New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[chris lz]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

On a second thought, I'm starting to have doubts about the claim of a spark in the fuel tank.

Anders, just a suggestion. Why don't you spend a few days reviewing all the evidence instead of giving us hourly progress reports of your research, where you keep changing your mind from one day to the next? Then you might figure out more conclusively where you stand before changing your mind again.

cheers

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by chris lz

Anders, just a suggestion. Why don't you spend a few days reviewing all the evidence instead of giving us hourly progress reports of your research, where you keep changing your mind from one day to the next? Then you might figure out more conclusively where you stand before changing your mind again.

cheers

I kind of jumped in when I heard about the new demand for reinvestigating the TWA 800 incident, and I have basically zero prior knowledge about it, sorry about that.

But I thought it could be good to bring up the old arguments I find again, since it has been a while since this incident was discussed much. And me reporting on the fly can be useful for other people new to the topic.

[chris lz]

Originally Posted by beachnut

From det cord used for bomb dog practice on 800 at an airport before the crash.

As I stated, there are exactly two things I agree with the CTists on. One is the Zoom Climb evidence. The other is Jack Cashill's research showing this exercise happened on a different TWA airplane. This is all cleared up in the final report: almost all the wreckage was in the water for over two days. Explosives experts stated that the small trace amounts found would not have been able to adhere to the wreckage for more than this period. So most likely they were introduced unintentionally from clothing or other materials used by explosives team brought in to examine the wreckage.

[chris lz]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I kind of jumped in when I heard about the new demand for reinvestigating the TWA 800 incident, and I have basically zero prior knowledge about it, sorry about that.

But I thought it could be good to bring up the old arguments I find again, since it has been a while since this incident was discussed much. And me reporting on the fly can be useful for other people new to the topic.

With that said, here are two things to chew on that helped convince me there was most likely no missile.

1 William Tobin's sworn testimony explaining the FBI's certainty this was sabotage. It refutes the notion the FBI was covering up sabotage. This certainty reached its apex when on Aug 16th of 1996, Jim Kallstrom appreared dressed up to go on TV and tell the world a bomb brought down the plane. Tobin prevented what would have been a PR nightmare. This explains the FBI's clashes with the NTSB during this period.

2 The unexplained time gap in the witness descriptions. We don't have precise to-the-second documentation of the break up sequence, but radar and airborne witnesses give a reasonably approximate chronology. It goes like this: Cwt explosion occurs on or right after 8:31:12pm. From here, whether the plane climbed or dived is anyone's guess. But very few people saw this initial event. It wasn't until the main fuselage had dropped to 5-7 thousand ft that most of the 700 witnesses began to notice it. It was then that it developed into a massive fireball. The streak of light was seen just before this. But by this time the plane had been climbing/falling for at lest 23 seconds and possibly up to 40 seconds. But more importantly, the fireball took just 10 seconds to drop all the way to the ocean. So if the streak of light hd been a missile, the entire accident sequence would have to have been not more than 15 seconds - something that no one believes. This indicates the streak was a late stage event.

2a This is illustrated by chopper pilot Fred Meyer. He stated that in not more than 4 seconds after the streak ended, there were a series of explosions. He and his two co-pilots were in agreement the resulting fireball took just 10 seconds to reach the ocean. This 14 second duration is at odds with the minimum possible accident durtion recorded by radar (34-38.5 seconds), and may well have been as long as 50 or more seconds. Fred Meyer thus had to reject his own testimony to make it fit his belief he saw ordnance. (Another testament to the power of belief.)

2b The pilot of Eastwind flight 507 had the accident plane in sight for some time. His time stamped message to ATC is consistent with a late-stage explosion event. He reported seeing no missile.

Other points mentioned above:

-residue match: The allegation of rocket fuel was loudly announced by James Sanders in his first book. It came back to haunt him, so he quickly downplayed this in his second book, reminding his readers he DID NOT have a positive confirmation of rocket propellent. "Consistent with" is how the result came back, which translates to "inconclusive."

-The voltage/spark evidence is clearly explained by an NTSB investigator in another F800 documentary seen on Youtube. I can dig it up if you don't find it.

My theory: as the main fireball began to form, there were pre-explosions giving off one or more streaks. A firework often does this. So What is the big mystery?

regards

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by chris lz

Explosives experts stated that the small trace amounts found would not have been able to adhere to the wreckage for more than this period.

That's curious. Because the experts discussed the explosives traces in 1997:

From about 1 hour and 13 minutes: TWA Flight 800 Investigation Status (1997) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN_WsG9MMx4

Don't you think the experts should have known about such things as you mention?

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

That's curious. Because the experts discussed the explosives traces in 1997:

From about 1 hours and 13 minutes: TWA Flight 800 Investigation Status (1997) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN_WsG9MMx4

Don't you think the experts should have known about such things as you mention?

This coming from the person who leaves out important details about how the plane had just recently had explosives in it used for training exorcises. In favor of a magical missile that detonates it's target before it is launched.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

This coming from the person who leaves out important details about how the plane had just recently had explosives in it used for training exorcises. In favor of a magical missile that detonates it's target before it is launched.

If the sea water would have removed the chemical traces of explosives then the experts in the 1997 hearing would have known about it and mentioned it. They didn't.

[chris lz]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

That's curious. Because the experts discussed the explosives traces in 1997:

From about 1 hours and 13 minutes: TWA Flight 800 Investigation Status (1997) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN_WsG9MMx4

Don't you think the experts should have known about such things as you mention?

Interesting flashback. Kallstrom had good answers. The story is complicated by the fact traces were found in several places on the plane. So if I were to revise my position at all, it might be to acknowledge the possibility the dog training exercise might have been on this plane after all, and may have survived the 2 weeks under water for the reason Kallstrom gave. However, the other traces were apparently in no position to survive for that long, and that is probably why the most logical explanation is accidental contamination later. Kallstrom himself was the lead investigator, and as Tobin's testimony shows, he could be impulsive and willing to run rough shod over his own experts. I would therefore rather hear from the experts directly than rely on his testimony, which at times has been sloppy.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by chris lz

-The voltage/spark evidence is clearly explained by an NTSB investigator in another F800 documentary seen on Youtube. I can dig it up if you don't find it.

I have only found the opposite claim. That the investigators were unable to reproduce such spark with airplane electronics.

From about 18:45: Did U.S. Gov't Lie About TWA Flight 800? Ex-Investigators Seek Probe as New Evidence Emerges. 2 of 2 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAkIdb-DUYQ

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by pteridine

You can be as sure as you want on a trackable public forum. We are just now seeing such in the public press and the various weapons expositions. A while back, the Russians had SA-19's on a few Kilo's but these are small missiles and may have needed a sailor on the sail to shoot.

Skimmer

The US Submarine Force had no SAMs in 1996. If they were to experiment with one, there are ranges for this, none anywhere near where the plane exploded. Total unfounded conjecture.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Twiggett

I know nothing about the experts calling for a re-investigation but I can hazard one guess as to why they would: Money. It's possible that they are due to receive compensation for their part in the documentary that is tied to the proceeds the film generates.

Surely the experts are far too proud to merely look for a short-term profit. They have their reputation and social status to think of.

So with that assumption, either the official version is correct, and then there must be some very tricky psyop reason for the experts to demand a reinvestigation.

Or, it was a terrorist attack with a small missile hitting the plane (ruling out friendly fire). And then it will be interesting to see if the coverup will be revealed, and that too may be for political purposes!

Either way, I think it's a pretty interesting case, and I'm sure the families of the victims would like to have a reinvestigation, just to make sure.

[matt.tansy]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I have only found the opposite claim. That the investigators were unable to reproduce such spark with airplane electronics.

From about 18:45: Did U.S. Gov't Lie About TWA Flight 800? Ex-Investigators Seek Probe as New Evidence Emerges. 2 of 2 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAkIdb-DUYQ

Stalcup actually said, "...the NTSB has never duplicated that spark from airplane electronics."

That is very different than what you said he said. He never said, "the investigators were unable to reproduce such spark with airplane electronics."

You have interpreted what he said as "they tried and failed to duplicate a spark." The NTSB never tried to duplicate the spark.

They did, however, blow up a center wing tank and studied the effects of a small explosive charge on the fuel tank and surrounding structure. None of the damage caused by the explosive charges was observed anywhere on the remains of TWA 800. See page 139 of the NTSB report.

[Anders Lindman]

I just came to think of an outrageous conspiracy theory. That there were no people on TWA 800 and it was all a huge psyop event. The plane flew by remote control/auto pilot and the fuel tank was detonated remotely at a chosen position/time. And the black box recordings fabricated by having the radio communication going live to another location.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

Stalcup actually said, "...the NTSB has never duplicated that spark from airplane electronics."

That is very different than what you said he said. He never said, "the investigators were unable to reproduce such spark with airplane electronics."

You have interpreted what he said as "they tried and failed to duplicate a spark." The NTSB never tried to duplicate the spark.

They did, however, blow up a center wing tank and studied the effects of a small explosive charge on the fuel tank and surrounding structure. None of the damage caused by the explosive charges was observed anywhere on the remains of TWA 800. See page 139 of the NTSB report.

Ok, fair enough, he didn't say NTSB and the FBI, only the NTSB. Still, I haven't seen any confirmation of the spark hypothesis.

ETA: And maybe the NTSB never tried to replicate it. But then why not? Did the FBI try to replicate the spark using 747 airplane electronics?

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

If the sea water would have removed the chemical traces of explosives then the experts in the 1997 hearing would have known about it and mentioned it. They didn't.

And?

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Either way, I think it's a pretty interesting case, and I'm sure the families of the victims would like to have a reinvestigation, just to make sure.

Is that how you justify this nonsense? Bringing up all the same things that have already been gone over and debunked long ago, but drag the families of the victims into it to justify it?

There won't be any reinvestigation. That would require new evidence. You have provided none.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

ETA: And maybe the NTSB never tried to replicate it. But then why not? Did the FBI try to replicate the spark using 747 airplane electronics?

They tried to replicate it using a 3-D printer left by mistake by the nephilim, unfortunately the 13 amp fuse had blown and they only had a 5 amp.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Is that how you justify this nonsense? Bringing up all the same things that have already been gone over and debunked long ago, but drag the families of the victims into it to justify it?

There won't be any reinvestigation. That would require new evidence. You have provided none.

What victims? Ok, before you wonder what the heck I'm talking about, I have shifted track into this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=173

Get ready for some far-out conspiracy theories. First, let's start with the black box recordings:

"However, 0.73 and 0.68 seconds before the CVR recording stopped, there were brief (2 microseconds) changes in the electrical system background noise hum recorded by the captainís position CVR channel." -- http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf

2 microseconds gaps. Those are very brief gaps in the background noise recorded. Not something possible to achieve in real cockpit conditions I would surmise. Those are artifacts produced through other means which indicates fakery of the voice recordings.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

Get ready for some far-out conspiracy theories.

It was to be expected Anders.
Get ready to be ridiculed.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

2 microseconds gaps. Those are very brief gaps in the background noise recorded. Not something possible to achieve in real cockpit conditions I would surmise. Those are artifacts produced through other means which indicates fakery of the voice recordings.

Translation:

You have no idea what you're talking about but, hope no one else notices.

You're "surmise" is the least likely cause.

I know where you pulled this from but, I believe the rules forbid saying it.

Tell us, what is your proof a CVR will record at 2 millisecond resolution? Did you hear this?

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

It was to be expected Anders.
Get ready to be ridiculed.

How can I be ridiculed for this smoking gun:

"The CVR [Black box Cockpit Voice Recorder] recording consisted of four channels of audio information: one channel contained audio information recorded by the CAM, and the other three channels contained audio information recorded through the radio/intercom selector panels at the captain, first officer, and flight engineer positions."

"A sound spectrum study of the information recorded by the CVR revealed that twice within the last second of the CVR recording (about 0.73 and 0.68 seconds before the recording stopped), the captain's channel recorded harmonic tones at the 400 Hertz (Hz) frequency, but it did not record other electrical system background noise that it had recorded previously throughout the recording. These other electrical system background noises were recorded on the other CVR channels without interruption."

From: http://www.ntsb.org/Wiringcargodoor/...es/AAR0003.pdf

How can the the captain's channel stop recording background noise for brief periods while still recording the harmonic tones, while at the same time the other channels recorded the background noise?

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by DGM

Tell us, what is your proof a CVR will record at 2 millisecond resolution? Did you hear this?

It was only the Captain's channel that had those gaps. The other channels recorded the background noise continuously.

And the gaps were not totally silent! The 400 Hz harmonics were still recorded.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

How can the the captain's channel stop recording background noise for brief periods while still recording the harmonic tones, while at the same time the other channels recorded the background noise?

This is a case where you should actually read the links you quote. I'm not going to tell you, that would be too easy.

Why are you so lazy?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

It was only the Captain's channel that had those gaps. The other channels recorded the background noise continuously.

And the gaps were not totally silent! The 400 Hz harmonics were still recorded.

No kidding.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

"A sound spectrum study of the information recorded by the CVR revealed that twice within the last second of the CVR recording (about 0.73 and 0.68 seconds before the recording stopped), the captain's channel recorded harmonic tones at the 400 Hertz (Hz) frequency, but it did not record other electrical system background noise that it had recorded previously throughout the recording. These other electrical system background noises were recorded on the other CVR channels without interruption."

[DGM]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Spoil sport.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

That's my point. How could the other channels still record the background noise, while there were 2 brief gaps in the captain's channel?

[fitzgibbon]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Is that really an aviation safety forum? Looks more like an aviation safety section of a forum for people who like photos of jets.

Not impressed with that as a talent pool.

It is (name notwithstanding). Its previous incarnation was (IIRC) airline disasters.net but there was a major server crash a few years back and this site's owned by the same owners. I have to admit being surprised at the CT uptake on this one; usually the discussion is level is of higher quality than that. pprune.org might be worth a look

Fitz

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

That's my point. How could the other channels still record the background noise, while there were 2 brief gaps in the captain's channel?

What do you think this would cause us to miss?

The background noise is the same on all channels. Are you claiming "they" altered something the captain whispered (really softly and stupid quickly)?

[matt.tansy]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

That's my point. How could the other channels still record the background noise, while there were 2 brief gaps in the captain's channel?

Because they were different channels!!!!!!!!!!

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by DGM

What do you think this would cause us to miss?

The background noise is the same on all channels. Are you claiming "they" altered something the captain whispered (really softly and stupid quickly)?

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

Because they were different channels!!!!!!!!!!

How could just one channel have two very short gaps in the recording of the background noise? Even if that channel had a separate power supply, it's impossible to cause such short gaps (2 microseconds) by simply having the power supply disrupted. It's way too short gaps for that. There are always capacitor effects making the power supply and the recording device much more sluggish than to be able to cause audio recording gaps in 2 microseconds spans.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

How could just one channel have two very short gaps in the recording of the background noise? Even if that channel had a separate power supply, it's impossible to cause such short gaps (2 microseconds) by simply having the power supply disrupted. It's way too short gaps for that. There are always capacitor effects making the power supply and the recording device much more sluggish than to be able to cause audio recording gaps in 2 microseconds spans.

Read the paper.

Who said anything about power supply?

Enlighten us and try to remember the other channels are still recording. What do you think this means? What did the captain say in these millionths of a second?

[jargon buster]

Quote:

Read the paper.

He wont do that, he will now link to another random site trying to justify his point, the site he links to will not validate his point but he hopes it will cause people to look the other way while he tries to shift the emphasis onto something he wants to talk about rather than what he has been asked to provide.

[HotRodDeluxe]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

From the webpage: "1) For the missile to be seen, it would need to be an SM-2 or larger. Therefore, it wasn't a terrorist."

It was darkening outside, and surely even the engine of a small missile would have been visible. Some witnesses even described it as fireworks going up towards the plane.

"2) Standards require large launching platforms."

No, some people talk about a small fast-going boat leaving the area directly after the incident. Say a Stinger missile could easily have been fired from a small boat.

"3) Of all the people who saw the streak, none saw the launch. This is strange, given that launch pyrotechnics are much brighter than the engine exhaust. Assuming an over-the-horizon shot means that the missile would be in coast and therefore not visible."

From that far away, the launch would not have been significantly brighter than the rest of the travel path for the missile. See for example: FIM-92 Stinger Surface-to-Air Live Fire Exercise -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av2BzaXF6lg

"4) 98% of the plane was recovered. How could the NTSB, made up in large part of civilians (some of whom would *love* to prove that it was a missile) hide the shrapnel damage? Please do not use Goddard/Rivero's entry and exit wounds unless you want to discuss the splaying of sheet metal in a semi-monocoque structure with an ex-aerospace engineer. I'll win that debate. Hell, I have pictures of gunshot holes that bend toward* the shooter."

The missile hit one of the wings according to the new documentary. Sure, some shrapnel damage would still be found and I think it was in this video (about the new documentary) they talk about holes after such damage: Did U.S. Gov't Lie About TWA Flight 800? Ex-Investigators Seek Probe as New Evidence Emerges. 2 of 2 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAkIdb-DUYQ

"5) Speaking of people, thousands would be involved. This would include the ships crew that would know they fired a missile off Long Island right when a plane was downed. How do you keep them quiet? Add to this the civilians who are involved (contractors, etc.) and the incredible paper trail that follows every missile. A hefty number of sailors who were in the service in 1996 have left it. How do you silence them?"

If it was one of the wings that was hit and disintegrated mostly, then hiding the shrapnel damage would be easy, so only a few people would be in on it so to speak. Sure, thousands of people higher up in the chain of command would probably know about it, but they keep quiet because of national security.

"6) Why shoot missiles off of Long Island when proper airspace is available (and no, the warning zone was not hot until after the crash, regardless of what Jim "What, Me Add?" Sanders says)?"

A smaller missile would have limited reach, and launching from a boat is then a possibility since that would reduce the risk of getting caught right in the action so to speak, while operating and preparing the missile equipment.

Yes, I've read all the material on that site, but thanks for reprinting it here. How is this relevant to the traces of pre-detonation explosive material?

[DGM]

Anders, this is real easy.

The CVR records 4 channels. The microphones of the captain and the first officer, the "com" channel (this is what the crew hears, including each other) and an ambient (it is in the background).

The crews mic also picks up background.

What do you think all these layers missed?

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by DGM

Anders, this is real easy.

The CVR records 4 channels. The microphones of the captain and the first officer, the "com" channel (this is what the crew hears, including each other) and an ambient (it is in the background).

The crews mic also picks up background.

What do you think all these layers missed?

"The CVR [Black box Cockpit Voice Recorder] recording consisted of four channels of audio information: one channel contained audio information recorded by the CAM, and the other three channels contained audio information recorded through the radio/intercom selector panels at the captain, first officer, and flight engineer positions." -- http://www.ntsb.org/Wiringcargodoor/...es/AAR0003.pdf

Only the captain's channel had the two very brief noise gaps of 2 microseconds (each I assume or 1 microsecond each).

I would challenge the investigators to reproduce such gaps in the audio recording using a similar environment and the same time of equipment.

You could do a thought experiment yourself and explain how those gaps in the audio recording were caused. I doubt you will be able to produce a convincing case however.

The official explanation is this:

"The NAWC-AD testing indicated that application of an electrical load resulted in a reduction in the total harmonic distortion voltages measured at the captainís CVR channel." -- http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf

Reduction of the recorded noise, ok, but how fast were they able to switch on and off that reduction? In 2 microseconds spans? I don't think so.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

<Snipping stuff that does not support what he is implying>

Reduction of the recorded noise, ok, but how fast were they able to switch on and off that reduction? In 2 microseconds spans? I don't think so.

So, what did we miss in these milliseconds? Remembering the other channels were still recording.

[Corsair 115]

And the story told by the human remains continues to be ignored...

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

And the story told by the human remains continues to be ignored...

Yeah but, WE'RE MISSING MILLIONTHS OF A SECOND OF AUDIO!

[TheRedWorm]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

And the story told by the human remains continues to be ignored...

That's only because it is the actual smoking gun. Truthers seem to never address evidence that is definitive with anything other than, "faked," a handwave, or dead silence. Rather predictable.