single post of mine in several pages now indicates just how assiduously you wish to avoid talking to certain people who reveal your nonsense. This is not a position from which you can accuse your critics of unsophistication.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,256
And a man once told me he met King Neptune.
Did General Partin say what the missile was? If he designed it he must know it's designation, it's manufacturere, names of other people involved in the project.
One man doesn't 'design' a missile.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Are you saying now it was an Air Force missile, not a Navy one?
Wow, hearsay, and you got General Partin? lol
Partin thinks OKC was a conspiracy too.
You have a crazy CT guy for your source about a crazy CT guy who can't figure out OKC and he is your "expert" according to your CTer hearsay source... or what?
What year did Partin design the missile? 58?
You owe a report on the AOA for your AOA claim.
You owe a list of the 12 flight training schools, the only 12. Please list them soon.
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Is this "jury" going to get to see your imaginary missile pellets as well?
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
It was at the end of several increasingly bizarre scenarios. I knew you would miss the context.
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Quote please?
Jay, I agree that the Kamikaze Cessna is ludicrous (unless, maybe a Citation, but I don't want to encourage any more foolishness), but I think you're being a mite unfair to the 172/182/206/210 family.
Now, a 150 or 152, yeah...
I'm with Beachnut: please show, with specific citation, so we can read for ourselves where Boeing has stated that a 747-100 did not have aluminum or titanium in it's construction.