Overlap between TWA 800 & 9/11 theorists

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Anyone who thinks TWA 800 was brought down by an errant U.S. missile should first read the chapter entitled "Beyond the Black Box" in the book Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach.

That chapter deals with what can be learned from human remains in aircraft accidents, specifically TWA 800. The man who conducted the examination of the human remains from that flight recounts what he found and what it indicates.

Some of the somewhat gruesome facts mentioned: the way a human body comes apart after hitting the water from a great height is different from how it comes apart as a result of the spray of sharpnel from an explosion. Examining the remains can thus tell you whether or not there were any explosives.

If shrapnel wounds were found on the bodies, one can tell by examining the wounds which are entry wounds and which are exit wounds. Once the body is identified, one can then use the flight manifest to determine where those people were sitting. Combine this with the nature of the entry and exit shrapnel wounds and one can deduce where any explosion would have occurred.

One can also test the remains to detect if there was any burning of the bodies from the exhaust of a rocket, as well as determining what kind of smoke may have been inhaled before the person died. Different kinds of combustion produce different kinds of chemical traces.

Put the above, plus other areas mentioned in the chapter, all together and the human remains from the flight unequivocally tell the story that no missile hit TWA 800.

I highly recommend checking out the book; it has many other chapters covering other areas involving what examining human remains can reveal. It is a very interesting, if somewhat macabre, look at an area of science not often talked about.
 
(1) The missile need not have generated sharpnel.

(2) Why should I take Mary Roach's word over the eye witnesses that saw a missile?
 
Last edited:
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Anyone who thinks TWA 800 was brought down by an errant U.S. missile should first read the chapter entitled "Beyond the Black Box" in the book Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach.

I highly recommend checking out the book; it has many other chapters covering other areas involving what examining human remains can reveal. It is a very interesting, if somewhat macabre, look at an area of science not often talked about.
I forgot about the rest of the story. As good or better than the wreckage evidence for not finding bomb or missile evidence.

I hate it when people post videos of idiots who refuse to take the time to study the evidence. However I have seen visual illusions before and what the eyes sees the mind believes! But in pilot training we were taught our senses were not made for flying, you can't trust any of your senses since man is a creature of habit; our senses work best for walking, running, getting food, and finding a mate. Flying and seeing flying accidents and being eye witnesses is a different business. I wish CTers would not post stuff that makes them look like idiots posting idiots talking about what they believe but can not support with facts.

I saw the moon rise out of the ground one night when I was flying solo in the T-38. I was upset I could not resolve why it was in the ground and not above the horizon. I did not fall for the illusion, I used my instruments, I was trained this could happen ( an illusion) since I thought I was right side up I confirmed it, and looked at the moon in the ground! It was big moon. I confirmed my attitude with all my instruments, and also I was paying attention all the time and nothing had happen to change my attitude. When the moon finally came out from behind some clouds I could see its perfect reflection in the water in the swamps below. Illusion can kill pilots who fail to interpret their instruments.

I have watch the videos orf 800 CTer witnesses who can not resolve their visual illusion on 800. I have seen the evidence and the nut case ideas; the evidence as you point out was collected, it was thorough, it was independently verified with experts of all parties concerned, and yet dim witted people are too lazy to do the amount of work you have done reading and reseraching.

The key for likely CTers is to avoid the CT stuff and get real information. Take a course in accident investigation so you can understand how eye witness reports are necessary but have to be verified and interpreted. Just ask the many people getting out of jail with DNA evidence now overriding the eye witnesses who were so sure~!

CTers find a life, do your brain a favor by gong back to the basics and get a real education.

great post (doubt the CTer here will read or understand what you did, as he posts pure crap; but thanks, it was good stuff)
 
Last edited:
(1) The missile need not have generated sharpnel.
And how do you think missiles take down an aircraft? All the missiles in the U.S. inventory use an explosive warhead which either explodes close to or on contact with the target aircraft, filling it with shrapnel to the point it can no longer remain airborne.

(2) Why should I take Mary Roach's word over the eye witnesses that saw a missile?
Because the person interviewed for the book was the medical examiner who did the examinations of the human remains from the TWA 800 accident.

Read the chapter of the book. Then present your evidence which refutes the evidence and claims made.

Remember: physical evidence trumps eyewitness evidence. This is especially worth noting since eyewitnesses can often get it wrong. Any police officer who investigates car crashes can tell you that. Eyewitness evidence needs to be corroborated by physical evidence.

Also: TWA 800 was destroyed by a centre fuel tank explosion. Such explosions have happened in aircraft before. There is precedent. The only thing the NTSB couldn't do in its investigation was pin down the exact location of the spark which set off the fuel tank. All the other physical evidence supports the fuel tank explosion explanation.

Consider: if the U.S. accidentally shot down TWA 800, why would it cover up that fact? The U.S. admitted to accidentally shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988, an incident which killed some 290 people.

Illusion can kill pilots who fail to interpret their instruments.
This is something I always find a bit perplexing. Perhaps it comes from me having flown a lot of computer flight sims over the years in which one has to trust the instruments in the program (since there is no physical feedback to flying when one is seated at a computer), but I can never quite figure out why sometimes it seems real pilots don't trust their basic flight instruments. Especially when that mistrust can, and has, resulted in crashes.
 
Last edited:
And how do you think missiles take down an aircraft? All the missiles in the U.S. inventory use an explosive warhead which either explodes close to or on contact with the target aircraft, filling it with shrapnel to the point it can no longer remain airborne.

No, Benton K. Partin, Brigadier General, United States Air Force (Ret) says TWA 800 was brought down with Continuous-Rod Warhead that he himself helped to develop:

http://www.generalpartin.org/twa800.htm
 
This is something I always find a bit perplexing. Perhaps it comes from me having flown a lot of computer flight sims over the years in which one has to trust the instruments in the program (since there is no physical feedback to flying when one is seated at a computer), but I can never quite figure out why sometimes it seems real pilots don't trust their basic flight instruments. Especially when that mistrust can, and has, resulted in crashes.
Flying you have to fight your eyes and brain sometimes. Like the moon in the ground made me sit sideways as much as possible in the damn ejection seat. I was messed up, but did not let that feeling due to a partial cloud cover I had yet to discover, mess up my flying. When the real moon showed me the reflection was in the swamp, my brain straighten out instantly. But the visional illusion are the hardest to drop. Another example is I see an airport, thinking it is the one I will land on, but the airport I want is 5 miles further, but the one I see is the one my brain wants to land at; my real airport is hidden in the rain. But I do like you do, the instruments and finally the runway I thought we were landing on is not on my instrument approach that I kept flying. I had picked up the runway from 12 miles; but stayed on the approach; Check the DME and figure it out.

In the weather and flying formation can be very hard, pilots have rolled their fighter right into the ground while thinking they were on lead's wing but had done a massive roll and lost control. The light was all they had at night and they took their F-16 into the ground.

I think it is easier to fly the plane. But believe me the motion can mess up your senses and make you think you are in a turn when you are not, etc. Read some flying physiology books for more. There are some online Air Force products about instrument flying to augment your flying. When we fly under the bag; can't see out; and you feel sideways or upside down, just one peek at mother earth fixes your "gyros" and your are back to normal.

In the weather you can get the leans, and until you can make your instruments the real world, make them the thing you trust you are at risk of being impaired. I can see young copilots struggle in the weather with these kinds of problems. The body senses were not made for flying, if you understand the problems, you can do what you said; trust the instruments. With that trust comes the need to verify and be able to eliminate any instrument from your cross check if it malfunctions.

I doubt our CTer understands illusion. But the poor people who saw the fire balls had an illusion, and if a witness was in another plane, the reflections would have been impossible to figure out. I doubt I could have been a credible witness unless I understood the possibility of illusion as I do. So I would have to tell them what I saw, but more important is the altitude I was at, the heading, the airspeed, my direction, my attitude, the weather, the clouds, and many other factors to help them. Understanding you may of seen what you saw but not what was real; like my moon, it was only a reflection. I refuse to play the constant adding stupid junk game. I did not mean to call the witness an idiot, but if he does not think the missile he saw was the fire from 800 seem to be rising in the water, or the initial flame was the center tank the next two fire balls the wings being ripped apart and the engines igniting the fuel; then yes, he could be an idiot for not discovering his illusion. Gee I have been an idiot for thinking the moon was in the ground, and I confirmed my idiot badge with instruments; thanks for being an idiot enough to think I can be! It has saved my life, or at least saved having a scary flight.

I will try not to respond to the stupid posts of witness after witness, and other junk ideas. The proof is in unless there is new stuff! New stuff! Otherwise the case is closed because of the evidence. I hate to rain on the stupid parade of woo, but how can people be so irrational?

The witness in not an idiot until he also ignores the real evidence, just saying what he saw is fine; the idiots are those who refuse to look at all the evidence. (if the witness goes on to join the idiots, then it becomes self critiquing, thank goodness the video was short and I will not know if the Major is nuts)

Benton K. Partin, Brigadier General is also a nut case in OKC bombing; OMG nuts on this TOO!? NUT CASE squared
 
Last edited:
Great, so explain why we shouldn't believe General Parton when he says that a Continuous-Rod Warhead caused TWA 800 to go down.

I wasn't addressing General Partons remarks, I was addressing your statement that the missle need not have generated shrapnel.

It's ironic that you went from that comment to talking about continous rod warheads without noticing how you contradicted yourself. Continous Rod warheads work by creating a giant "hula-hoop" of shrapnel to cut through the target aircraft.

Do you care to acknowledge your error?
 
Continous Rod warheads work by creating a giant "hula-hoop" of shrapnel to cut through the target aircraft.

Do you care to acknowledge your error?

I was using a different definition of shrapnel.

Now, why should we disregard what General Parton analysis?
 
crash and burn (I think there is a set of CTers who have idiot ideas on 800 which primes them for 9/11 idiot ideas) (idiot sounds... like a Presidential Proclamation)

Partin is a nut case on OKC and 800! Good choice for fact less CTers, don't you think? (ironic he is not talking about 9/11; he is only 82 to 84 years old, he lost the edge?)
 
Last edited:
I was using a different definition of shrapnel.

Right. So instead of admitting your error, you now want to play childish word-games.

You were doing better when you were plagiarizing Jim Hoffman. :p
 
Last edited:
I saw a National Geographic episode of "Final Report" on TWA 800 a few days ago. While the FAA thinks they have a good idea what happened (frayed wires in a nearly empty center fuel tank ignited fumes) they were never able to issue a definitive report. So this crash is ripe for CT scenarios.

eta: according to the web site it's on again Saturday at 1pm Eastern.

Don't forget the A/C beneath the nearly empty center fuel tank.:)

They still have no final conculsion, they made more sense than warhead though.
 
Last edited:
In both cases, the US government fabricated a physical scenario to cover-up the truth. In 9/11, the fabrication is of course the NIST report and related mainstream explanations for the collapse of the WTC buildings, while in TWA 800 it was the exploding fuel tank story. Also, in both cases computer graphics were created to sell the public the lie.

However, the situation of the eyewitnesses is reversed. In the TWA 800 case, the government had to discredit eyewitnesses. This is oppposed to the case for a 757 hitting the pentagon is supported by eyewitnesses.

If TWA 800 was deliberately blown up, why not just blame terrorists?

And have you any evidence to corroborate your claims against the NIST report ?
 

Back
Top Bottom