• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

BenjaminTR said:
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.
Click to expand...




The seat fabric wasn't stolen. It was removed by TWA pilot and NTSB investigator Terrell Stacey when he complained to ex-cop Sanders that the investigation wasn't on the level. Actually the stealing of those samples occurred when FBI confiscated and then destroyed them. Replacing them with deliberately-switched cuttings of seat fabric with obvious adhesive on them and no residue. No honest evaluator could see your version as being anything other than the dishonest rendering it is.





BenjaminTR said:
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).
Click to expand...




I had seen it told as LA and New Mexico. Looks like Los Angeles was correct.






BenjaminTR said:
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:
Click to expand...




The test showed PETN. All you are doing is quoting FBI's lying disinformation used to get around it. If we viewed the orginal tests and methodology it would show PETN. The lab did not know the situation when it did the tests. It was later intimidated by FBI like many others. This is the correct context of the information. Your FBI damage control isn't.





BenjaminTR said:
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.
Click to expand...



You never answered the FBI being caught faking and lying about seat glue.

The reason your offerings are bogus is because they don't reflect that they came after Sanders was threatened with 5 years in jail for something he wasn't guilty of and that the FBI was obviously desperate to cover-up the finding. There's some simple things that destroy this disinformation. First is any test of a US missile containing that propellant on 747 seat fabric would produce the same residue. Second is FBI illegally collected and destroyed the samples and also lied about the seat glue tests - both sure signs of guilt. Deniers have no problem with FBI not making the samples available for further testing and don't question any of the excuses FBI makes. Also, how did seat glue end-up in a 3 row-wide plume pattern? Do deniers ever wonder why this unexplained plume just so happened to be the same color and width of missile exhaust? No curiosity? No objections about FBI illegally dumping the seat covers in a dumpster behind the hangar? (Also a sure sign of guilt)

No problem that the original tests are not right out in the open? Sanders has charts comparing the chemicals found by the lab vs missile exhaust. They line-up perfectly. Don't you think your source is rather dishonest for not pointing this out? It's also dishonest to say Stacey though it wasn't missile residue.



http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/BASS/bassett.html




If you watch the new documentary a splatter pattern was found across the outside roof of the center fuel tank. Forensics proved it occurred before the center tank exploded. This is forensic proof that something other than the center tank caused the crash.



Checkmate.
 
Border Reiver said:
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?
Click to expand...

Truthers never answer questions, unless jetblast would care to break with tradition and address the above.
 
Border Reiver said:
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?
Click to expand...

JB please answer all of the above
 
Jb:

"The seat fabric wasn't stolen. It was removed by TWA pilot and NTSB investigator Terrell Stacey when he complained to ex-cop Sanders that the investigation wasn't on the level. Actually the stealing of those samples occurred when FBI confiscated and then destroyed them. Replacing them with deliberately-switched cuttings of seat fabric with obvious adhesive on them and no residue. No honest evaluator could see your version as being anything other than the dishonest rendering it is."

JB, all kidding aside, are you for real or are you playing?

The underlined section in the above quote is straight out of lowlife 101., and asserting that the FBI taking back custody of the "removed" material constitutes theft is over the top - salud! I'll be passing this quote around for the amusment of friends and colleagues.

Just ftr, the removal of evidence by unauthorized individuals in any case constitutes theft, providing same to a third party not authorized to possess the material is another crime, and the break in the lawful chain of custody would make it extremely difficult to utilize such material in a court of law even if such material was proven to be consequence in the case, criminal or civil.

So, your fantasy that the removed evidence has any legal standing in court is pretty much flushed.
 
Jetblast:

Would it be safe to say all of your evidence is faith based? You have faith a couple individuals are telling the truth, so you believe them without question.

Is this fair to say?
 
Actually the stealing of those samples occurred when FBI confiscated and then destroyed them. Replacing them with deliberately-switched cuttings of seat fabric with obvious adhesive on them and no residue. No honest evaluator could see your version as being anything other than the dishonest rendering it is.
Click to expand...

Now, thisis new!
Suddenly the FBI have created fake seat fabric and substituted it for the real stuff?
 
DGM said:
Jetblast:

Would it be safe to say all of your evidence is faith based? You have faith a couple individuals are telling the truth, so you believe them without question.

Is this fair to say?
Click to expand...

Trutherism is a cult religion.
 
Jetblast said:
Coroner Charles Wetli has been named numerous times in this thread.
Click to expand...
Only after others named him, you failed to do so until then.

Jetblast said:
My information checks out. I haven't seen anyone disprove anything I said.
Click to expand...
Actually I've proved you wrong, and dishonest, numerous times; satellites, submarines, missiles, explosives, propellant et cetera.

Captain_Swoop said:
Now, thisis new!
Suddenly the FBI have created fake seat fabric and substituted it for the real stuff?
Click to expand...
Actually it wasn't seat fabric, it was the backing for the fabric. Nitpick I know.
 
BStrong said:
So, your fantasy that the removed evidence has any legal standing in court is pretty much flushed.
Click to expand...



Anyone can see you're making efforts to avoid the point.


You have no problem with open FBI criminality like lying about tests and illegally dumping evidence.


Your entries have zero credibility and aren't to be taken seriously. They are bascially a good reverse concession of the debate. Thanks.


When you can reduce the other side to trolling you've pretty much won.
 
Last edited:
You have presented no evidence that any of this happened apart from your say so and links to a Website that also fails to produce any evidence.

Jog on.
 
Jetblast said:
Anyone can see you're making efforts to avoid the point.


You have no problem with open FBI criminality like lying about tests and illegally dumping evidence.


Your entries have zero credibility and aren't to be taken seriously. They are bascially a good reverse concession of the debate. Thanks.


When you can reduce the other side to trolling you've pretty much won.
Click to expand...

You keep throwing around terms like "criminality", and other such legal terms with no regard for their actual meaning and when corrected on their usage you then declare the other party to be a person of zero credibility, followed by declaring victory in the thread. Such behaviour is at best childish and I would ask you to actually try and absorb some of the facts being presented to you:

a. No missile in the US, NATO or former Warsaw Pact arsenal uses PETN in either its fuel, or its warhead;
b. No surface to air, or air to air missile has a warhead that contains "incendiary shrapnel";
c. Evidence taken from an investigation site by someone without the legal authority to do so is stolen evidence;
d. Information obtained from stolen evidence is generally inadmissable in court;
e. Wanting to believe something to be true doesn't make it so (also, wanting a document to exist, doesn't mean it exists); and
f. If you wish to assert something, be prepared to back it up with something other than itself (ie. you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible).

Now, I suspect that these will be ignored again, but hope springs eternal:

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?
 
Jetblast said:
Anyone can see you're making efforts to avoid the point.
Click to expand...

No, he's not letting your foist off your begged questions without providing support for them. You don't get to skip over half your broken argument and insist that your critics deal only with the conclusion. Attacking your argument where the problem in it lies (regardless of whether you realize it) is not "avoiding the point."

You have no problem with open FBI criminality like lying about tests and illegally dumping evidence.
Click to expand...

You haven't shown the FBI lied about its tests. In fact, I showed you that -- contrary to the claims made in your conspiracy sites -- the FBI were the ones who published the test results you accuse them of lying about.

You haven't shown that the FBI illegally "dumped evidence." You simply allude to laws you say they broke without citing the actual law or substantiating the actions that you allege to be illegal. This tell us you really don't know whether any laws were broken.

You want us to explain why the FBI did something without your first showing that the FBI did them. You don't seem to realize that you may not simply skip over the premise and beg the conclusion.

Your entries have zero credibility and aren't to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Saying that our "entries" are such does not make them so. "Credibility" of the refutation is irrelevant; factual correctness and sound reason are what give them strength. You refuse to address the underlying facts and you seem incapable of understanding what constitutes a sound line of reasoning.

However it appears you will latch onto practically anything that resembles to you an excuse why you should not have to respond to your critics. I daresay that's a pretty consistent pattern of backpedaling and evasion. You may make any excuse you wish for ignoring what is said to you, but you cannot easily escape the consequences of such closed-mindedness.

They are bascially a good reverse concession of the debate. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You twist every contrary statement or circumstance into some sort of implicit concession. Let me make it absolutely clear that no one in this debate is conceding anything to you. No one has a reason to do so; they have patiently answered your challenges no matter how vigorously you stir the debate in circles. Hence this incessant puerile posturing is starting to resemble spam.

When you can reduce the other side to trolling you've pretty much won.
Click to expand...

Yet another pointless declaration of victory. I'll leave it to the readers to determine which of us is most likely trolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom