New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[catsmate]

There wasn't, as the evidence bears out. You read that into the evidence.

Yes the PETN/RDX, RDX and nitro traces were not commingled with the adhesive residue. They were most probably left during the debris recovery.

You obviously have never taken the stand.

What do you have?

1. A submarine captain discharged in disgrace, who you cannot name.
2. A missile of construction never seen before or since.
3. A report which was never made.
4. An unnamed Boeing technician who you cannot identify.
5. A missile platform which might be submarine, surface vessel, land based, hand fired or an evil supercharged Cessna.
6. A missile which might be a missile, or two missiles or even three missiles, all of which use propellants no known missile uses, all of which have warheads which no known missile uses.

In short, this is pure fantasy.

Good summary.

 

[abaddon]

Yes the PETN/RDX, RDX and nitro traces were not commingled with the adhesive residue. They were most probably left during the debris recovery.

I forgot to mention that the PETN, nitro and RDX traces were not co-located.

Good summary.

THX. You owe me a beer.

 

[Border Reiver]

THX. You owe me a beer.

Drop on by, I've got homemade oatmeal stout, and heather beer in the fridge and a spiced Scottish ale fermenting.

 

[Robrob]

Asked and answered. He ruled that the responsible party performed an acceptably rigorous search for a document that the plaintiff claimed existed.

Asked and answered. The FBI is compelled by law to search for every document it is asked to find, whether there is any pre-existing belief regarding its existence. Were it no so, Sephton's lawsuit would have had no basis in law. The FBI performed a dutiful search for the document the plaintiff claimed existed.

True. I have personally searched repeatedly though case files and reported "negative findings" per a FOIA request.

You're not answering the evidence. If there was PETN in the residue, and FBI lied about it being seat glue, then you haven't credibly accounted for it and I don't have to answer to your parallel, evasive strawman arguments.

There was no PETN in the seat glue. Easy way to contradict me. Just provide the link documenting your claim.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

If this hasn't already been covered, Jetblast's post is simply lifted unattributed from http://flight800.org/pr_rel_11_03.htm , which appears to simply be Sephton's own summary of the findings. The link that Jetblast redacts is the link I gave above to the ruling itself, http://flight800.org/ruling_10_24_03.htm , which confirms that the court held the FBI conducted an adequate search. Sephton improperly labels this as a "transcript," whereas a transcript would normally be the on-record proceedings of the trial.

It certainly does appear the whole house of cards is predicated on this.
And twenty pages of nonsense to boot.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I doubt that Jetblast is serious about any of this.

I think he is trolling to see how long he can keep this going.

It's just a Cheese Shop!

 

[catsmate]

There's really nothing the deniers offer that deserves serious response.

Well there's this list you keep avoiding..............

1. The name of the Long island coroner who allegedly found "incendiary shrapnel"
2. Your source for the existence of this "incendiary shrapnel" and the weapons system that supposedly uses it
3. The name of the alleged Boeing employee who stated that titanium and aluminium weren't used in Boeing 747 aircraft
4. The name of the alleged submarine captain who was supposedly relieved of duty
5. Evidence of your claim that the USS Wyoming's commissioning was delayed
6. Why you claim that the USS Albuquerque had vertical launch tubes when in fact it did not
7. Why you claimed that the US government allegedly stated that three Keyhole satellites were inoperative at the time of the crash of TWA 800 when in fact only two such satellites were in orbit
8. Why you claimed that the US government allegedly stated that three Keyhole satellites were inoperative at the time of the crash of TWA 800 when in fact the satellites were not in a position to see the site
9. The name of the alleged USAF general who said he knew about the shoot down
10. Evidence that any in-service US anti-aircraft missile using a PETN containing propellant
11. Evidence that any in-service US anti-aircraft missile using a PETN containing warhead
12. Evidence that any US submarine had in 1996 the capability to launch anti-aircraft missiles
13. Evidence that the previously named Air Force General designed a missile launched from a Navy vessel.
14. Why the only people to have claimed to have seen US Navy ships at the crash site are proven liars or tell such fantastic stories they have zero credibility.
15. How could multiple AA missiles that detonated close enough to leave explosives residue, bend in the nose landing gear doors, shatter the left wing, and yet somehow not pepper the entire aircraft with tens of thousands of high-velocity fragments.
16. How warhead fragments made it into the victims without first penetrating the fuselage.
17. How could AA missiles that detonated on the left side and underneath the aircraft eject material out the right side of the aircraft for 0.5 nautical miles.
18. What is the minimum ballistic coefficient for debris to get ejected at Mach 4 and travel 0.5 nautical miles in 8.5 seconds.
19. What size of explosive is required to eject debris 0.5 nautical miles at Mach 4.
20. How close to the ejected debris would the above explosive have to be.
21. Why did Meyer say the Sun was up.
22. Why can't Meyer stretch out his account to cover the 42 seconds between the initial explosion and final fireball.
23. Why did only two eyewitnesses out of 258 report seeing two streaks of light and none saw three streaks of light.

 

[LSSBB]

Well there's this list you keep avoiding..............

1. The name of the Long island coroner who allegedly found "incendiary shrapnel"
2. Your source for the existence of this "incendiary shrapnel" and the weapons system that supposedly uses it
3. The name of the alleged Boeing employee who stated that titanium and aluminium weren't used in Boeing 747 aircraft
4. The name of the alleged submarine captain who was supposedly relieved of duty
5. Evidence of your claim that the USS Wyoming's commissioning was delayed
6. Why you claim that the USS Albuquerque had vertical launch tubes when in fact it did not
7. Why you claimed that the US government allegedly stated that three Keyhole satellites were inoperative at the time of the crash of TWA 800 when in fact only two such satellites were in orbit
8. Why you claimed that the US government allegedly stated that three Keyhole satellites were inoperative at the time of the crash of TWA 800 when in fact the satellites were not in a position to see the site
9. The name of the alleged USAF general who said he knew about the shoot down
10. Evidence that any in-service US anti-aircraft missile using a PETN containing propellant
11. Evidence that any in-service US anti-aircraft missile using a PETN containing warhead
12. Evidence that any US submarine had in 1996 the capability to launch anti-aircraft missiles
13. Evidence that the previously named Air Force General designed a missile launched from a Navy vessel.
14. Why the only people to have claimed to have seen US Navy ships at the crash site are proven liars or tell such fantastic stories they have zero credibility.
15. How could multiple AA missiles that detonated close enough to leave explosives residue, bend in the nose landing gear doors, shatter the left wing, and yet somehow not pepper the entire aircraft with tens of thousands of high-velocity fragments.
16. How warhead fragments made it into the victims without first penetrating the fuselage.
17. How could AA missiles that detonated on the left side and underneath the aircraft eject material out the right side of the aircraft for 0.5 nautical miles.
18. What is the minimum ballistic coefficient for debris to get ejected at Mach 4 and travel 0.5 nautical miles in 8.5 seconds.
19. What size of explosive is required to eject debris 0.5 nautical miles at Mach 4.
20. How close to the ejected debris would the above explosive have to be.
21. Why did Meyer say the Sun was up.
22. Why can't Meyer stretch out his account to cover the 42 seconds between the initial explosion and final fireball.
23. Why did only two eyewitnesses out of 258 report seeing two streaks of light and none saw three streaks of light.

Quoted, in case JB has catsmate1 on ignore.

 

[Dcdrac]

Well there's this list you keep avoiding..............

1. The name of the Long island coroner who allegedly found "incendiary shrapnel"
2. Your source for the existence of this "incendiary shrapnel" and the weapons system that supposedly uses it
3. The name of the alleged Boeing employee who stated that titanium and aluminium weren't used in Boeing 747 aircraft
4. The name of the alleged submarine captain who was supposedly relieved of duty
5. Evidence of your claim that the USS Wyoming's commissioning was delayed
6. Why you claim that the USS Albuquerque had vertical launch tubes when in fact it did not
7. Why you claimed that the US government allegedly stated that three Keyhole satellites were inoperative at the time of the crash of TWA 800 when in fact only two such satellites were in orbit
8. Why you claimed that the US government allegedly stated that three Keyhole satellites were inoperative at the time of the crash of TWA 800 when in fact the satellites were not in a position to see the site
9. The name of the alleged USAF general who said he knew about the shoot down
10. Evidence that any in-service US anti-aircraft missile using a PETN containing propellant
11. Evidence that any in-service US anti-aircraft missile using a PETN containing warhead
12. Evidence that any US submarine had in 1996 the capability to launch anti-aircraft missiles
13. Evidence that the previously named Air Force General designed a missile launched from a Navy vessel.
14. Why the only people to have claimed to have seen US Navy ships at the crash site are proven liars or tell such fantastic stories they have zero credibility.
15. How could multiple AA missiles that detonated close enough to leave explosives residue, bend in the nose landing gear doors, shatter the left wing, and yet somehow not pepper the entire aircraft with tens of thousands of high-velocity fragments.
16. How warhead fragments made it into the victims without first penetrating the fuselage.
17. How could AA missiles that detonated on the left side and underneath the aircraft eject material out the right side of the aircraft for 0.5 nautical miles.
18. What is the minimum ballistic coefficient for debris to get ejected at Mach 4 and travel 0.5 nautical miles in 8.5 seconds.
19. What size of explosive is required to eject debris 0.5 nautical miles at Mach 4.
20. How close to the ejected debris would the above explosive have to be.
21. Why did Meyer say the Sun was up.
22. Why can't Meyer stretch out his account to cover the 42 seconds between the initial explosion and final fireball.
23. Why did only two eyewitnesses out of 258 report seeing two streaks of light and none saw three streaks of light.

yes it would be nice to have these answered

 

[Stamuel]

I have not studied this incident in detail, but I have come across some primary sources that address some of the claims made here. What I have found provides evidence that the FBI and Kallstrom in particular did not try to cover up bombs or missiles; in fact, the exact opposite seems to be true. It appears Kallstrom tried to pressure at least one analyst, William Tobin, into going along with the conclusion that a bomb brought down TWA 800. Despite this, Tobin, continued to maintain that materials analysis disproved bombs and missiles.

Here is a quote from William Tobin's
testimony to the ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT OF THE INVESTIGATION OF TWA FLIGHT 800.

GRASSLEY: How did Mr. Kallstrom inform you when the third incident, the high explosive RDX was found on a piece of the recovered plane? What did he say?

TOBIN: When I was advised of that third finding of the residues, I was approached in a very excited manner and the statement was, we've got it, we've got it, it's confirmed. And I asked what was confirmed and he said, we got it, proof of the bomb and I saw in the very agitated or hyper emotional state that he was in that I needed to do some significant calming or try to bring it back down to earth or to urge prudence and caution in interpretation of those RDX residues.

I then decided that I probably should -- I used the analogy of a cardboard box at that particular time and what I was trying to convey to him was that a simple materials analogy. My representation was, I said, Jim basically from a material science standpoint this is what you've got. You've got a cardboard box, your chemists are finding residues inside the cardboard box and the sides of the box are not even bulged out. In my business, that's called a clue.

That didn't sit well, and at that point he got about six inches from my face and prompted - proceeded to advise me in rather graphic terms that it was a bomb. And that's the most suitable presentation I can put on for prime time right now.

The entirety of his testimony is worth reading. He describes how unequivocal the evidence was against bombs and missiles. He also describes the excitement of Kallstrom and others when RDX residue was found; they were all sure they had proven terrorism. According to Tobin, he struggled to prevent a PR disaster since it looked like they were about to publicize inaccurate conclusions.

The testimony about the behavior of the other FBI is subject to all limitations of memory and eyewitness accounts in general, but this is evidence that the FBI was not working to make sure to rule out missiles. It suggests that the weight of overall evidence is what finally overcame their zeal for the conclusion of bombs. This is evidence that the conclusion of a fuel explosion was evidence-based and not a cover up.

 

[beachnut]

There's really nothing the deniers offer that deserves serious response.

Well there's this list you keep avoiding..............

1. The name of the Long island coroner who allegedly found "incendiary shrapnel"
2. Your source for the existence of this "incendiary shrapnel" and the weapons system that supposedly uses it
3. The name of the alleged Boeing employee who stated that titanium and aluminum weren't used in Boeing 747 aircraft
4. The name of the alleged submarine captain who was supposedly relieved of duty
5. Evidence of your claim that the USS Wyoming's commissioning was delayed
6. Why you claim that the USS Albuquerque had vertical launch tubes when in fact it did not
7. Why you claimed that the US government allegedly stated that three Keyhole satellites were inoperative at the time of the crash of TWA 800 when in fact only two such satellites were in orbit
8. Why you claimed that the US government allegedly stated that three Keyhole satellites were inoperative at the time of the crash of TWA 800 when in fact the satellites were not in a position to see the site
9. The name of the alleged USAF general who said he knew about the shoot down
10. Evidence that any in-service US anti-aircraft missile using a PETN containing propellant
11. Evidence that any in-service US anti-aircraft missile using a PETN containing warhead
12. Evidence that any US submarine had in 1996 the capability to launch anti-aircraft missiles
13. Evidence that the previously named Air Force General designed a missile launched from a Navy vessel.
14. Why the only people to have claimed to have seen US Navy ships at the crash site are proven liars or tell such fantastic stories they have zero credibility.
15. How could multiple AA missiles that detonated close enough to leave explosives residue, bend in the nose landing gear doors, shatter the left wing, and yet somehow not pepper the entire aircraft with tens of thousands of high-velocity fragments.
16. How warhead fragments made it into the victims without first penetrating the fuselage.
17. How could AA missiles that detonated on the left side and underneath the aircraft eject material out the right side of the aircraft for 0.5 nautical miles.
18. What is the minimum ballistic coefficient for debris to get ejected at Mach 4 and travel 0.5 nautical miles in 8.5 seconds.
19. What size of explosive is required to eject debris 0.5 nautical miles at Mach 4.
20. How close to the ejected debris would the above explosive have to be.
21. Why did Meyer say the Sun was up.
22. Why can't Meyer stretch out his account to cover the 42 seconds between the initial explosion and final fireball.
23. Why did only two eyewitnesses out of 258 report seeing two streaks of light and none saw three streaks of light.

Did he miss something?

There's really nothing the deniers offer that deserves serious response.

Like you serious pile of woo?.

There's really nothing the deniers offer that deserves serious response.

How about the MACH 4 stuff, you could put numbers to it, and get past the idiot who looked at the RADAR summary and made up the claim. You could stand up and refute it. Can you do that? You can't explain how the nut came up with the MACH 4 junk. You can't show the work. Where is the work? Stuck with posts talking about deniers. Is that your evidence?

 

[Stamuel]

It looks like the source for the claim that the seat residue was PETN is Sanders' interpretation of the testing he had done on the stolen seat fabric. That testing was done by West Coast Analytical Service, which is in Santa Fe Springs, CA (Jetblast has said the lab was in NM, probably mistakenly reading it as Santa Fe). Does anyone have information about the results of those tests? All I could find was this from a very pro-missile web site. Apparently the lab concluded the residue was not consistent with explosives, though Sanders continued to think it was. Here is the quote:

Sanders said he took a swatch to West Coast Analytical Service of Santa Fe Springs, Calif., telling the lab that it was part of a wrecked Asian airliner. He concluded from the test results that the residue's ingredients were consistent with solid rocket fuel. "We got the elements, and did a little bit of work, and said: `Huh. As an amateur, it sure looks like a match,'" Sanders said. "We're not saying this is conclusive, dead-on, last word, this is the way it is. But it is consistent.'' That assessment is not unanimous. The lab later told the FBI that the "tests did not provide any conclusive evidence'' of rocket fuel, and that Sanders had been told as much. The FBI affidavit quotes Stacey as saying he was skeptical that the lab analysis pointed to a missile, and that he'd told Sanders so.

So no lab who tested the residue said it was consistent with explosives, the guy who stole the fabric does not think it was explosive residue, but a reporter thinks it is anyway. And that is literally the entire case in favor of the residue being related to explosives, as far as I can see. Correct me if there is more to it.

 

[catsmate]

It looks like the source for the claim that the seat residue was PETN is Sanders' interpretation of the testing he had done on the stolen seat fabric. That testing was done by West Coast Analytical Service, which is in Santa Fe Springs, CA (Jetblast has said the lab was in NM, probably mistakenly reading it as Santa Fe). Does anyone have information about the results of those tests? All I could find was this from a very pro-missile web site. Apparently the lab concluded the residue was not consistent with explosives, though Sanders continued to think it was. Here is the quote:





So no lab who tested the residue said it was consistent with explosives, the guy who stole the fabric does not think it was explosive residue, but a reporter thinks it is anyway. And that is literally the entire case in favor of the residue being related to explosives, as far as I can see. Correct me if there is more to it.

The only credible evidence of explosive residue on TWA 800 wreckage is covered in the NTSB report section 1.16.4.8. Three samples (one piece of cloth, two floor panel remnants), out of several hundred examined, tested positive for explosives; one for RDX, one for PETN and RDX and one for nitroglycerine. Based on the FAA testing of the effects of sea-water immersion on explosive residue the report concludes, quite reasonably, that the traces were post accident contamination from the recovery operations.

 

[Jetblast]

Well there's this list you keep avoiding..............

1. The name of the Long island coroner who allegedly found "incendiary shrapnel"

1. 
   
   
   
   Coroner Charles Wetli has been named numerous times in this thread.
   
   My information checks out. I haven't seen anyone disprove anything I said.

 

[JayUtah]

Coroner Charles Wetli has been named numerous times in this thread.

But he doesn't say what you attribute to him. You told us to "Google it" and we would find it.

My information checks out.

Nope.

I haven't seen anyone disprove anything I said.

Nevertheless you have been refuted repeatedly at length. The reason you can't see this is likely because of all the lame excuses you make not to have to listen or respond to anyone.

 

[BStrong]

Coroner Charles Wetli has been named numerous times in this thread.

My information checks out. I haven't seen anyone disprove anything I said.

Might want to re-read some of the posts.

 

[Jetblast]

in fact, the exact opposite seems to be true. It appears Kallstrom tried to pressure at least one analyst, William Tobin, into going along with the conclusion that a bomb brought down TWA 800.

No more dishonest rendering of Kallstrom's actions could be made. Just watch the new documentary to see how FBI was committing crimes in order to produce the official version. A good sign of scandal is the fact deniers are using typical defamation tactics to go after Hughes, an award winning investigator with citations to prove it. And yet another sure sign is the burying of the new documentary itself. How exactly was FBI's criminally smuggling missile evidence out of the hangar "making an effort to prove a missile"?

The entirety of his testimony is worth reading. He describes how unequivocal the evidence was against bombs and missiles. He also describes the excitement of Kallstrom and others when RDX residue was found; they were all sure they had proven terrorism. According to Tobin, he struggled to prevent a PR disaster since it looked like they were about to publicize inaccurate conclusions.

This is more classic CIA-type disinformation trying to spin themselves as the do-gooders. Credible persons versed in the evidence can see it for what it is. To pose Kallstrom as being worried they were going to publicize false information is beyond the pale to the point of pretty sick. Kallstrom is the same guy who got caught lying about NASA scientist Charley Bassett testing the residue as being seat glue. It's a bizarre turning of reality on its head to try to ignore the fact that Kallstrom was the same guy who ditched the shrapnel pellet documents while this disinformation piece tries to make him look like a poor, falsely-accused man striving to bring the truth forward. In a contest of my filthy intelligence-insulting propaganda vs your facts the public can see through this flagrant dishonesty pretty quickly just like they did the CIA Zoom Climb.

RDX was found in the cargo holds. A place where no bomb-sniffing test was ever done. Just like on the wings.

The testimony about the behavior of the other FBI is subject to all limitations of memory and eyewitness accounts in general, but this is evidence that the FBI was not working to make sure to rule out missiles. It suggests that the weight of overall evidence is what finally overcame their zeal for the conclusion of bombs. This is evidence that the conclusion of a fuel explosion was evidence-based and not a cover up.

As the new documentary shows, those flagrant cheap excuses aren't anywhere close to the reality. Their offerers should be immediately rejected from credibility seeing how far from the facts and how obviously disingenuous what they offer is. The local Suffolk County Long Island Police witnessed and recorded at the time FBI agents (or were they CIA?) illegally removing evidence from the hangar at 3 in the morning. They were never prosecuted and no explanation of what they took or why was ever given. Kallstrom was told this on CNN recently and he replied "Whatever those men were doing it will turn out that it had a legitimate purpose towards finding out the cause." Kallstrom forgets as chief of NY FBI he's not only responsible for knowing what his men are doing and why but also accounting for it. The CNN idiot didn't point this out of course.

"The weight of the overall evidence"??? You mean like the investigators being caught illegally hammering-out the fuel tank floor to make it fit their scenario? Or lying about the St Louis bomb-sniffing test? Or the fact the investigation itself never found any evidence of a center tank explosion being the cause?

How does it work that JREF posters demand strict legal evidence to a ridiculous degree but then proffer conclusions where no evidence exists at all while at the same time there is plenty of evidence for deliberate deception? The above obviously contrived FBI propaganda piece is so defiant of the real facts and offers such a perverse rendering of the truth that it stands as evidence in itself.

This cheap propaganda would last about 10 seconds in front of a jury.


Don't forget Kallstrom is the guy who had the balls to charge James Sanders with what he was guilty of. Deniers have no problem with this.

 

[Stamuel]

A more detailed reply may come later, but a couple of quick points:

[...]
To pose Kallstrom as being worried they were going to publicize false information is beyond the pale to the point of pretty sick.

Sorry, my wording was not clear. Kallstrom was not the one trying to prevent false conclusions of a bomb, Kallstrom was an enthusiastic supporter of the conclusion that there was a bomb. Tobin was the one trying to rein him in. My point being: If Kallstrom was so gung-ho to conclude that there were bombs, that is not consistent with his participating in a cover-up meant to prove that it was a fuel tank explosion.

Don't forget Kallstrom is the guy who had the balls to charge James Sanders with what he was guilty of. Deniers have no problem with this.

I don't know about what the FBI may have done or taken, but that does not change the fact that Stacey did in fact steal evidence from the hangar and give it to Sanders. Was the FBI supposed to let this slide just because those who stole and took possession of the evidence thought there was a cover up? For all I know, the FBI may have criminally tampered with evidence, but there does not appear to be any reasonable doubt that Stacey and Sanders did. They did commit a crime.

 

[dafydd]

I haven't seen anyone disprove anything I said.

Try reading the answers.

 

[Border Reiver]

JB, if we accept your pet theory - that flight TWA800 was brought down by a missile - it would need to able to answer a number of questions better than the "official story."

a. What sort of missile;
b. How many missile(s);
c. Where was it/they fired from;
d. Who fired it/them;
e. Why is the damaged area of the plane damaged by an explosion going outwards from underneath the plane;
f. Why didn't the missile show up on a radar track prior to TWA 800 being damaged;
g. Where are the fragments of the missile body and guidance system; and
h. What does anyone gain by covering it up?