IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th February 2023, 03:08 PM   #2401
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,413
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
Here's a video of a lecture that Dr. Stalcup gave on TWA 800 at MIT at the invitation of Professor Thomas Eagar.
You mean the guy with a reputation of stirring the pot to see what reactions he would get?

Quote:
He gave the lecture to a class in the Structural Materials course at MIT. Gee, the graduate students in the room didn't seem to think he was a "crackpot."
Because the interpretation of radar data has absolutely zero to do with materials science.

Quote:
You certainly don't talk like a scientist.
I talk like a scientist who is fed up with armchair "experts" who promote conspiracy theories, at others' expense, to make themselves feel or look smarter. You have to earn the right to be taken seriously.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 09:26 PM   #2402
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,536
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
Wrong. This myth was debunked at least 20 years ago. Private researchers fairly quickly established that the bomb-sniffing-dog exercise was not done on the TWA 800 plane but on another 747 that was parked nearby.

The officer who conducted the exercise stated that he did the training on an empty plane, as usual. The TWA 800 plane left the gate with more than 400 passengers at 12:35 bound for Hawaii. The officer finished the bomb-sniffing exercise at 12:15 or 12:20. The cabin crew was already on the TWA 800 plane by 11:30. The passengers began to board the plane no later than 12:05. The pilots who flew the TWA 800 plane said they saw no bomb-sniffing dogs on the plane and saw no such training being conducted.

For more information on this issue, see “TWA 800: St. Louis Dog Exercise Exposed As Red Herring” at https://rense.com/general13/exps.htm.
The problem with posting links to conspiracy-friendly sites is they bite you in the butt. The FBI test was done in St Louis on June 10, 1996. The crash occurred on July 17, 1996. So all the crap you posted about the crew and passengers boarding are meaningless.

You are really bad at this.

Quote:
Actually, the plane wreckage showed numerous signs of a missile shootdown.

-- There was a large gash on the left side of the plane that was bent inward. This damage was the key piece of evidence that caused former NTSB member Dr. Vernon Grose to reject the mechanical-failure explanation (https://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/q-vernon-grose.pdf; https://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/7/prweb10903410.htm).
Cool, did he explain how the upper portion of the tear is bent outward while the lower section is bent inward? Not sure how that's consistent with a missile, but not consistent with a part of the fuselage being subjected to wind forces in a way that was beyond its design.

-
Quote:
- The front landing gear, even though it was in its housing when the plane exploded, suffered severe concussive damage. This is revealing and crucial because the landing gear is made of steel and titanium and is one of the strongest, toughest parts of the airliner. It could not have been damaged so severely merely from the impact of landing on the water. Someone inside the investigation leaked to the New York Times that the bomb experts concluded that the damage to the landing gear indicated the gear had been “very close to the source of the explosion.” The landing gear, of course, was well forward of the center fuel tank.
Cool, "Some Guy" leaked info before the investigation was done. Here's the problem: the main forward landing gear doors (port and starboard) were not bent, only the rear door which attaches to the gear. And the cargo container from the nose section showed no damage from an explosion, which would have obvious. That's why only fools believe initial results.

Quote:
-- The front landing-gear doors on the exterior of the plane were blown inward. There is no way that an explosion of the center fuel tank could have blown those doors inward. Only an explosion outside the aircraft could have done this.
First off, all landing gear doors are on the exterior of the plane. Second, the nose gear doors were found furthest from the main wreck site, meaning they came off first, not blown inward. And if you don't mean the nose gear you need to specifically site which set of landing gear you're talking about, Mr. Qualified Expert.

Quote:
-- Explosive reside was found on the exterior and interior of the plane.
Not on the exterior.

Quote:
-- The plane’s exterior had several puncture holes in it, i.e., holes that were bent inward.
But not consistent with an anti-aircraft missile strike.

Quote:
I posted a refutation written by Boeing engineers that debunks the NTSB theory of the cause of the crash, and your "answer" was to call it spamming. I posted a critique of the EMRTC test, and you accused me of "cribbing" it from some other source and ignoring previous posts in this reply.
Cool story, Bro. Here's another cool story: Boeing conducted those tests for the NTSB. So if they had a problem, why didn't they address the NTSB at the time? You've implied that Boeing is a helpless victim in this story, yet they did a bulk of the fuel tank work.

Quote:
But, just FYI, what I don't mention in the bio on my website is that I spent 21 years in the U.S. Army in the intelligence field and that for the last 20 years I've worked in support of government agencies in jobs dealing with air and missile defense, homeland security, satellite reconnaissance, imagery analysis, and radar. I have seen many, many missile firings. So, I do know just a little bit about what I'm talking about
Not really helping yourself.

Quote:
First off, this isn't really a "conspiracy theory." It is much more a case about a cover-up and whistleblowing. Technically, any type of crime or unethical conduct that involves two or more people can be called a "conspiracy," but the case of TWA 800 is mostly about a cover-up and whistleblowing.
No, it really is a theory. A lame theory.

If you were arguing metal fatigue on a key part of TWA-800s airframe, or a fuel-pump short, air pump short, A/C short wherein you presented a compelling case you'd at least have better footing. If you read the report:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR0003.pdf

You'll find that they went with the most likely scenario, but they looked at every system in the wing and center tank. And if you read it, the report is clear they would have preferred something more direct. But, as the report states, and continues to be true, fuel tank explosions are a thing, the last one being in 2006.

But no, you're going with a missile. Not a foreign missile, a US Navy missile fired from a phantom destroyer that was invisible to radar. A theory of a mysterious missile test, based on a convoluted story of some kind of deadline featuring a new missile nobody has ever heard of, nor seen since.

What I want to know is why?

Why do you embrace conspiracies where the US Government is the bad guy lurking in the shadows? You're posts in the JFK thread are just as poorly researched as they are here, but you take the anti-American angle. Why?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 06:17 PM   #2403
mikegriffith1
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 530
I figured out why the EMRTC engineers heated their center fuel tank to 112 degrees. To their credit, they didn't use the mathematical median between the misleading temp range of 101-127 degrees given in the NTSB report (p. 261). Instead, they took the 20 temperatures recorded in Table 2 of the report on the flight test (Table 6 in the NTSB report) and divided them by 20 (Flight Test Group Chairman's Factual Report of Investigation, p. 20; NTSB Aircraft Accident Report, p. 128). The total temps came to 2,238, giving us an average temp of 111.9 degrees.

In the above-mentioned section, the NTSB report says, "the conditions experienced by the accident airplane indicated that fuel vapor temperatures within the CWT at the time of the accident ranged from 101° to 127° F" (p. 261).

If you didn't bother to check the tables and just relied on this statement, you'd never know that, actually, the average temp in the center fuel tank during the test was 111.9 degrees (see Table 6 in the NTSB report, p. 128).

Why is this important? Because Jet-A fuel's flammability starts at right around 127 degrees, and that's at sea level. What's more, tests done for the NTSB by two scientific laboratories found that Jet-A fuel caused "flamefront quenching," i.e., when the flames moved to a different compartment, the jet fuel repeatedly extinguished them. William Donaldson also demonstrated this feature of Jet-A fuel in tests that he videotaped. This is a known phenomenon of Jet-A fuel.

Keep in mind, too, that the temperatures given in the NTSB report are ullage temps, i.e., the temps of the air/vapor in the bays, not the temps of the fuel in the bays. (The center fuel tank had seven bays, one of which was the dry bay, which was empty and was not measured.)

Another thing to keep in mind is that for seven of the nine flights in the NTSB flight test, they put 50 gallons of fuel in the center fuel tank, and that for the two other flights in the test, they put 719 gallons in one and 1,438 gallons in the other in the center fuel tank (Flight Test Group Chairman's Factual Report of Investigation, p. 5). However, the flight engineer on the TWA 800 flight from Athens to JFK that landed a few hours earlier, Captain Mundo, reported that he emptied the center fuel tank after the plane landed (https://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/c...rence-hill.pdf).

Finally, the NTSB report provides the revealing information that the hottest ullage temp in any of the fuel tank's six measured bays dropped 18 degrees between the time the plane began to taxi for takeoff and the time it reached its explosion altitude of 13,700 feet:

Examination of the temperature data collected during the emulation flight test indicated that the highest ullage temperature measured within the CWT was 145° F and that it occurred in the left mid bay just before the airplane began to taxi for takeoff. Examination of the temperature data also indicated that the highest ullage temperature measured at 13,700 feet msl was 127° F and that it occurred in the left mid bay. (p. 126)

So much for the erroneous claim that we see so often in articles about TWA 800 that the center fuel tank became hotter after it took off.
__________________
Mike Griffith
Home Page
mikegriffith1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 09:52 PM   #2404
MBDK
Muse
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 547
Okay. Curiosity got the best of me. I have haphazardly followed this thread, and have seen some pretty serious allegations by you concerning the topic, as well as some fairly convincing takedowns of your claims. So, I thought the following quote was worth looking into, just as my own self-check to weigh the honesty of your argument(s). I avow that this quote just seemed to be pertinent to your argument, and should be a good point to check. I have not bothered to investigate any of the other things you have posted in this thread.


Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
Jet-A fuel's flammability starts at right around 127 degrees

Well, we have a problem. This source says: https://shepherd.caltech.edu/EDL/pro...s%20Fahrenheit.


Quote:
Since the vapor pressure and fuel concentration increases with increasing temperature, ignition energy decreases with increasing fuel temperature. For Jet A, the lower flammability limit found using a 100 Joule spark is between 35 and 40 degrees Celsius, or about 94 to 105 degrees Fahrenheit.

Now, to be fair and ensure we are not just dueling with source references, I decided to further check THAT quote's accuracy against the Safety Data Sheet for Jet Fuel A (and A1). From this site it reads (under "Section 9 - Physical & Chemical Properties"):


https://www.hess.com/docs/us-safety-...1.pdf?sfvrsn=2


Quote:
Flash Point: >100 °F (38 °C)

Although this differs slightly from my first reference, it is still the mean of the range, and quite different than your values. Normally I would say you have some explaining to do, but this info, and your history of posting less than honest replies to others, has told me all I originally wanted to know.
MBDK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2023, 08:49 AM   #2405
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,413
Originally Posted by MBDK View Post
...the Safety Data Sheet for Jet Fuel A (and A1). From this site it reads (under "Section 9 - Physical & Chemical Properties")
This is correct. The actual measured flash point for some sample of Jet A will be anywhere between 38 ºC and 67 ºC (100-152 ºF), i.e. up to its nominal boiling point. However, to say the flammability range for Jet A "starts" at 127 ºF is just factually wrong.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2023, 04:24 PM   #2406
mikegriffith1
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 530
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Yo mikegriffith1! Let's suppose that you & Stalbucks or whatever he calls himself are right. The US Navy shot that airplane down, streak o' light, boom!, coverup, liars w/ pants afire, conspiracy every damn place ya look, all of the usual stuff. Now what? What oh what are you gonna do about it? Post on a creaky old internet forum? Publish and try to sell a book? Run up some teeshirts? Picket the NTSB w/ a sign that says The End Is Near?
I wasn’t thinking of such grandiose actions when I began posting in this thread or when I created my website on the subject. When I created my website, and until about a week ago, I wasn’t aware that a major lawsuit on TWA 800 was filed a few months ago, nor was I aware that researchers are still actively trying to get all the classified files on TWA 800 released. Consider:

-- Isn’t it very odd that the government still won’t release the satellite imagery on the crash? I worked in a job at a government agency that involved satellite imagery and analysis for several years, so I know that the relevant imagery could be released in such a way as to not compromise national security.

Five days after TWA 800, an inside law-enforcement source leaked to the New York Post that American satellites had detected an object “racing up” toward the airliner, passing it, “then changing course and smashing into it,” exactly as so many witnesses described (London Times, 7/22/1996, available at http://web.archive.org/web/199910090...722tmlmis.html). Gee, I wonder if this is why the satellite images remain classified 27 years after the crash.

When Ukraine accidentally shot down a Russian airliner in 2001, we knew immediately from satellite imagery that a missile fired from Ukraine had destroyed the Russian airliner and quickly notified Russia and Ukraine.

-- Isn’t it very odd that the government still won’t release the DIA MISIC analysis of eyewitness accounts of the object seen streaking toward TWA 800?

-- Isn’t it very odd that the government still won’t release the medical forensic reports on the bodies of the crash victims?

-- Isn’t it very odd that the government is still withholding the test results on some of the apparently foreign residue found in TWA 800?

-- Isn’t it very odd that the government is still withholding the initial debris analysis printouts? These printouts were done before location tags started to be changed.

-- Isn’t it very odd that the government still won’t allow any private experts to analyze the vibration captured on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR)? TWA pilot Terrell Stacey, who participated in the NTSB investigation, leaked the fact that at a meeting he attended, some senior NTSB officials reported that the CVR revealed a vibration traveling through the plane’s frame far faster than the known speed of vibrations caused by fuel-air explosions. Could this be why the original CVR tape is still unavailable for private experts to analyze?

-- Isn’t it very odd that the government still won’t release the metallurgical test done on the section of the center wing tank from the right side of spanwise beam number 2, not to mention the fact that this piece of the tank was not included in the Calverton reconstruction and has never made available for examination? Could it be because this piece of the tank was located at the spot where some investigators concluded early on that a missile had struck?

Why all this secrecy if TWA 800 was merely brought down by a mechanical failure? What in the world is going on here?

A correction to my previous post: I said that Captain Mundo was the flight engineer for the TWA 800 plane’s flight from Athens to JFK earlier in the day on 7/17/96. I meant to say that he was the captain, not the flight engineer. Here’s an article about Captain Mundo’s comments regarding the fuel in the center fuel tank and his reasons for rejecting the NTSB explanation of the crash: https://rense.com/general3/taw800gg.htm.

Finally, I should mention that my source for my statement that Jet-A fuel’s flammability starts at around 127 degrees is the CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties (Table 8, p. 71, available at https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA132106.pdf). The handbook puts Jet-A fuel’s lower flammability limit at 53 degrees Celsius, which equals 127.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

What would I like to see happen? Well, I'd like for there to be enough public pressure and/or a court decision to force the government to release all the classified files on TWA 800. That would be a great start.
__________________
Mike Griffith
Home Page
mikegriffith1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2023, 06:33 PM   #2407
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,413
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
I wasn’t thinking...
A whole lot of Gish-galloping and question-begging snipped.

Quote:
Finally, I should mention that my source for my statement that Jet-A fuel’s flammability starts at around 127 degrees is the CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties...
Thank you for providing your source, but it is incomplete and has been superseded. The ASTM D93 protocol is no longer considered an accurate method for determining the flash points of volatile liquids. The proper method now is ASTM D56 for ASTM D1655 formulation. Keep in mind that flash points may be higher under various formulations. But when you say "flammability starts at" a particular temperature, you'll want the 38 ºC value unless you measured it for the sample.

Quote:
What would I like to see happen? Well, I'd like for there to be enough public pressure and/or a court decision to force the government to release all the classified files on TWA 800. That would be a great start.
But that's just fishing. Tom Stalcup spent a decade of his life and thousands of donated dollars in court to obtain FOIA disclosures that ultimately have nothing to do with his most provocative claim. Yes, he's trying to build a new lawsuit out of it, but the legal expert I consulted considers it a joke of a complaint. He's showboating.

Stalcup has been in classrooms. He's been on the lecture circuit. He's been in court, and in affidavits. He's been on YouTube. Do you know where he hasn't been? In the literature. All his initial work on TWA 800 was done while he was still a graduate student, still wet behind the ears and having no training or experience in either aerodynamics or the interpretation of radar data. (And yes, I was also once a wet-behind-the-ears PhD candidate myself, and later a teacher of wet-behind-the-ears PhD candidates.) To this day Stalcup still hangs everything on his amateur radar analysis and his pidgin aerodynamics, and to a lesser extent on his panel of affidavit-spewing retirees.

Affidavits have zero scientific value, and almost no legal value. Saying under penalty of perjury that you think something happened a certain way isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If Stalcup really wanted to impress his peers, he'd write about this in the literature, I can think of at least half a dozen peer-reviewed journals that would accept his findings—if he could only pass peer review. A brief literature search suggests Stalcup hasn't published in his field in many years, and never in aerospace journals. I read those journals regularly and religiously because it's still where the best science is found, not on YouTube or in courtrooms or in maverick professors' classrooms. And I'm legally liable for the strength of my science. There's a reason Engineer is a licensed profession and Physicist isn't, and a reason why Stalcup doesn't impress me.

But the question was not what you wanted to see happen. The question is what you're going to do. Where do you see yourself contributing in a real-world way to a better understanding of the crash of TWA 800? What special skills are you bringing to the investigation? What is your plan for making your findings count? Are you going to publish your findings in a journal? Write a book? Sue someone? Or are you just going to keep playing armchair detective?

Last edited by JayUtah; 7th February 2023 at 06:34 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2023, 07:52 AM   #2408
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 28,085
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
A whole lot of Gish-galloping and question-begging snipped.



Thank you for providing your source, but it is incomplete and has been superseded. The ASTM D93 protocol is no longer considered an accurate method for determining the flash points of volatile liquids. The proper method now is ASTM D56 for ASTM D1655 formulation. Keep in mind that flash points may be higher under various formulations. But when you say "flammability starts at" a particular temperature, you'll want the 38 ºC value unless you measured it for the sample.



But that's just fishing. Tom Stalcup spent a decade of his life and thousands of donated dollars in court to obtain FOIA disclosures that ultimately have nothing to do with his most provocative claim. Yes, he's trying to build a new lawsuit out of it, but the legal expert I consulted considers it a joke of a complaint. He's showboating.

Stalcup has been in classrooms. He's been on the lecture circuit. He's been in court, and in affidavits. He's been on YouTube. Do you know where he hasn't been? In the literature. All his initial work on TWA 800 was done while he was still a graduate student, still wet behind the ears and having no training or experience in either aerodynamics or the interpretation of radar data. (And yes, I was also once a wet-behind-the-ears PhD candidate myself, and later a teacher of wet-behind-the-ears PhD candidates.) To this day Stalcup still hangs everything on his amateur radar analysis and his pidgin aerodynamics, and to a lesser extent on his panel of affidavit-spewing retirees.

Affidavits have zero scientific value, and almost no legal value. Saying under penalty of perjury that you think something happened a certain way isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If Stalcup really wanted to impress his peers, he'd write about this in the literature, I can think of at least half a dozen peer-reviewed journals that would accept his findings—if he could only pass peer review. A brief literature search suggests Stalcup hasn't published in his field in many years, and never in aerospace journals. I read those journals regularly and religiously because it's still where the best science is found, not on YouTube or in courtrooms or in maverick professors' classrooms. And I'm legally liable for the strength of my science. There's a reason Engineer is a licensed profession and Physicist isn't, and a reason why Stalcup doesn't impress me.

But the question was not what you wanted to see happen. The question is what you're going to do. Where do you see yourself contributing in a real-world way to a better understanding of the crash of TWA 800? What special skills are you bringing to the investigation? What is your plan for making your findings count? Are you going to publish your findings in a journal? Write a book? Sue someone? Or are you just going to keep playing armchair detective?

Well said.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2023, 09:31 AM   #2409
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 8,306
Goddammit, Jay!

Now I've got "pidgin aerodynamics" rattling around in my attic!

Dispella Starcuck e makim long booshee long balus (youpella callim eiplen) heap plenny too muss! Wo! Owcom e no goback long buss?
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2023, 10:14 AM   #2410
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,413
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Now I've got "pidgin aerodynamics" rattling around in my attic!
Careful! Their droppings are a health hazard.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2023, 05:11 PM   #2411
mikegriffith1
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 530
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
Nope. You don't see something "streaking up." Rockets don't leave streaks through the sky. Those witnesses were comparing what they saw to photographs of rocket launches where long exposures capture the flights as streaks. That is not anything like what you see with the naked eye.
I think you're reading too much into the word "streaking." The witnesses described smoke trailing the object and/or flame coming from the rear of the object. Some described it as a flare or fireworks shooting into the sky. Those who got the best look at it said it looked like a metallic tube with a round nose in flight.

I, too, have seen my share of missile firings, and the witness descriptions fit how you would expect average people to describe a missile firing. Have you read the witness accounts?

We should keep in mind that the FBI did not release the witness accounts until 1999. The vast majority of the witnesses did not know each other and gave their accounts independently of each other. The consistency among their accounts is remarkable.

The two helicopter pilots' accounts are especially valuable because one of them saw many missile-related explosions in Vietnam and knew how to distinguish between a fuel explosion and an ordnance explosion. Both pilots saw an object streaking upward toward TWA 800.

In a court of law, if you had five eyewitnesses independently identify a murder suspect as the person they saw kill the victim, this would be considered powerful evidence.

In the TWA 800 case, we have over 100 eyewitnesses who independently reported seeing an object streaking upward in the sky 5-30 seconds before TWA 800 exploded, depending on where they were and at what point they saw the object's flight.

We also need to keep in mind that many of the witnesses specified that they did not see TWA 800. They saw the streaking object and the subsequent explosions but not the airliner. Whether they saw TWA 800 depended on where they were located and/or their eyesight.
__________________
Mike Griffith
Home Page
mikegriffith1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2023, 05:19 PM   #2412
jadebox
Master Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,440
Again, those descriptions do not describe what a missile would have looked like. A missile, if visible at all, would have just looked like a moving dot to witnesses.

A missile could leave an exhaust trail or contrail which could have been illuminated by the sun once the missile was high enough. When that happens, you could see the trail and it remains in the sky for a while. It also quickly becomes jagged since a rocket travels vertically through different layers of air moving at differing velocities (an airplane's contrail tends to stay straight.) But, it is unlikely that an illuminated exhaust trail or contrail would be described as a "streak" by any one observer let alone by multiple ones.

And, unless you are suggesting the airliner was shot down by something like a Polaris missile, no one on the ground would have seen the flame from a missile that far away as more than a dot.

Last edited by jadebox; 9th February 2023 at 05:36 PM.
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2023, 05:21 PM   #2413
MarkCorrigan
¡No pasarán!
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Слава Україні
Posts: 11,471
So mikegriffith1, what is your technical expertise in this field exactly?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist. - Hélder Câmara
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2023, 05:36 PM   #2414
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 8,306
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Careful! Their droppings are a health hazard.
Not for me. After a lifetime of undirected reading, my old brainpipes are thick in corrosion, layered deep with crumbly deposits, positively stalactited by accumulations left behind by the endless flushing of -- what? Dull folly? Solemn assfoolery? Micro-witted blagger? Cthulian vacuity? Man, I've seen it all, believed probably 25% of it (we were all young once), and ended up blessedly innocent of it; I hope so anyway.

Yes, ignorance is deplorable, but it can never be as bad as willful stup

I'd better stop.
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2023, 05:40 AM   #2415
mikegriffith1
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 530
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You latch onto crackpots like Stalcup and pretend that this gives you some sort of leg up in the real world.
I think your dubious claim that Dr. Stalcup is a “crackpot” deserves further comment. Let’s compare Dr. Stalcup’s credentials to yours, shall we?

-- Dr. Stalcup was invited by Dr. Thomas Eager in March 2020 to give a presentation on TWA 800 to Professor Eager’s Structural Materials class at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), one of the world’s leading scientific institutions. How many times have you been invited by an MIT professor to give a presentation on TWA 800 to an MIT class?

For what it’s worth, Dr. Eager was the head of MIT’s Department of Materials Science and Engineering (he died in 2022). Eagar was elected to the National Academy of Engineering for contributions to the theory and practice of welding and was appointed a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. By the way, Dr. Eager co-authored a paper that debunked 9/11 “Truther” claims about why the WTC towers collapsed so quickly.

If you watch the video of Stalcup’s presentation, you see that Eagers clearly seemed to agree with what Stalcup was saying. For your convenience, here’s a link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzEng1E2rEM&t=189s

-- Dr. Stalcup has interviewed dozens of the TWA 800 eyewitnesses and family members of the victims. How many eyewitnesses and family members have you interviewed?

-- Dr. Stalcup has also interviewed several of the experts who took part in the NTSB investigation. How many former members of the NTSB investigation have you interviewed?

-- Dr. Stalcup has read the NTSB report, all of the supplementary NTSB group reports, and has written critiques of them and has responded to NTSB replies regarding the petition for reconsideration. Have you read all of those materials? Have you read any of the scientific research that challenges the NTSB’s claims?

For example, have you read the TWA 800 affidavits submitted by NTSB crash investigator Hank Hughes, by audio expert Glen Schulze, by engineer and ALPA accident investigator James Speer, by Boeing aerospace engineer Brett Hoffstadt, by General Dynamics engineer Darrell Hambley, by U.S. Army research scientist and electrochemical engineer Michael Hull, by airline pilot Vincent Fuschetti (who witnessed TWA 800’s destruction while co-piloting Eastwind Flight 507), by NTSB member Vernon Grose, and fire protection and explosives expert Greg Harrison (who holds four degrees in engineering and testified as an expert witness in cases involving fires and explosions)?

Just curious: Do any of the above experts strike you as being “crackpots”?

On a side note, have you read any of the better books or seen any of the critical documentaries on TWA 800? How about James Sanders’ and Jack Cashill’s book First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America? How about James Sanders’ book The Downing of TWA Flight 800? Have you read any of the research published by former pilot and crash investigator Ray Lahr? Have you watched the 2013 Borjesson-Stalcup documentary TWA Flight 800?

Don’t you agree that a person has no business making strident claims about this case if they have not read both sides?

-- Dr. Stalcup earned his doctorate in physics from Florida State University (FSU). Do you have a doctorate in physics, and did you earn it from an equally prestigious university?

-- Dr. Stalcup worked at FSU’s National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. He worked as a systems engineer at Onset Computer Corporation in Bourne, MA, a recognized scientific firm whose award-winning HOBO and InTemp data loggers, remote monitoring tools, and software solutions have been used around the world to support experts in a wide range of monitoring applications. He has co-authored studies published by reputable scientific publishers, including World Scientific. He is currently president of Upward Innovations Inc., an electronics company that designs and produces cellular and satellite environmental monitoring stations. These certainly don’t sound like the qualifications of a “crackpot,” do they?
__________________
Mike Griffith
Home Page

Last edited by mikegriffith1; 12th February 2023 at 05:44 AM.
mikegriffith1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2023, 09:17 AM   #2416
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,413
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
I think your dubious claim that Dr. Stalcup is a “crackpot” deserves further comment. Let’s compare Dr. Stalcup’s credentials to yours, shall we?
Yes. I'm a licensed engineer and I have worked in the aerospace industry for more than 30 years. I'm more qualified than Stalcup to talk about airplanes and missiles, because I've designed and built them. I'm more qualified than you to know whether Stalcup is an expert in my field.

And yes, I have worked for Boeing, Northrup Grumman, NASA, and the NTSB on transportation accident investigations.

Quote:
For what it’s worth, Dr. Eager was...
Yes, Eagar was a legend in the field. He also had a reputation for stirring the pot to challenge people to think. Yes, I also taught in the field at the University of Utah college of engineering, and yes I knew people on the faculty at MIT. In fact, one of them was a former student of mine. Sadly I never got to meet Prof. Eagar.

Have you actually met and spoken with Stalcup? Or do you worship him only from afar.

Quote:
If you watch the video of Stalcup’s presentation, you see that Eagers clearly seemed to agree with what Stalcup was saying.
Eagar commented only on the difference between a deflagration and a detonation. He also wrote an affadavit for Stalcup's previous court case. Again it discusses only that difference. All that simply takes Stalcup's interpretation of the radar data at face value. Neither Stalcup nor Eagar has experience in the interpretation of radar data, nor did the students.

At no point did anyone challenge the principal assumption that the radar interpretation was correct. You told me the students in that class didn't think he was a crackpot. But in fact there was no comment or question from any student in the video to allow you to draw an informed conclusion one way or another on what they may have thought. You seem to be reading things into your sources.

We can dispense with your hero worship. Stalcup came to his conclusions regarding TWA 800 while he was still a graduate student and then as a junior employee of a sensor firm. The question is not what all he has done since then to cling to that conclusion, but what he did prior to it that allowed him to draw that conclusion as a purported expert.

Quote:
Have you read all of those materials? Have you read any of the scientific research that challenges the NTSB’s claims?
Yes.

Quote:
For example, have you read the TWA 800 affidavits...
Yes. But as usual, you're Gish galloping. You seem to want people to take only a very brief look at the breadth of the claim. Any time I try to do a deep dive into part of it, you try to shoo me away from it. That's a red flag for me. I promised you we would deal with those other purported affiants, but you led with Stalcup. And every time we talk about Stalcup, you try to distract by bringing up those other folks. Either Stalcup is the expert you claim him to be—regardless of who else may be an expert—or he is not. When we reach a conclusion on that point, we can move on to the others you tried to introduce as a distraction.

Quote:
On a side note, have you read any of the better books or seen any of the critical documentaries on TWA
Yes.

Quote:
Don’t you agree that a person has no business making strident claims about this case if they have not read both sides?
Straw man. I have investigated both sides of the TWA 800 claims from the position of a qualified expert. I am more qualified than you to determine whether someone else's claims are considered expert within my field, and to draw a better conclusion than you about which side is best supported with evidence.

You have no credentials in engineering or physics. Only after I pressed you repeatedly did you suddenly remember you had 20 years' experience in the intelligence field. Without reading this lengthy thread, you concluded that you were the smartest and most widely informed person on its subject.

Don't you agree that it's arrogant and rude for a lay person to attempt to tell experts who and what must be considered authoritative and credible in their fields? All you've done is steep yourself in a bunch of conspiracy nonsense that you're not qualified to approach critically, and then pretend this enables you to talk down to people. Seriously get over yourself.

Quote:
Dr. Stalcup earned his doctorate in physics from Florida State University (FSU). Do you have a doctorate in physics, and did you earn it from an equally prestigious university?
Have you been reading my posts?

My PhD studies predate his. I studied at a Public Ivy school. I even taught. I'm licensed in the field most appropriate to the study of transportation accidents. You seem to think a physics PhD is somehow a license to speak authoritatively on any technical subject. I asked you previously if you actually knew any physics PhDs, and you didn't answer. At my engineering company, of which I am a part owner, I have 4 physics PhDs on staff, and 5 PhDs in related engineering fields (although one is leaving next week). I know what they know and what they don't know.

How much do you know about what a PhD in physics entitles you to speak authoritatively about, and how do you know it?

Quote:
Dr. Stalcup worked...
I have a similar background of education and work experience, only in the fields of aircraft and spacecraft design, missile and weaponry design, and forensic engineering.

None of the things you mentioned about Stalcup qualify him—as a graduate student—to have discussed the aerodynamics of large airframes, to have properly interpreted ATC radar data, and to have conducted a transportation accident investigation. At that time, his field of expertise was the magnetic properties of crystalline structures.

All his subsequent behavior regarding TWA 800 has not been in the manner of a qualified expert. Yes, he may have consulted with others who may have expertise to contribute, but only after the fact. He has showboated and filed lawsuits. He hasn't collaborated with any professional organizations in the relevant fields. (He had to form his own.) He hasn't published in the field, but he has a slick Powerpoint deck. And he maintained an online presence as a political activist. All his professional work is in unrelated fields. Yes, when it comes to TWA 800 he behaves more like a crackpot than a scientist.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2023, 10:41 AM   #2417
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,110
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
...

In a court of law, if you had five eyewitnesses independently identify a murder suspect as the person they saw kill the victim, this would be considered powerful evidence.

In the TWA 800 case, we have over 100 eyewitnesses who independently reported seeing an object streaking upward in the sky 5-30 seconds before TWA 800 exploded, depending on where they were and at what point they saw the object's flight.

We also need to keep in mind that many of the witnesses specified that they did not see TWA 800. They saw the streaking object and the subsequent explosions but not the airliner. Whether they saw TWA 800 depended on where they were located and/or their eyesight.
How far away were each eyewitnesses? Oh how many miles?

The eyewitnesses saw the reflection on water of falling debris, did you do the geometry? No

They can't see 800 because they were too far away.

Eyewitnesses in aircraft accident are not reliable, and would be ripped apart in a court of law.

Before you back expert dolts who spew speculation based on eyewitnesses 20 miles away and personal opinion... Maybe, just maybe ---
You could take a course in Aircraft Accident Investigation and learn something.

https://aviationsafety.usc.edu/cours...investigation/

https://www.scsi-inc.com/

https://resources.flightsafety.com/w...e-Offering.pdf

You could go to class, study aircraft accident investigation and stop parroting BS from your "experts" who have no evidence of a missile.

USC Aircraft Accident Investigation course was excellent, and gave me tools to investigate and support 3 major aircraft accidents. Also working with Boeing Accident Investigators on an accident gave practical experience.

Plus you could learn about eyewitnesses, and some of the problems with what they see, hear, and perceive.

Good luck, when do you think you will have some real evidence?

At least you have a legacy of woo with a web site based on speculation, misleading a fringe few.

How many aircraft accidents have you worked on and supported?

Do you know about the KC-135 fuel tank explosions?

In a court of law, if you had 5 independent witnesses see a reflection of falling debris rising in the water, you could explains the geometry and the illusion. How far away, and at what elevation were these witnesses? Do you understand visual illusions?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2023, 02:40 PM   #2418
junkshop
Graduate Poster
 
junkshop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: in the kitchen
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes. I'm a licensed engineer and I have worked in the aerospace industry for more than 30 years. I'm more qualified than Stalcup to talk about airplanes and missiles, because I've designed and built them. I'm more qualified than you to know whether Stalcup is an expert in my field.

And yes, I have worked for Boeing, Northrup Grumman, NASA, and the NTSB on transportation accident investigations.



Yes, Eagar was a legend in the field. He also had a reputation for stirring the pot to challenge people to think. Yes, I also taught in the field at the University of Utah college of engineering, and yes I knew people on the faculty at MIT. In fact, one of them was a former student of mine. Sadly I never got to meet Prof. Eagar.

Have you actually met and spoken with Stalcup? Or do you worship him only from afar.



Eagar commented only on the difference between a deflagration and a detonation. He also wrote an affadavit for Stalcup's previous court case. Again it discusses only that difference. All that simply takes Stalcup's interpretation of the radar data at face value. Neither Stalcup nor Eagar has experience in the interpretation of radar data, nor did the students.

At no point did anyone challenge the principal assumption that the radar interpretation was correct. You told me the students in that class didn't think he was a crackpot. But in fact there was no comment or question from any student in the video to allow you to draw an informed conclusion one way or another on what they may have thought. You seem to be reading things into your sources.

We can dispense with your hero worship. Stalcup came to his conclusions regarding TWA 800 while he was still a graduate student and then as a junior employee of a sensor firm. The question is not what all he has done since then to cling to that conclusion, but what he did prior to it that allowed him to draw that conclusion as a purported expert.



Yes.



Yes. But as usual, you're Gish galloping. You seem to want people to take only a very brief look at the breadth of the claim. Any time I try to do a deep dive into part of it, you try to shoo me away from it. That's a red flag for me. I promised you we would deal with those other purported affiants, but you led with Stalcup. And every time we talk about Stalcup, you try to distract by bringing up those other folks. Either Stalcup is the expert you claim him to be—regardless of who else may be an expert—or he is not. When we reach a conclusion on that point, we can move on to the others you tried to introduce as a distraction.



Yes.



Straw man. I have investigated both sides of the TWA 800 claims from the position of a qualified expert. I am more qualified than you to determine whether someone else's claims are considered expert within my field, and to draw a better conclusion than you about which side is best supported with evidence.

You have no credentials in engineering or physics. Only after I pressed you repeatedly did you suddenly remember you had 20 years' experience in the intelligence field. Without reading this lengthy thread, you concluded that you were the smartest and most widely informed person on its subject.

Don't you agree that it's arrogant and rude for a lay person to attempt to tell experts who and what must be considered authoritative and credible in their fields? All you've done is steep yourself in a bunch of conspiracy nonsense that you're not qualified to approach critically, and then pretend this enables you to talk down to people. Seriously get over yourself.



Have you been reading my posts?

My PhD studies predate his. I studied at a Public Ivy school. I even taught. I'm licensed in the field most appropriate to the study of transportation accidents. You seem to think a physics PhD is somehow a license to speak authoritatively on any technical subject. I asked you previously if you actually knew any physics PhDs, and you didn't answer. At my engineering company, of which I am a part owner, I have 4 physics PhDs on staff, and 5 PhDs in related engineering fields (although one is leaving next week). I know what they know and what they don't know.

How much do you know about what a PhD in physics entitles you to speak authoritatively about, and how do you know it?



I have a similar background of education and work experience, only in the fields of aircraft and spacecraft design, missile and weaponry design, and forensic engineering.

None of the things you mentioned about Stalcup qualify him—as a graduate student—to have discussed the aerodynamics of large airframes, to have properly interpreted ATC radar data, and to have conducted a transportation accident investigation. At that time, his field of expertise was the magnetic properties of crystalline structures.

All his subsequent behavior regarding TWA 800 has not been in the manner of a qualified expert. Yes, he may have consulted with others who may have expertise to contribute, but only after the fact. He has showboated and filed lawsuits. He hasn't collaborated with any professional organizations in the relevant fields. (He had to form his own.) He hasn't published in the field, but he has a slick Powerpoint deck. And he maintained an online presence as a political activist. All his professional work is in unrelated fields. Yes, when it comes to TWA 800 he behaves more like a crackpot than a scientist.
Mic drop.
__________________
Not a Cockney, but possibly Australian...I am Dick Van Dyke.
junkshop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2023, 07:31 PM   #2419
mikegriffith1
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 530
For those who might be interested:

The EMRTC Test and TWA Flight 800: More Evidence Against the NTSB Theory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Sw...fXlm6n7Vc/view

This is a vastly revised and expanded version of my post on the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachnut:

How far away were each eyewitnesses? Oh how many miles? The eyewitnesses saw the reflection on water of falling debris, did you do the geometry? No. They can't see 800 because they were too far away. Eyewitnesses in aircraft accident are not reliable, and would be ripped apart in a court of law.
Even the NTSB did not claim that the witnesses were too far away to see TWA 800. Also, as I've noted, some of the witnesses did not claim to see TWA 800 until after it exploded. However, all of the missile witnesses were within range to see a missile from ground or sea level streak toward TWA 800, as established by the NTSB's own missile visibility test. Have you not watched any of the critical documentaries on TWA 800?

"The reflection on water of falling debris"??? I think that's beyond far fetched. The witnesses specified that they saw the streaking object 5-30 seconds before TWA 800 exploded. How soon they spotted the object depended on their location and/or when they happened to notice it.

Furthermore, the eyewitness accounts are supported by the unaltered NTSB debris analysis and, even more important, by the radar data. These sources prove that the eyewitness descriptions of the explosion and breakup of TWA 800 were correct, which lends credence to their accounts of seeing an object streaking upward toward TWA 800 before it exploded.

"Ripped apart in a court of law"??? No way. Maybe a handful of witnesses might get discredited in a court of law by a clever attorney, but not over 100 witnesses, not when many of them were educated and successful people, not when some of them were military or ex-military (including two active-duty pilots who both saw the streaking object), and not when all these witnesses gave their accounts independently.
__________________
Mike Griffith
Home Page

Last edited by mikegriffith1; 18th February 2023 at 08:13 PM.
mikegriffith1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2023, 02:44 AM   #2420
MBDK
Muse
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
Furthermore, the eyewitness accounts are supported by the unaltered NTSB debris analysis and, even more important, by the radar data.

Nope. Not according to the conclusion of the NTSB's 2014 Response to Petition for Reconsideration.


Quote:
As detailed in the final report, no sequence of radar returns intersected TWA flight 800’s position at any point around the time of the explosion, no radar returns consistent with a missile or other projectile were found traveling toward the airplane before the explosion, and no wreckage damage patterns were consistent with the airplane having been struck by a missile or affected by detonation of a high-energy device, such as a proximity-fused weapon. Careful analysis revealed a pattern of fractures indicative of an overpressure event originating in the CWT. The pattern of wreckage recovered was consistent with the sequence of structural failures deduced from the fracture patterns. Based on numerous studies and analyses of all the available data with all inherent limitations considered, the airplane’s explosion is consistent with a low-velocity, fuel/air deflagration event within the CWT.

That response's main body also notes some amateurish mistakes in the petitioners' radar analysis that makes one question the petitioners' entire ability to properly analyze even basic instrument data. Sounds like you and the petitioners have a lot in common.
MBDK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2023, 05:03 AM   #2421
mikegriffith1
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 530
Originally Posted by MBDK View Post
Nope. Not according to the conclusion of the NTSB's 2014 Response to Petition for Reconsideration.

That response's main body also notes some amateurish mistakes in the petitioners' radar analysis that makes one question the petitioners' entire ability to properly analyze even basic instrument data. Sounds like you and the petitioners have a lot in common.
Since you wear the label of a "critical thinker," surely you bothered to read the TWA 800 Project's rebuttal to the NTSB's response, right? Right? You didn't just run to the NTSB's response and uncritically accept it without reading the other side, did you? Well, it looks like you did. FYI, a basic element of critical thinking is to examine all sides of an issue before reaching a conclusion about it.

You know that the TWA 800 Project includes former accident investigators, pilots, and engineers, right? Being a critical thinker, you would not just blindly accept a response issued by government employees without considering what these private experts have to say about it, right?

Do you have any idea how many times NTSB personnel have been caught making false statements in this case? Any idea how many times they have made what can charitably be called "amateurish mistakes" in their TWA 800 claims, such as the NTSB report's ludicrous alleged examples of other internally caused center wing tank explosions and its repetition of the bogus claim that a bomb-sniffing exercise was done on TWA 800 in St. Louis in June 1996?

(The bomb-sniffing training was not done by the FBI but by the St. Louis Airport Police Department. Both of the pilots on the TWA 800 plane that day confirmed that no bomb-sniffing exercise was done on the plane. This was already obvious from the airport police officer's report on the exercise and from the fact that the TWA 800 plane began boarding at 12:05. The training was done on another Boeing 747 that was parked at the next gate over and that was empty at the time of the training--the officer stated that he did the training on an empty plane, as usual.)

Here's some of what the TWA 800 Project says about the NTSB's response on their website:

The documentary “TWA Flight 800” and the petition to the NTSB presents a ballistics analysis of the radar evidence indicating that the initial velocity of the debris was Mach 4 (four times the speed of sound) or greater. This indicates that a high velocity event (most likely associated with a high velocity explosion) occurred nearly simultaneously with the loss of the jetliner’s electrical power. That event generated high-velocity debris that traveled rightward with respect to TWA 800.

The official crash sequence does not account for any high-velocity explosions at any time, and is therefore inconsistent with the radar evidence. The NTSB responded to the petition by claiming the radar evidence was of insufficient “quality” to exclude the official crash sequence, but the Safety Board did not conduct the necessary statistical analysis of the data sets in question to support their claim. The petitioners subsequently conducted that analysis and determined the data was of sufficient quality.


And here is that analysis and rebuttal to the NTSB response, if you care to read it:

https://twa800project.files.wordpres...ate-report.pdf

Allow me to quote a few excerpts from the TWA 800 Project's rebuttal:

The NTSB stated that since “the primary and secondary radar data are acquired by different antennas, there are likely to be discontinuities in the transition from secondary radar returns to primary radar returns after the breakup.” The NTSB, however, did not quantify these discontinuities or mention that the two antennas are “co-located” on the same rotating frame. . . .

Twenty-five primary returns from this aircraft were recorded during these two legs. These primary returns matched closely with both secondary data fits, with an average displacement of 0.04 and 0.07 nm. When a second order curve is fit to all of the primary and secondary data together, displacement error from the flight path is 0.104 nautical miles, which is consistent with the 0.11 degrees of relative azimuth error for ISP primary returns determined from the statistical analysis described below.

This confirms that there were no significant discontinuities between ISP primary and secondary radar data either during the transition between data types or several seconds after any transition. Further, these results and the statistical analysis validate the petitioners' calculations and are consistent with the Addendum to the NTSB simulation report (Exhibit 22C) that displays identical radar tolerance limits over data points for both primary and secondary data sets (see Figure 5A below). . . .

In its petition response however, the NTSB wrote that “the petitioners incorrectly apply a measure of the resolution associated with the ASR-8 as a measure of position accuracy... The actual azimuth uncertainty [+/-0.35 degrees for primary returns and +/- 0.53 degrees for secondary returns] is, therefore about 10 times as large as the petitioners suggest.”

While azimuth resolution (0.044 degrees) is not the same as azimuth accuracy, for separation measurements such as those made by the petitioners, it is a closer estimate than the significantly larger values listed by the NTSB. The azimuth uncertainty values (0.35 and 0.53 degrees) that the NTSB cites as being “about 10 times as large as the petitioners suggest” apparently include systematic errors that are canceled out in separation measurements and are irrelevant to the petitioners' calculations.

An analysis of the ISP secondary radar data shows that relative azimuth accuracy is 0.06 degrees, which agrees with values determined in an MIT radar study (see Figure 6 below) and is close to the value used to generate the respective dimensions of the NTSB's radar tolerance boxes. Relative azimuth accuracy for ISP primary data was determined to be approximately 0.11 degrees and is reflected in the corrected radar tolerance box in Figure 5B above. . . .

These values result in a total north-south accuracy of approximately +/- 0.05 nautical miles, which is close12 to the “total north-south accuracy of...+/- 0.04 nautical miles” cited in the TWA 800 petition. The much larger errors cited by the NTSB—which translate to approximately +/- 0.2 nautical miles of north-south error at TWA 800's position—do not apply to the petitioners' “separation measurements”13 and likely include irrelevant “systematic error” that cancels out.

The NTSB also indicated that ½ nm scatter applied to the petitioners' calculations, which conflicts with their earlier indication of a +/- 0.18 nm and +/- 0.20 nm uncertainty.
.
This larger uncertainty refers to “scatter...among [separate radar] facilities”, which the NTSB highlighted with two green arrows in its radar printout of the accident in Figure 8. Such scatter is from combining position errors (including systematic error) between separate facilities, and it is not relevant to the petition since the petitioners' calculations are based strictly on data from a single radar facility with adequately calibrated radar antennas. . . .

Although not entirely clear, the NTSB is apparently arguing that radar returns from objects in the southern debris cluster may be the result of two or more objects reflecting radar energy like multiple mirrors in the same room. This argument can be dismissed here because several radar sites recorded the same pattern in the same area, relegating the idea that debris was not actually in this area but reflected to only appear to be in this area as extremely unlikely. If the NTSB is making such a claim, the following discussion addresses it.


Again, this is just a small excerpt from the TWA 800 Project's rebuttal to the NTSB's response. You might want to read the entire rebuttal before you say anything else about the NTSB's response.
__________________
Mike Griffith
Home Page

Last edited by mikegriffith1; 19th February 2023 at 06:14 AM.
mikegriffith1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2023, 09:04 AM   #2422
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,413
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
You know that the TWA 800 Project includes former accident investigators...
The radar portion is all Stalcup. He did that "analysis" when he was a graduate student in an unrelated field, before he met any of other people you mention. You have yet to explain Stalcup acquired the ability to properly interpret ATC radar data, and how his ability to do so correctly was tested and confirmed prior to his conclusions. You are not qualified to determine whether others have the expertise to investigate air accidents in the way they have, nor whether any of the work you attest to hear was done correctly or incorrectly.

Quote:
You might want to read the entire rebuttal before you say anything else about the NTSB's response.
All you've done is steep yourself in conspiracy nonsense you're not qualified to adjudicate yourself, and which frankly you don't seem very interested in approaching critically. Your ongoing hero worship and devotion to that material doesn't make you the smartest guy in the room. Get over yourself.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2023, 04:54 PM   #2423
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,536
We are still waiting for the name of the ship.

Still waiting for the serial number of the missile.

Still waiting for the shipping manifest information for the alleged missile, including the release paperwork from the factory floor, to the shipper pickup & release paperwork, the port where the missile was signed into inventory, the paperwork for transferring the missile from the warehouse area to the ship, the paperwork signing the missile out of inventory and onto the ship, the ship's total missile inventory before and after the launch, and evidence that a missile was fired, and thus not returned into base inventory or contractor inventory.

Still waiting.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2023, 07:56 PM   #2424
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
We are still waiting for the name of the ship.

Still waiting for the serial number of the missile.

Still waiting for the shipping manifest information for the alleged missile, including the release paperwork from the factory floor, to the shipper pickup & release paperwork, the port where the missile was signed into inventory, the paperwork for transferring the missile from the warehouse area to the ship, the paperwork signing the missile out of inventory and onto the ship, the ship's total missile inventory before and after the launch, and evidence that a missile was fired, and thus not returned into base inventory or contractor inventory.

Still waiting.
I hope you are not holding your breath waiting. It might be a long time, even further than we have already waited.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2023, 10:39 PM   #2425
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,536
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I hope you are not holding your breath waiting. It might be a long time, even further than we have already waited.
I love how in 2023, we have detailed step-by-step breakdowns of the intelligence failures leading to 9/11, the records from the CIA debating Iraqi WMD prior to the 2003 invasion, documentation of warrantless wire-taps after 9/11, knowledge of the full scope of risky behavior behind the economic collapse of 2007/2008, all of the JFK documents, etc.

But as yet, no evidence contradicting the official FBI findings of the crash of TWA-800.

And I've looked at the conspiracy version, and as an old ghost-hunter I detect a familiar smell of believers bending over backwards, stringing unrelated facts together to sculpt a fictional narrative which is not backed up by the physical evidence, nor the bulk of the eye-witness testimonies. Stalcup's claims are nothing more than late 1990s anti-Clinton lunacy. I'm not an engineer or physicist but I can smell BS a mile away.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 11:57 AM   #2426
mikegriffith1
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1:
I think your dubious claim that Dr. Stalcup is a “crackpot” deserves further comment. Let’s compare Dr. Stalcup’s credentials to yours, shall we?

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Yes. I'm a licensed engineer and I have worked in the aerospace industry for more than 30 years. I'm more qualified than Stalcup to talk about airplanes and missiles, because I've designed and built them. I'm more qualified than you to know whether Stalcup is an expert in my field.
So, are all the experts who agree with Stalcup--engineers, pilots, and former accident investigators, etc.--"crackpots" too?

Again, just to be clear here: A few replies ago you said Stalcup is not even qualified to comment on the radar data nor on the movement of objects portrayed in those data. You also called him a "crackpot." I think such a comment shows you have zero objectivity on TWA 800 and are a rabid partisan for the NTSB theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

And yes, I have worked for Boeing, Northrup Grumman, NASA, and the NTSB on transportation accident investigations.
That's not what I asked you, and I see you snipped my question. I asked, "How many times have you been invited by an MIT professor to give a presentation on TWA 800 to an MIT class?"

Obviously, your answer to this question is No. No. No, you have not been invited by an MIT professor to give a lecture on TWA 800 to an MIT class. Stalcup, however, has been invited to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Yes, Eagar was a legend in the field. He also had a reputation for stirring the pot to challenge people to think. Yes, I also taught in the field at the University of Utah college of engineering, and yes I knew people on the faculty at MIT. In fact, one of them was a former student of mine. Sadly I never got to meet Prof. Eagar.
And Dr. Eagar did not invite you to give a lecture on TWA 800 to one of his classes, yet he invited Dr. Stalcup to do so. Does this mean that Dr. Eagar was a "crackpot"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Have you actually met and spoken with Stalcup? Or do you worship him only from afar.
This is not the kind of sophomoric polemic one would expect from someone claiming to be a scientist. I was not aware that agreeing with Stalcup's research constitutes "worship" of him. This is the kind of silly argument one would expect from an angry teenager.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1:

If you watch the video of Stalcup’s presentation, you see that Eagers clearly seemed to agree with what Stalcup was saying.

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Eagar commented only on the difference between a deflagration and a detonation. He also wrote an affadavit [SIC] for Stalcup's previous court case. Again, it discusses only that difference. All that simply takes Stalcup's interpretation of the radar data at face value. Neither Stalcup nor Eagar has experience in the interpretation of radar data, nor did the students.
Thus, according to you, Eagar did not bother to study the radar data himself but simply accepted Stalcup's analysis of the data without checking it? Really?

By the way, it’s “affidavit,” not “affidavit.” Are you sure you’re a scientist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

At no point did anyone challenge the principal assumption that the radar interpretation was correct. You told me the students in that class didn't think he was a crackpot. But in fact there was no comment or question from any student in the video to allow you to draw an informed conclusion one way or another on what they may have thought. You seem to be reading things into your sources.
Wrong. Did you not watch the whole video? Several of the students responded to Stalcup's questions.

Why don't you tell us why the points that Stalcup makes in the lecture are wrong? How about that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

We can dispense with your hero worship.
Oh, now it's "hero worship"? I think you're projecting your opinion of yourself onto my agreement with Stalcup's research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Stalcup came to his conclusions regarding TWA 800 while he was still a graduate student and then as a junior employee of a sensor firm. The question is not what all he has done since then to cling to that conclusion, but what he did prior to it that allowed him to draw that conclusion as a purported expert.
What a patently silly argument. And you call yourself a scientist? Yes, he formed his initial conclusions while he was a graduate student in physics. So what? Some scientific discoveries have been made by graduate students. Anyway, Stalcup then went on to complete his studies and earned his PhD in physics. He did most of his TWA 800 research after he earned his PhD, and the more he has studied the evidence, the more he has become convinced that the NTSB theory is bogus and impossible. I might add that even before he completed his doctorate, he interviewed some key eyewitnesses, and he interviewed more of them later.

Which brings us to another question that you snipped and ducked. I asked you how many eyewitnesses you have interviewed. Obviously, the answer to that question is None. Zero. Zippo. You haven’t interviewed any of the eyewitnesses.

It is worth repeating that over 100 people, positioned in a wide range of locations—some on the beach, some inland, some on the water, and a few in the air—said they saw an object streaking toward TWA 800 before before they saw any explosions, and dozens of them specified that the object originated from ground or sea level. Not surprisingly, given the area, many of these witnesses were educated, successful people.

You folks have only pitiful, lame explanations for what the witnesses described. The most laughable I’ve seen, one that was made in this thread, is the argument that the witnesses “saw the reflection on water off falling debris.” Such nonsense simply ignores what the witnesses repeatedly and consistently described, and also ignores the fact that they were positioned in a wide variety of locations. Another pitiful theory is that these 100-plus people experienced the same astonishing “misperception”!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1:

Have you read all of those materials? Have you read any of the scientific research that challenges the NTSB’s claims?

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Yes.

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1:

For example, have you read the TWA 800 affidavits...

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Yes. But as usual, you're Gish galloping. You seem to want people to take only a very brief look at the breadth of the claim. Any time I try to do a deep dive into part of it, you try to shoo me away from it. That's a red flag for me. I promised you we would deal with those other purported affiants, but you led with Stalcup. And every time we talk about Stalcup, you try to distract by bringing up those other folks. Either Stalcup is the expert you claim him to be—regardless of who else may be an expert—or he is not. When we reach a conclusion on that point, we can move on to the others you tried to introduce as a distraction.

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1:

On a side note, have you read any of the better books or seen any of the critical documentaries on TWA

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Yes.
Humm, well, that’s very odd, because your answers so far don’t indicate that you’ve read those sources and viewed those documentaries. You’ve made a number of claims that are thoroughly debunked in those materials.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1:

Don’t you agree that a person has no business making strident claims about this case if they have not read both sides?

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Straw man.
I normally do not nitpick someone’s English usage in an online forum, but, as a technical editor by profession, allow me note that you are misusing the term “straw man.” My argument was not a straw man argument; it was a straightforward question based on the generic hypothetical of a person commenting on an issue after only reading one side of the issue. A straw man argument is an argument that responds to an assertion that the other person did not make or that responds to a severely distorted version of the other person’s assertion.

Perhaps you should get with the god of English up on Mount Olympus, where one might infer you live, and ask for a quick refresher course.

Anyway, let’s continue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

I have investigated both sides of the TWA 800 claims from the position of a qualified expert. I am more qualified than you to determine whether someone else's claims are considered expert within my field, and to draw a better conclusion than you about which side is best supported with evidence.
Yet, in spite of your self-professed vast knowledge of the case, you’ve made a number of erroneous claims, not to mention that your polemic suggests you have no objectivity on this subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

You have no credentials in engineering or physics. Only after I pressed you repeatedly did you suddenly remember you had 20 years' experience in the intelligence field.
That’s because I’m not an arrogant blowhard. That’s also because I rarely mention that part of my background in public forums. However, anyone who reads my online bio and who has an intelligence background will recognize my own intelligence background from the references to my graduating from the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA, and from the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, TX.

In contrast, you’ve provided no online bio. You haven’t even provided your first and last name. You’ve provided no website address. No e-mail address. Now, yes, that is your right. You have every right to conceal your identity and to hide behind a username. Lots of people do it. However, Dr. Stalcup doesn’t do that. He uses his real name. He has a website, provides his e-mail address, and even provides his phone number. Similarly, I use my real name, and provide my homepage address and e-mail address.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Without reading this lengthy thread, you concluded that you were the smartest and most widely informed person on its subject.
That’s rich coming from an obnoxious braggart who has done little else but posture, duck and dodge, and make rude and sarcastic comments.

And, just for the record, I never implied, much less claimed, that I was “the smartest and most widely informed person on its subject.” I think you’re projecting again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

Don't you agree that it's arrogant and rude for a lay person to attempt to tell experts who and what must be considered authoritative and credible in their fields? All you've done is steep yourself in a bunch of conspiracy nonsense that you're not qualified to approach critically, and then pretend this enables you to talk down to people. Seriously get over yourself.
LOL! You are telling me to “get over yourself”???! You are the most arrogant, rudest, most condescending snob I’ve ever encountered in any online forum. I suspect that my real sin in your eyes is that I have the unmitigated gall to dispute the NTSB nonsense that you peddle. I don’t care how many degrees you claim to have--that does not make you infallible or beyond challenge. You certainly don’t talk like any scientist with whom I’ve ever dealt, and I’ve conversed with quite a few. You have already made several claims that have been soundly refuted by critical engineers, pilots, missile experts, audio experts, and accident investigators.

I should add that I have not merely read sources that reject the NTSB theory. I’ve also read the NTSB report, the supplemental NTSB group reports, and the reports submitted by TWA and Boeing. I’ve also read Pat Milton’s pro-NTSB book.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

My PhD studies predate his. I studied at a Public Ivy school. I even taught. I'm licensed in the field most appropriate to the study of transportation accidents. You seem to think a physics PhD is somehow a license to speak authoritatively on any technical subject. I asked you previously if you actually knew any physics PhDs, and you didn't answer. At my engineering company, of which I am a part owner, I have 4 physics PhDs on staff, and 5 PhDs in related engineering fields (although one is leaving next week). I know what they know and what they don't know.

How much do you know about what a PhD in physics entitles you to speak authoritatively about, and how do you know it?

I have a similar background of education and work experience, only in the fields of aircraft and spacecraft design, missile and weaponry design, and forensic engineering.
Oh my! Yes, Great One. I get it, Your Majesty: You are the greatest thing since sliced bread. You know everything there is to know about the case. Your word is beyond dispute. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a “conspiracy theorist” and/or a “crackpot.” Dr. Eagar clearly made an inexcusable error when he failed to invite you to give a lecture on TWA 800 to his class, and he compounded his error by inviting that “crackpot” Dr. Stalcup to do so. And all the engineers, audio experts, pilots, missile experts, and accident investigators who agree with Dr. Stalcup—well, they’re just a bunch of “conspiracy theorists” and/or “crackpots” too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

None of the things you mentioned about Stalcup qualify him—as a graduate student—to have discussed the aerodynamics of large airframes, to have properly interpreted ATC radar data, and to have conducted a transportation accident investigation. At that time, his field of expertise was the magnetic properties of crystalline structures.
And just never mind about Dr. Stalcup’s studies after that time, right? Never mind the research that he did after he earned his PhD, right? Never mind that he, and not you, was invited by Dr. Eagar to lecture one of his MIT classes on TWA 800, right? Never mind that you haven’t interviewed a single eyewitness, not one of them, whereas he has interviewed dozens of them, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah:

All his subsequent behavior regarding TWA 800 has not been in the manner of a qualified expert. Yes, he may have consulted with others who may have expertise to contribute, but only after the fact. He has showboated and filed lawsuits. He hasn't collaborated with any professional organizations in the relevant fields. (He had to form his own.) He hasn't published in the field, but he has a slick Powerpoint deck. And he maintained an online presence as a political activist. All his professional work is in unrelated fields. Yes, when it comes to TWA 800 he behaves more like a crackpot than a scientist.
Much of this is either false or distorted. He’s published in the field of TWA 800. I guess that doesn’t count, right? Some of his professional work has been in relevant fields. Many experts agree with his findings. Dr. Eagar agreed with him. Former Navy pilots and missile experts Admiral Mark Hill and Admiral Thomas Moorer (who was a former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) agreed with him.

From what I’ve seen so far, Dr. Stalcup’s “behavior regarding TWA 800” has been much more “in the manner of a qualified expert” than has your behavior. So far, your behavior has indicated that you are an unbending, closed-minded partisan for the NTSB version of the crash, a version that the NTSB itself was unable to produce a shred of tangible evidence to support—no indication of the alleged short circuit, no indication of any alleged arcing, no evidence from the FQIS components, no uniform pattern of injuries to the passengers above the center fuel tank, no uniform pattern of damage to the seats above the center fuel tank, etc., etc.
__________________
Mike Griffith
Home Page

Last edited by mikegriffith1; 20th February 2023 at 12:16 PM.
mikegriffith1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 12:19 PM   #2427
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,536
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
So, are all the experts who agree with Stalcup--engineers, pilots, and former accident investigators, etc.--"crackpots" too?
Yes.

After four years of a Trump Presidency it should be obvious that partisan stupidity cuts across ALL social boundaries.

Again, there is ZERO evidence of a missile and ZERO evidence of a bomb. Those so-called "Experts" are delusional. Their claims are based on the rampant antigovernment /anti-Clinton furor of the late 1990s wherein if Clinton said the sky was blue in the morning by the evening the far right radio and TV would be flooded with "evidence" to the contrary.

The TWA-800 missile theory is a lie.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 12:25 PM   #2428
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 8,306
OK, mikegriffith1;14013204, the evidence is all in. Your ducks're in a row. So're Doc Starbuc's. You've concluded that It's conclusive.

So tell us, who dunnit? The rightist lefties? The naval navel gazers? Bert & Ernie? The Jewish Space Rangers?

Who who
Who wrote the book of love?
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 12:44 PM   #2429
jadebox
Master Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,440
It is funny that mikegriffith1 says we have to be familiar with all of the sources he references. It is almost like saying that you have to eat an entire egg to know that it is rotten.
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 01:18 PM   #2430
mikegriffith1
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 530
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
It is funny that mikegriffith1 says we have to be familiar with all of the sources he references. It is almost like saying that you have to eat an entire egg to know that it is rotten.
Umm, no. It is not saying that at all. It is saying that a basic principle of critical thinking is that you must read both sides of an issue before reaching a conclusion about it.

I find the slavish acceptance of the NTSB report curious, given what we now know about the investigation, such as the following:

-- the fierce internal dissent that existed over the conclusions;
-- the substantial alteration of the Airplane Interior Documentation Group's report without the author's knowledge or consent;
-- the removal of dozens of airplane parts from the hangar;
-- the physical altering of the floor of the center fuel tank to make it look like it was blown outward/downward (pre-alteration photos of the floor show that a large part of the floor was blown drastically upward/inward, and showed no part of it bent downward/outward);
-- the continued suspicious and inexcusable withholding of important analyses;
-- the switching of location tags on recovered parts because they didn't fit the NTSB scenario;
-- the erasure of the final four seconds of the Flight Data Recorder tape;
-- the editing of the video footage of the underwater recovery operation;
-- the NTSB's refusal (via Dr. Birkey) to allow NASA's Dr. Bassett to conduct follow-up testing on a part (CW504) that tested positive for nitrates;
-- the making of the demonstrably false claim that the reddish-brown residue removed from one of the seats by Terrell Stacey and tested by a respected commercial lab in Los Angeles was merely 3M glue (in actuality, the lab's test results strongly indicated the residue was explosive residue);
-- the making of the soundly refuted claim that a bomb-sniffing exercise was done on the TWA 800 plane in St. Louis two months before the crash (subsequent research indisputably established that the training was done on an empty Boeing 747 parked at a nearby gate--the pilot and co-pilot of the TWA 800 aircraft confirmed that no such training was done on the accident plane);
-- the brazenly misleading analysis of the eyewitness accounts;
-- the stark contradictions between the CIA simulation and the NTSB simulation.
__________________
Mike Griffith
Home Page

Last edited by mikegriffith1; 20th February 2023 at 01:34 PM.
mikegriffith1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 04:13 PM   #2431
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
Umm, no. It is not saying that at all. It is saying that a basic principle of critical thinking is that you must read both sides of an issue before reaching a conclusion about it.

I find the slavish acceptance of the NTSB report curious, given what we now know about the investigation, such as the following:

-- the fierce internal dissent that existed over the conclusions;
details and back up please.
Quote:
-- the substantial alteration of the Airplane Interior Documentation Group's report without the author's knowledge or consent;
-- the removal of dozens of airplane parts from the hangar;
proof thereof
Quote:
-- the physical altering of the floor of the center fuel tank to make it look like it was blown outward/downward (pre-alteration photos of the floor show that a large part of the floor was blown drastically upward/inward, and showed no part of it bent downward/outward);
proof of this alteration
Quote:
-- the continued suspicious and inexcusable withholding of important analyses;
what information has been withheld?
Quote:
-- the switching of location tags on recovered parts because they didn't fit the NTSB scenario;[
Proof of switching
Quote:
-- the erasure of the final four seconds of the Flight Data Recorder tape;
Proof of erasure
Quote:
-- the editing of the video footage of the underwater recovery operation;
Proof of alteration
Quote:
-- the NTSB's refusal (via Dr. Birkey) to allow NASA's Dr. Bassett to conduct follow-up testing on a part (CW504) that tested positive for nitrates;
-- the making of the demonstrably false claim that the reddish-brown residue removed from one of the seats by Terrell Stacey and tested by a respected commercial lab in Los Angeles was merely 3M glue (in actuality, the lab's test results strongly indicated the residue was explosive residue);
Proof of this labs report.
Quote:
-- the making of the soundly refuted claim that a bomb-sniffing exercise was done on the TWA 800 plane in St. Louis two months before the crash (subsequent research indisputably established that the training was done on an empty Boeing 747 parked at a nearby gate--the pilot and co-pilot of the TWA 800 aircraft confirmed that no such training was done on the accident plane);
Red herring
Quote:
-- the brazenly misleading analysis of the eyewitness accounts;
Why is analysis of eye witness accounts misleading, eye witness accounts are on the LOW end of any investigation, unless you are supporting a conspiracy, then it is top drawer
Quote:
-- the stark contradictions between the CIA simulation and the NTSB simulation.
Lastly proof that there exists stark contradictions in the two simulations, not just your word. Links to each report and hi-lighted contradictions. Trust but verify.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 05:32 PM   #2432
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,536
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
Umm, no. It is not saying that at all. It is saying that a basic principle of critical thinking is that you must read both sides of an issue before reaching a conclusion about it.

I find the slavish acceptance of the NTSB report curious, given what we now know about the investigation, such as the following:

[snip to cut BS]
Here's the thing; it is a crime for a federal agency to issue a false report. It's one thing to be wrong, or make a determination based on limited evidence, but it is another thing to flat out lie. Everyone working on the TWA-800 investigation knew this. This fact is why the TWA-800 investigation was one of the most expensive in US history behind 9/11. The FBI was compelled to investigate every claim, no matter how ridiculous.

And the NTSB and FBI are separate entities. The tension you misrepresent inside the investigation came from NTSB investigators not happy about playing second banana to the FBI, an agency most of them felt were unqualified to the task over all. And as we learned after 9/11, the FBI NYC office did not play well with others. But this doesn't mean they didn't get the job done, just that they're jerks about things.

The FBI report on TWA-800 is here:

https://vault.fbi.gov/twa-flight-800

I recommend reading through it since there is less technical jargon to translate.

My reading of the report, and knowing the true history of the event I can tell you the FBI wanted to find evidence of a bomb or a Stinger missile as the cause of TWA-800's crash. They had already suffered an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and had stopped an attack on the NYC subway system by 1996. The NYC FBI office was knee-deep in Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda at the time of the crash. Most grousing about the wiring in the fuel tank came from FBI agents who were seeing Islamic terrorists under every rock.

In the end, the evidence is the evidence. And the evidence points to bad wiring in the fuel tank.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 06:25 PM   #2433
mikegriffith1
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 530
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
We are still waiting for the name of the ship. Still waiting for the serial number of the missile.

Still waiting for the shipping manifest information for the alleged missile, including the release paperwork from the factory floor, to the shipper pickup & release paperwork, the port where the missile was signed into inventory, the paperwork for transferring the missile from the warehouse area to the ship, the paperwork signing the missile out of inventory and onto the ship, the ship's total missile inventory before and after the launch, and evidence that a missile was fired, and thus not returned into base inventory or contractor inventory.

Still waiting.
Such polemic suggests you are not here for serious discussion. Obviously, we don't have that information yet because that is some of the very information that has been withheld and that researchers have been trying to obtain via FOIA lawsuits. I already listed some of the many sources that are still, inexplicably and inexcusably, "classified" that pertain to those issues.

I'm curious: Are you still waiting for the NTSB to identify the ignition source of the alleged spark that supposedly blew up the center wing tank? Are you still waiting for the NTSB to explain how the alleged spark magically got into the center wing tank through wiring that was specifically designed to prevent just such an occurrence?

Are you still waiting for the NTSB to produce a shred of evidence that this alleged spark magically got through the surge protection at one end of the FQIS and then even more magically jumped over the gap between the FQIS electrodes, the same gap that in Boeing tests prevented 3,000 volts from creating a spark in the center fuel tank?

Are you still waiting for the NTSB to explain why they omitted from their report the fact that on April 14, 1995, the TWA 800 plane was hit by lightning on its approach to Rome Airport but that the center fuel tank did not explode, even though the lightning went through it (and also through the number 4 reserve tank, the number 4 main tank, and the number 3 main tank)? A surge of lightning traversed the center wing tank and three other tanks but did not cause any of those tanks to explode, yet we're supposed to believe that a spark from a short circuit outside the center fuel tank magically found its way into that tank and caused it to explode.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The problem with posting links to conspiracy-friendly sites is they bite you in the butt. The FBI test was done in St Louis on June 10, 1996. The crash occurred on July 17, 1996. So all the crap you posted about the crew and passengers boarding are meaningless.
What??? What are you talking about? The "crap" about "the crew and passengers boarding" was regarding the TWA 800 plane before it took off for Hawaii at 12:35 p.m. on June 10, 1996, i.e., the day the bomb-sniffing training was supposedly conducted on it. We're not talking about the day of the accident but the day when the training was supposedly done on the TWA 800 plane in St. Louis.

We know when the SLAPD officer who did the training got on the plane, how long the training took, when he took the dog back to his car, and when he came back to the plane to retrieve the training aids. The officer even specified to the FBI that when he did the training, there were no crew members, cleaners, or caterers on the plane. As usual, he did the training on an empty plane. This could not have been the TWA 800 plane because its crew arrived at 11:30/11:35 and because passengers began to board the plane at 12:05 for its scheduled 12:35 departure to Hawaii.

The SLAPD officer did not begin the bomb-sniffing training until 11:45, and the training took 15 minutes, after which he had to take the dog back to his car and then return to the plane to get the training aids. Even a conservative estimate of the time it took him to walk the dog off the plane, down the ramp, and back to his car, and then of the time it took him to walk back up the ramp, get back on the plane, retrieve his training aids, and then walk back down the ramp to return to his car--a conservative estimate for the time to perform these actions would have him leaving the plane by around 12:15.

Furthermore, I would again point out that when the 6/10/1996 pilot and co-pilot of the TWA 800 plane were interviewed, both stated that they saw no dog or police officer on the plane before takeoff.

The bomb-sniffing training was done on a Boeing 747 that was parked at Gate 51, which was right next to Gate 50 where the TWA 800 plane was parked. The 747 at Gate 51 was empty because it did not take off until 2:00 p.m.
__________________
Mike Griffith
Home Page

Last edited by mikegriffith1; 20th February 2023 at 06:33 PM.
mikegriffith1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 06:38 PM   #2434
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,413
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
Again, just to be clear here: A few replies ago you said Stalcup is not even qualified to comment on the radar data nor on the movement of objects portrayed in those data. You also called him a "crackpot." I think such a comment shows you have zero objectivity on TWA 800 and are a rabid partisan for the NTSB theory.
No. Drawing a properly informed conclusion on the basis of 30 years' experience in my licensed profession is not evidence of "zero objectivity."

Tom Stalcup is not qualified in my field, nor is he competent to interpret radar data. You are not qualified in my field, nor competent to determine who is. You're desperately trying to compensate for that by trying to substitute knowledge of a conspiracy theory for knowledge of the sciences and disciplines that the conspiracy theory is about. You're not the smartest guy in the room because of it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 07:43 PM   #2435
MBDK
Muse
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
Since you wear the label of a "critical thinker," surely you bothered to read the TWA 800 Project's rebuttal to the NTSB's response, right? Right? You didn't just run to the NTSB's response and uncritically accept it without reading the other side, did you? Well, it looks like you did. FYI, a basic element of critical thinking is to examine all sides of an issue before reaching a conclusion about it.

You have a valid point, IF the rebuttal actually presented detailed grounds upon which the claim is based and are not repetitious of proposed findings submitted pursuant to 49 CFR - § 845.13, or of positions previously advanced. Because if the rebuttal does meet that reasonable criteria, they could have filed another petition for reconsideration or modification of report. Then the NTSB would have to provide a response to that "rebuttal". If that rebuttal does not meet that criteria, there is no reason to look for it, much less to consider it to have any value in this discussion. That being the case, I have absolutely no interest in considering YOUR promotion of what is basically a red herring for their supporters to scrap over.

Provide evidence that will actually stand up to professional criteria in the proper veins, and I would be happy to look it over. Otherwise, you are just presenting a juvenile wailing and gnashing of teeth by the TWA 800 Project for not getting their way.
MBDK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 08:04 PM   #2436
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,536
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
Such polemic suggests you are not here for serious discussion. Obviously, we don't have that information yet because that is some of the very information that has been withheld and that researchers have been trying to obtain via FOIA lawsuits. I already listed some of the many sources that are still, inexplicably and inexcusably, "classified" that pertain to those issues.
TWA-800 missile conspiracy is a joke. No need to take it seriously.

The US Navy can tell you where all of their ships were at the time of the crash. Fleet Numerical would have had that then, and would be copied through them into archives. Surface fleet movement doesn't stay classified beyond 20 years. If you wanted to claim a submarine launched the missile you'd have better ground to stand on because submarine movements require a lot of work to declassify, and most records remain in the dark - where they belong.

Quote:
I'm curious: Are you still waiting for the NTSB to identify the ignition source of the alleged spark that supposedly blew up the center wing tank? Are you still waiting for the NTSB to explain how the alleged spark magically got into the center wing tank through wiring that was specifically designed to prevent just such an occurrence?
Similar wear was found in wiring in other 747 fuel tanks. Not sure why this is an issue. Fuel tanks have exploded before and after TWA-800. Where are the claims of US Navy missiles in those cases?

Quote:
Are you still waiting for the NTSB to produce a shred of evidence that this alleged spark magically got through the surge protection at one end of the FQIS and then even more magically jumped over the gap between the FQIS electrodes, the same gap that in Boeing tests prevented 3,000 volts from creating a spark in the center fuel tank?
Not magic, just basic electrical issues. It only had to happen once, under the right conditions. And it did.

Quote:
Are you still waiting for the NTSB to explain why they omitted from their report the fact that on April 14, 1995, the TWA 800 plane was hit by lightning on its approach to Rome Airport but that the center fuel tank did not explode, even though the lightning went through it (and also through the number 4 reserve tank, the number 4 main tank, and the number 3 main tank)? A surge of lightning traversed the center wing tank and three other tanks but did not cause any of those tanks to explode, yet we're supposed to believe that a spark from a short circuit outside the center fuel tank magically found its way into that tank and caused it to explode.
Let's see, if I recall 6th grade science class. Aircraft like the 747 are designed to take a direct hit from lighting. I think they called it "grounding", where the massive electrical charge is channeled through the airframe safely. Not sure, but I don't think the FAA will approve the airframe for commercial sale.

How about you post the maintenance log from TWA on the post incident inspection for us?

See, lightning comes from the OUTSIDE of the airplane. The short-circuit that cause the explosion came from INSIDE the tank. The circuit in this case was not grounded due to wear. I'm not an engineer, but I have a vacuum cleaner where the cord wore to bare wire. I got rid of the vacuum cleaner because I didn't want to risk fire from the bare wire as I cleaned.


Quote:
What??? What are you talking about? The "crap" about "the crew and passengers boarding" was regarding the TWA 800 plane before it took off for Hawaii at 12:35 p.m. on June 10, 1996, i.e., the day the bomb-sniffing training was supposedly conducted on it. We're not talking about the day of the accident but the day when the training was supposedly done on the TWA 800 plane in St. Louis.
Doesn't matter. There was no bomb. There is no evidence of a bomb. We had Pan Am-103, where a bomb was used, we know what that looks like. TWA-800 wasn't bombed, nor was it struck by a missile.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 08:56 PM   #2437
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,413
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Let's see, if I recall 6th grade science class. Aircraft like the 747 are designed to take a direct hit from lighting. I think they called it "grounding", where the massive electrical charge is channeled through the airframe safely. Not sure, but I don't think the FAA will approve the airframe for commercial sale.
Correct. Regulations requiring protection against catastrophic effects of lightning strikes went into effect in 1970 (14 CFR § 25.581). Design modifications in the industry actually began following the infamous 1964 crash of a Boeing 707 after a lightning strike. Special instructions for certifying aircraft fuel systems to withstand lightning strikes were last revised in 2018. Certification of a design for commercial airframes requires subjecting actual airframes to actual (albeit artificial) lightning strikes.

Every airframe you've ever flown in has been struck by lightning roughly once every 1,000 operating hours. This is something that can't be avoided, so it's rigorously designed for by managing conduction paths. The question is not about planned-for conduction paths, but unplanned-for arc paths.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2023, 10:59 PM   #2438
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,536
The reason I remember is the science teacher showed a movie about lightning, and that test facility in New Mexico where they were abusing a B-52. The side benefit of this education came in the library where we mastered rubbing our shoes on the carpet to build up a static charge to shock our friends.

Science is fun.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2023, 06:04 AM   #2439
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,385
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Correct. Regulations requiring protection against catastrophic effects of lightning strikes went into effect in 1970 (14 CFR § 25.581). Design modifications in the industry actually began following the infamous 1964 crash of a Boeing 707 after a lightning strike. Special instructions for certifying aircraft fuel systems to withstand lightning strikes were last revised in 2018. Certification of a design for commercial airframes requires subjecting actual airframes to actual (albeit artificial) lightning strikes.

Every airframe you've ever flown in has been struck by lightning roughly once every 1,000 operating hours. This is something that can't be avoided, so it's rigorously designed for by managing conduction paths. The question is not about planned-for conduction paths, but unplanned-for arc paths.
When the movie “The Omen” was produced back in the 70’s the marketers tried to do a bunch of hooey claims about how the real devil was trying to stop production of the film. They sensationalized a bunch of typical production issues and triumphed with “the producers plane ws STRUCK BY LIGHTNING on the way to the filming location.” Every experienced pilot was like “ummm, that happens all the time”.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <-
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2023, 07:38 AM   #2440
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,413
I don't think there's any serious question that airframes are designed to be struck by lightning with minimal ill effects, especially to the fuel system. The argument seems to be that a fuel system designed to absorb and redirect a lightning strike safely is not likely to be susceptible to less energetic electrical arcs in its own wiring. "You want me to believe X destroyed the plane when it successfully withstood the much more powerful Y."

If that's the argument, then it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Yes, airframes are expected to cope with what they're designed for, but not expected to cope as well with degradations and circumstances outside their design envelope. That's why we have design margins. If you invade those margins routinely, at least one such excursion is likely to end in failure.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.