New TWA Flight 800 film coming out - Page 9

JayUtah · 25th June 2013, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by akama1

Something travelling at Mach 4 would be very loud, and quiet obvious to anyone near by me thinks.

As an engineer having worked in aerospace and spent a considerable amount of time near high-performance aircraft, I'll offer my opinion that something moving at Mach 4 in that proximity would, by virtue of exhaust noise and/or sonic effect, be bowel-emptying loud.

matt.tansy · 25th June 2013, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by chris lz

The claim is from several posters. But when I looked at the FIRO site just now, it claims the various radars indicate a Mach 2 ejecta speed. Might a CWT explosion be violent enough to expel something at 1400-1700 whatever it is mph?

Is this the page? http://www.flight800.org/petition/pet_sect4.htm

Figure 2 says the average speed was Mach 2.

The first radar debris claims says:

Quote:

FACT: Less than 4.3 seconds after a spontaneous midair explosion aboard Flight 800, a target appeared on radar approximately 1.5 nautical miles to the east of the explosion (Figure 2.).

FACT: The target was recorded again on the following sweep (4.7 seconds after the first sweep) about 1/10 of a mile further to the southeast (see Figure 3 below). This position was consistent with where right-fuselage, center wing tank and forward cargo bay components were recovered, and was more than 1 nautical mile from where the main wreckage impacted the ocean.[3]

To meet all their "facts" of 4.3 seconds, 1.5 nm distant, and average speed of Mach 2 would require either a very dense object of the type you would more likely find on an Abrams Main Battle Tank than a 747, or an absurdly high initial velocity (like Mach 14).

A chunk of aircraft that meets the criteria of the first fact could then not meet the second fact, namely only traveling .1 nm by the time of the next sweep. It would travel a lot farther than that.

SUSpilot · 25th June 2013, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

As an engineer having worked in aerospace and spent a considerable amount of time near high-performance aircraft, I'll offer my opinion that something moving at Mach 4 in that proximity would, by virtue of exhaust noise and/or sonic effect, be bowel-emptying loud.

Jay, that, and I am not being sarcastic here, is now one of my favorite descriptive phrases.

chris lz · 25th June 2013, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

Is this the page? http://www.flight800.org/petition/pet_sect4.htm

Figure 2 says the average speed was Mach 2.

The first radar debris claims says:

To meet all their "facts" of 4.3 seconds, 1.5 nm distant, and average speed of Mach 2 would require either a very dense object of the type you would more likely find on an Abrams Main Battle Tank than a 747, or an absurdly high initial velocity (like Mach 14).

A chunk of aircraft that meets the criteria of the first fact could then not meet the second fact, namely only traveling .1 nm by the time of the next sweep. It would travel a lot farther than that.

So, what else might explain the radar?

matt.tansy · 25th June 2013, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by chris lz

So, what else might explain the radar?

An indirect echo, atmospheric turbulence, a boat, a cloud, a bird... it could be any number of things.

beachnut · 25th June 2013, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by chris lz

So, what else might explain the radar?

RADAR sweeps at 5 to 12 seconds. RADAR has reflections. False targets. Did they track the targets for long? Do they have the estimated altitude?

Look up RADAR for the real values of sweep, and the limitations. Flight 800 showed no damage from explosives. There was no supersonic booms.

When SCUDS came down, there was a supersonic trail which sounded like thunder, after the SCUD arrived. Guess who was going faster than the speed of sound? MACH 4, would be faster than the SR-71, and at 13,000 feet, it would be an event; I can't imagine the sounds.

When we went on our dollar ride in the 38, we went supersonic above 30,000 feet to minimize the footprint of our Boom. When we made mistakes and went supersonic, we had to log our Booms.

Anders Lindman · 26th June 2013, 03:19 AM

I found something highly suspicious. The news anchor in the video says that there WERE bodies found, and yet when he interviews the Coast Guard boss, the answers about bodies found are not only incredibly vague, he doesn't actually confirm it at ALL. And the news anchor said that the ONLY way TWA 800 could have exploded in mid air according to an FAA expert was either a collision with another aircraft or a bomb. From about 3 minutes into the video:

TWA Flight 800 Radar Anomaly Conspiracy Theories and 'Meteor or Missile' Cover-up Mystery -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTpc_hK_NA

So both the accidental spark hypothesis, and the claim that bodies were found sound shaky at best.

Dcdrac · 26th June 2013, 05:43 AM

anders youtube videos prove nothing find some real evidence please.

Anders Lindman · 26th June 2013, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

anders youtube videos prove nothing find some real evidence please.

But those are credible sources in that video! Here is another example from the same video, with NTSB expert Hank Hughes describing how the explosion was from the outside of the plane, not from the inside (from about 16 minutes): TWA Flight 800 Radar Anomaly Conspiracy Theories and 'Meteor or Missile' Cover-up Mystery -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTpc_hK_NA

He rejects the spark theory and also notice that he didn't say it was a missile (at least not in that clip). And that fits with my theory because it would have been pretty tricky to mount a trigger device inside the fuel tank. It would have been easier to stick a shape charge on the outside of the tank.

Anders Lindman · 26th June 2013, 07:35 AM

If the the TWA 800 incident was just a dress rehearsal for the 9/11 attacks, then how could the government and all its agencies have been fooled, AGAIN?! Didn't they learn anything? Of course, they learned a lot! A lot about how to prevent a plane crash with zero passenger to fool them again. No expenses spared, security up over the ears, and so on and so on.

What they didn't take into account was that the next such event would be done WITHOUT even using any real planes. Sooo fooled, the government was, again.

Anders Lindman · 26th June 2013, 08:39 AM

One weak point in my conspiracy theory is that how did they manage to NOT fill TWA 800 with passengers and crew members?

The luggage could have been loaded as usual.

One possibility is that the lack of control at the airport would have allowed the passengers and the crew to simply not have boarded the plane, and instead been transported away by other vehicles. And many of the workers at the airport at the time could have been cabal members.

"Mick Donahue, a former antiterrorism expert for the Central Intelligence Agency who now runs a private security company, said: ''The airlines typically assume that the secure area is secure, and that their employees can keep their eye on the baggage while they do their other jobs. Neither of those assumptions is necessarily true.''

Mr. Donahue said the baggage-handling arrangements at American airports posed ''glaring problems,'' adding, ''It's not realistic to expect people to be screening access or working security when their primary job is to load cargo or pave potholes in the parking lot.''

That vulnerability was graphically demonstrated less than a week after the crash when a local law enforcement official pinned on a plastic badge and took a remarkable stroll through Kennedy that he should never have been allowed to complete." -- http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/11/ny...ter-crash.html

Dcdrac · 26th June 2013, 08:57 AM

one weakpoint in the conspiracy theory is, it is a conspiracy theory and therefore woo

chris lz · 26th June 2013, 01:22 PM

Matt & Beachnut, appreciate the replies.

chris lz · 26th June 2013, 03:30 PM

Just found this from report on Pan Am flight 103

Quote:

The structural break-up of an aircraft releases many items which were excellent radar reflectors eg. aluminium cladding, luggage containers, sections of skin and aircraft structure. These and other debris with reflective properties produce "clutter" on the radar by confusing the radar electronics in a manner similar to chaff ejected by military aircraft to avoid radar detection.

Even when the target is not masked by clutter repetitive detection of individual targets may not be possible because detection is a function of the target effective area which, for wreckage with its irregular shape, is not constant but fluctuates wildly. These factors make it impossible to follow individual returns through successive sweeps of the radar head.

Quote:

At the next radar return there is no SSR data, only 4 primary returns. One return is along track close to the expected position of the aircraft if it had continued at its previous speed and heading. There are 2 returns to the left of track and 1 to the right of track. Remembering the point made earlier about clutter, it is unlikely that each of these returns are real targets.

If I read this correctly, is this further confirmation against TWA800 producing real Mach 2+ returns?

matt.tansy · 26th June 2013, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by chris lz

Just found this from report on Pan Am flight 103

If I read this correctly, is this further confirmation against TWA800 producing real Mach 2+ returns?

Not at all. An explosion inside could propel small pieces of aircraft out at Mach 2. But they would be decelerated so quickly they wouldn't travel more than a hundred meters from the aircraft.

chris lz · 26th June 2013, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

Not at all. An explosion inside could propel small pieces of aircraft out at Mach 2. But they would be decelerated so quickly they wouldn't travel more than a hundred meters from the aircraft.

Thanks. But I'm more curious about the part that says "it is unlikely that each of these returns are real targets."

Isn't that saying that primary radar returns may give faulty hits or positions due to the scatter of small debris in an aircraft break-up?

matt.tansy · 26th June 2013, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by chris lz

Thanks. But I'm more curious about the part that says "it is unlikely that each of these returns are real targets."

Isn't that saying that primary radar returns may give faulty hits or positions due to the scatter of small debris in an aircraft break-up?

The wording is confusing. Aircraft skin fluttering in the wind is a real target; it is also clutter. Maybe by "real target" they meant the aircraft itself.

aggle-rithm · 26th June 2013, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I found something highly suspicious. The news anchor in the video says that there WERE bodies found, and yet when he interviews the Coast Guard boss, the answers about bodies found are not only incredibly vague, he doesn't actually confirm it at ALL.

So what are you waiting for, man?! Get over there straight away and start your investigation!

We'll be waiting right here.

LSSBB · 26th June 2013, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Sounds like a job for BCR.

FYI BCR has a conflict of interest.

Anders Lindman · 26th June 2013, 10:50 PM

"3 Reasons to Doubt the TWA Flight 800 Conspiracy Theory
...
There is no physical evidence of a bomb blast—no perforations of the fuselage, the fuel tank, or the bodies of the victims." -- http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...heory-15629315

No perforation of the fuel tank? What kind of debunking is that? A small shape charge placed on the outside of the fuel tank would produce a single small perforation that could be undetectable because of the following damage caused by the exploding fuel-air mix.

Dcdrac · 27th June 2013, 06:19 AM

how do you know that anders are you now an explosives and ballistics expert?

aggle-rithm · 27th June 2013, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

how do you know that anders are you now an explosives and ballistics expert?

No, just a troll, which makes him an instant expert on everything.

Anders Lindman · 27th June 2013, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

how do you know that anders are you now an explosives and ballistics expert?

And you believe the experts telling you it was a spark? Just asking. Do I know that a shape charge would leave zero traces? No. But I know that it wouldn't cause the same kind of damage as a missile.

DGM · 27th June 2013, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

. Do I know that a shape charge would leave zero traces? No.

You should before you start making up "theories".

BTW: It would be really, really obvious.

Anders Lindman · 27th June 2013, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

You should before you start making up "theories".

In either case, either the shape charge would leave only very little trace which means it's a piece of cake to cover up. Or it would leave no trace, and wouldn't even need to be covered up.

Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory.

DGM · 27th June 2013, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

In either case, either the shape charge would leave only very little trace which means it's a piece of cake to cover up. Or it would leave no trace, and wouldn't even need to be covered up.

Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory.

Ridiculous. The FBI was able to find traces of an explosive used weeks before in a training exorcise. A shape charge would paint the whole area with residue and would be impossible to cover up. Unless of course you're including the FBI in your conspiracy theory.

beachnut · 27th June 2013, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

In either case, either the shape charge would leave only very little trace which means it's a piece of cake to cover up. Or it would leave no trace, and wouldn't even need to be covered up.

Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory.

Your bomb would leave real evidence.

And a spark, really does light off fuel air in an "empty" tank because of the temperature and pressure. Try science

matt.tansy · 27th June 2013, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory.

Yes, it is incredible that a spark could ignite a flammable gas.

DGM · 27th June 2013, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

Yes, it is incredible that a spark could ignite a flammable gas.

http://i.imgur.com/AAiMaIE.jpg

[ct mode] LOL. now they're claiming a Bic lighter took down the plane................Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...............[/ct mode]

Mudcat · 27th June 2013, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

Your bomb would leave real evidence.

And a spark, really does light off fuel air in an "empty" tank because of the temperature and pressure.

Got to love conspiracy theorists sometimes. What Anders doesn't seem to realize is that even though a fuel tank has no more fuel in it, it still has vapors in it from the fuel. Without proper ventilization a fuel tank can become a ticking time bomb.

This is the reason for FAR Part § 25 Section 981. Yes, I know you're familiar with that just pointing it out to Anders and the other conspiracy theorists.

Anders Lindman · 27th June 2013, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

Yes, it is incredible that a spark could ignite a flammable gas.

http://i.imgur.com/AAiMaIE.jpg

Yes, and that's why the FAA expert said it could only have been a bomb or a collision with another aircraft: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=327

Are we learning yet?

Anders Lindman · 27th June 2013, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

Your bomb would leave real evidence.

And a spark, really does light off fuel air in an "empty" tank because of the temperature and pressure. Try science

But how much of evidence? A shape charge placed directly on the outside of the tank could make a tiny hole and still be able to ignite the fuel/air mix.

And the question is not whether a spark could do the same but if such spark could have happened. Not according an FAA expert it couldn't (see my previous post).

matt.tansy · 27th June 2013, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Yes, and that's why the FAA expert said it could only have been a bomb or a collision with another aircraft: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=327

Are we learning yet?

The FAA expert didn't say that; Koppel said he said that.

Primary sources. How do they work?

Anders Lindman · 27th June 2013, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

The FAA expert didn't say that; Koppel said he said that.

Primary sources. How do they work?

That's a conspiracy theory. Don't you trust mainstream media?

Alareth · 27th June 2013, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Got to love conspiracy theorists sometimes. What Anders doesn't seem to realize is that even though a fuel tank has no more fuel in it, it still has vapors in it from the fuel. Without proper ventilization a fuel tank can become a ticking time bomb.

Counterintuitive concepts often trip up ct's.

Ann empty fuel tank is way more dangerous than a full one.

You are way more likely to cut yourself with a full knife than a sharp one.

Etc...

Dcdrac · 27th June 2013, 12:34 PM

anders what are your qualifications to comment on explosives and ballistics?

Anders Lindman · 27th June 2013, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

anders what are your qualifications to comment on explosives and ballistics?

The experts said that the fuel-air mix in the tank caused a large explosion. I can believe that. At the same time a shape charge placed on the outside of the tank could punch a small hole which would be a vastly different damage than claims of a missile.

Many witnesses CLAIM they saw something shoot up from the surface towards the plane before the explosion. That in itself is curious, because what if the official report is correct, as it may very well be about there was no missile or anything like that. Then a possibility is that those are false witnesses! And that in itself makes it a kind of conspiracy theory.

matt.tansy · 27th June 2013, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Don't you trust mainstream media?

No, I don't.

But since you quoted the MSM without a moment of critical thought, it is obvious you do.

Anders Lindman · 27th June 2013, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

No, I don't.

But since you quoted the MSM without a moment of critical thought, it is obvious you do.

In this case I don't see a reason for why the report about what the FAA person said should have been fabricated.

I actually do trust mainstream media in most cases. It's only when it's about conspiracy theories that I start to doubt some reports. And even then the media may be telling the truth! Because they could have been given false information.

Mudcat · 27th June 2013, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Many witnesses CLAIM they saw something shoot up from the surface towards the plane before the explosion. That in itself is curious, because what if the official report is correct, as it may very well be about there was no missile or anything like that. Then a possibility is that those are false witnesses! And that in itself makes it a kind of conspiracy theory.

That's not right, that's not even wrong!

25th June 2013, 12:32 PM	#322
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	Originally Posted by chris lz The claim is from several posters. But when I looked at the FIRO site just now, it claims the various radars indicate a Mach 2 ejecta speed. Might a CWT explosion be violent enough to expel something at 1400-1700 whatever it is mph? Is this the page? http://www.flight800.org/petition/pet_sect4.htm Figure 2 says the average speed was Mach 2. The first radar debris claims says: Quote: FACT: Less than 4.3 seconds after a spontaneous midair explosion aboard Flight 800, a target appeared on radar approximately 1.5 nautical miles to the east of the explosion (Figure 2.). FACT: The target was recorded again on the following sweep (4.7 seconds after the first sweep) about 1/10 of a mile further to the southeast (see Figure 3 below). This position was consistent with where right-fuselage, center wing tank and forward cargo bay components were recovered, and was more than 1 nautical mile from where the main wreckage impacted the ocean.[3] To meet all their "facts" of 4.3 seconds, 1.5 nm distant, and average speed of Mach 2 would require either a very dense object of the type you would more likely find on an Abrams Main Battle Tank than a 747, or an absurdly high initial velocity (like Mach 14). A chunk of aircraft that meets the criteria of the first fact could then not meet the second fact, namely only traveling .1 nm by the time of the next sweep. It would travel a lot farther than that.
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	__________________ Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000 probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess

25th June 2013, 10:22 PM	#324
chris lz Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 182	Originally Posted by matt.tansy Is this the page? http://www.flight800.org/petition/pet_sect4.htm Figure 2 says the average speed was Mach 2. The first radar debris claims says: To meet all their "facts" of 4.3 seconds, 1.5 nm distant, and average speed of Mach 2 would require either a very dense object of the type you would more likely find on an Abrams Main Battle Tank than a 747, or an absurdly high initial velocity (like Mach 14). A chunk of aircraft that meets the criteria of the first fact could then not meet the second fact, namely only traveling .1 nm by the time of the next sweep. It would travel a lot farther than that. So, what else might explain the radar?
chris lz Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 182

25th June 2013, 10:50 PM	#325
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	Originally Posted by chris lz So, what else might explain the radar? An indirect echo, atmospheric turbulence, a boat, a cloud, a bird... it could be any number of things.
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	__________________ Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000 probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess

26th June 2013, 03:19 AM	#327
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	I found something highly suspicious. The news anchor in the video says that there WERE bodies found, and yet when he interviews the Coast Guard boss, the answers about bodies found are not only incredibly vague, he doesn't actually confirm it at ALL. And the news anchor said that the ONLY way TWA 800 could have exploded in mid air according to an FAA expert was either a collision with another aircraft or a bomb. From about 3 minutes into the video: TWA Flight 800 Radar Anomaly Conspiracy Theories and 'Meteor or Missile' Cover-up Mystery -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTpc_hK_NA So both the accidental spark hypothesis, and the claim that bodies were found sound shaky at best.
	Last edited by Anders Lindman; 26th June 2013 at 03:21 AM.

26th June 2013, 05:43 AM	#328
Dcdrac Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,141	anders youtube videos prove nothing find some real evidence please.
Dcdrac Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,141

25th June 2013, 11:28 AM	#321
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 22,421	Originally Posted by akama1 Something travelling at Mach 4 would be very loud, and quiet obvious to anyone near by me thinks. As an engineer having worked in aerospace and spent a considerable amount of time near high-performance aircraft, I'll offer my opinion that something moving at Mach 4 in that proximity would, by virtue of exhaust noise and/or sonic effect, be bowel-emptying loud.

25th June 2013, 04:45 PM	#323
SUSpilot Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,159	Originally Posted by JayUtah As an engineer having worked in aerospace and spent a considerable amount of time near high-performance aircraft, I'll offer my opinion that something moving at Mach 4 in that proximity would, by virtue of exhaust noise and/or sonic effect, be bowel-emptying loud. Jay, that, and I am not being sarcastic here, is now one of my favorite descriptive phrases.

25th June 2013, 10:53 PM	#326
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,112	Originally Posted by chris lz So, what else might explain the radar? RADAR sweeps at 5 to 12 seconds. RADAR has reflections. False targets. Did they track the targets for long? Do they have the estimated altitude? Look up RADAR for the real values of sweep, and the limitations. Flight 800 showed no damage from explosives. There was no supersonic booms. When SCUDS came down, there was a supersonic trail which sounded like thunder, after the SCUD arrived. Guess who was going faster than the speed of sound? MACH 4, would be faster than the SR-71, and at 13,000 feet, it would be an event; I can't imagine the sounds. When we went on our dollar ride in the 38, we went supersonic above 30,000 feet to minimize the footprint of our Boom. When we made mistakes and went supersonic, we had to log our Booms.

26th June 2013, 06:33 AM	#329
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by Dcdrac anders youtube videos prove nothing find some real evidence please. But those are credible sources in that video! Here is another example from the same video, with NTSB expert Hank Hughes describing how the explosion was from the outside of the plane, not from the inside (from about 16 minutes): TWA Flight 800 Radar Anomaly Conspiracy Theories and 'Meteor or Missile' Cover-up Mystery -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTpc_hK_NA He rejects the spark theory and also notice that he didn't say it was a missile (at least not in that clip). And that fits with my theory because it would have been pretty tricky to mount a trigger device inside the fuel tank. It would have been easier to stick a shape charge on the outside of the tank.

26th June 2013, 07:35 AM	#330
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	If the the TWA 800 incident was just a dress rehearsal for the 9/11 attacks, then how could the government and all its agencies have been fooled, AGAIN?! Didn't they learn anything? Of course, they learned a lot! A lot about how to prevent a plane crash with zero passenger to fool them again. No expenses spared, security up over the ears, and so on and so on. What they didn't take into account was that the next such event would be done WITHOUT even using any real planes. Sooo fooled, the government was, again.

26th June 2013, 08:39 AM	#331
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	One weak point in my conspiracy theory is that how did they manage to NOT fill TWA 800 with passengers and crew members? The luggage could have been loaded as usual. One possibility is that the lack of control at the airport would have allowed the passengers and the crew to simply not have boarded the plane, and instead been transported away by other vehicles. And many of the workers at the airport at the time could have been cabal members. "Mick Donahue, a former antiterrorism expert for the Central Intelligence Agency who now runs a private security company, said: ''The airlines typically assume that the secure area is secure, and that their employees can keep their eye on the baggage while they do their other jobs. Neither of those assumptions is necessarily true.'' Mr. Donahue said the baggage-handling arrangements at American airports posed ''glaring problems,'' adding, ''It's not realistic to expect people to be screening access or working security when their primary job is to load cargo or pave potholes in the parking lot.'' That vulnerability was graphically demonstrated less than a week after the crash when a local law enforcement official pinned on a plastic badge and took a remarkable stroll through Kennedy that he should never have been allowed to complete." -- http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/11/ny...ter-crash.html

26th June 2013, 08:57 AM	#332
Dcdrac Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,141	one weakpoint in the conspiracy theory is, it is a conspiracy theory and therefore woo
Dcdrac Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,141

26th June 2013, 01:22 PM	#333
chris lz Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 182	Matt & Beachnut, appreciate the replies.
chris lz Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 182

26th June 2013, 03:30 PM	#334
chris lz Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 182	Just found this from report on Pan Am flight 103 Quote: The structural break-up of an aircraft releases many items which were excellent radar reflectors eg. aluminium cladding, luggage containers, sections of skin and aircraft structure. These and other debris with reflective properties produce "clutter" on the radar by confusing the radar electronics in a manner similar to chaff ejected by military aircraft to avoid radar detection. Even when the target is not masked by clutter repetitive detection of individual targets may not be possible because detection is a function of the target effective area which, for wreckage with its irregular shape, is not constant but fluctuates wildly. These factors make it impossible to follow individual returns through successive sweeps of the radar head. Quote: At the next radar return there is no SSR data, only 4 primary returns. One return is along track close to the expected position of the aircraft if it had continued at its previous speed and heading. There are 2 returns to the left of track and 1 to the right of track. Remembering the point made earlier about clutter, it is unlikely that each of these returns are real targets. If I read this correctly, is this further confirmation against TWA800 producing real Mach 2+ returns?
chris lz Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 182

26th June 2013, 04:24 PM	#335
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	Originally Posted by chris lz Just found this from report on Pan Am flight 103 If I read this correctly, is this further confirmation against TWA800 producing real Mach 2+ returns? Not at all. An explosion inside could propel small pieces of aircraft out at Mach 2. But they would be decelerated so quickly they wouldn't travel more than a hundred meters from the aircraft.
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	__________________ Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000 probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess

26th June 2013, 05:06 PM	#336
chris lz Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 182	Originally Posted by matt.tansy Not at all. An explosion inside could propel small pieces of aircraft out at Mach 2. But they would be decelerated so quickly they wouldn't travel more than a hundred meters from the aircraft. Thanks. But I'm more curious about the part that says "it is unlikely that each of these returns are real targets." Isn't that saying that primary radar returns may give faulty hits or positions due to the scatter of small debris in an aircraft break-up?
chris lz Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 182	Last edited by chris lz; 26th June 2013 at 05:09 PM.

26th June 2013, 05:24 PM	#337
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	Originally Posted by chris lz Thanks. But I'm more curious about the part that says "it is unlikely that each of these returns are real targets." Isn't that saying that primary radar returns may give faulty hits or positions due to the scatter of small debris in an aircraft break-up? The wording is confusing. Aircraft skin fluttering in the wind is a real target; it is also clutter. Maybe by "real target" they meant the aircraft itself.
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	__________________ Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000 probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess

26th June 2013, 05:28 PM	#338
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 15,334	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I found something highly suspicious. The news anchor in the video says that there WERE bodies found, and yet when he interviews the Coast Guard boss, the answers about bodies found are not only incredibly vague, he doesn't actually confirm it at ALL. So what are you waiting for, man?! Get over there straight away and start your investigation! We'll be waiting right here.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

26th June 2013, 05:39 PM	#339
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,059	Originally Posted by LSSBB Sounds like a job for BCR. FYI BCR has a conflict of interest.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

26th June 2013, 10:50 PM	#340
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	"3 Reasons to Doubt the TWA Flight 800 Conspiracy Theory ... There is no physical evidence of a bomb blast—no perforations of the fuselage, the fuel tank, or the bodies of the victims." -- http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...heory-15629315 No perforation of the fuel tank? What kind of debunking is that? A small shape charge placed on the outside of the fuel tank would produce a single small perforation that could be undetectable because of the following damage caused by the exploding fuel-air mix.

27th June 2013, 06:19 AM	#341
Dcdrac Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,141	how do you know that anders are you now an explosives and ballistics expert?
Dcdrac Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,141

27th June 2013, 07:05 AM	#342
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 15,334	Originally Posted by Dcdrac how do you know that anders are you now an explosives and ballistics expert? No, just a troll, which makes him an instant expert on everything.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

27th June 2013, 08:09 AM	#343
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by Dcdrac how do you know that anders are you now an explosives and ballistics expert? And you believe the experts telling you it was a spark? Just asking. Do I know that a shape charge would leave zero traces? No. But I know that it wouldn't cause the same kind of damage as a missile.

27th June 2013, 08:13 AM	#344
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,738	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman . Do I know that a shape charge would leave zero traces? No. You should before you start making up "theories". BTW: It would be really, really obvious.
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

27th June 2013, 08:44 AM	#345
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by DGM You should before you start making up "theories". In either case, either the shape charge would leave only very little trace which means it's a piece of cake to cover up. Or it would leave no trace, and wouldn't even need to be covered up. Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory.

27th June 2013, 09:11 AM	#346
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,738	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman In either case, either the shape charge would leave only very little trace which means it's a piece of cake to cover up. Or it would leave no trace, and wouldn't even need to be covered up. Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory. Ridiculous. The FBI was able to find traces of an explosive used weeks before in a training exorcise. A shape charge would paint the whole area with residue and would be impossible to cover up. Unless of course you're including the FBI in your conspiracy theory.
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 Last edited by DGM; 27th June 2013 at 09:12 AM.

27th June 2013, 09:44 AM	#347
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,112	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman In either case, either the shape charge would leave only very little trace which means it's a piece of cake to cover up. Or it would leave no trace, and wouldn't even need to be covered up. Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory. Your bomb would leave real evidence. And a spark, really does light off fuel air in an "empty" tank because of the temperature and pressure. Try science

27th June 2013, 10:41 AM	#348
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Compare that to some incredible "a spark did it" theory. Yes, it is incredible that a spark could ignite a flammable gas.
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	__________________ Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000 probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess

27th June 2013, 10:45 AM	#349
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,738	Originally Posted by matt.tansy Yes, it is incredible that a spark could ignite a flammable gas. http://i.imgur.com/AAiMaIE.jpg [ct mode] LOL. now they're claiming a Bic lighter took down the plane................Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...............[/ct mode]
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

27th June 2013, 11:06 AM	#350
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 6,474	Originally Posted by beachnut Your bomb would leave real evidence. And a spark, really does light off fuel air in an "empty" tank because of the temperature and pressure. Got to love conspiracy theorists sometimes. What Anders doesn't seem to realize is that even though a fuel tank has no more fuel in it, it still has vapors in it from the fuel. Without proper ventilization a fuel tank can become a ticking time bomb. This is the reason for FAR Part § 25 Section 981. Yes, I know you're familiar with that just pointing it out to Anders and the other conspiracy theorists.
	__________________ "There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. Last edited by Mudcat; 27th June 2013 at 11:07 AM.

27th June 2013, 12:18 PM	#351
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by matt.tansy Yes, it is incredible that a spark could ignite a flammable gas. http://i.imgur.com/AAiMaIE.jpg Yes, and that's why the FAA expert said it could only have been a bomb or a collision with another aircraft: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=327 Are we learning yet?
	Last edited by Anders Lindman; 27th June 2013 at 12:19 PM.

27th June 2013, 12:23 PM	#352
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by beachnut Your bomb would leave real evidence. And a spark, really does light off fuel air in an "empty" tank because of the temperature and pressure. Try science But how much of evidence? A shape charge placed directly on the outside of the tank could make a tiny hole and still be able to ignite the fuel/air mix. And the question is not whether a spark could do the same but if such spark could have happened. Not according an FAA expert it couldn't (see my previous post).

27th June 2013, 12:30 PM	#353
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Yes, and that's why the FAA expert said it could only have been a bomb or a collision with another aircraft: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=327 Are we learning yet? The FAA expert didn't say that; Koppel said he said that. Primary sources. How do they work?
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 991	__________________ Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000 probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess

27th June 2013, 12:31 PM	#354
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by matt.tansy The FAA expert didn't say that; Koppel said he said that. Primary sources. How do they work? That's a conspiracy theory. Don't you trust mainstream media?

27th June 2013, 12:33 PM	#355
Alareth Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 7,682	Originally Posted by Mudcat Got to love conspiracy theorists sometimes. What Anders doesn't seem to realize is that even though a fuel tank has no more fuel in it, it still has vapors in it from the fuel. Without proper ventilization a fuel tank can become a ticking time bomb. Counterintuitive concepts often trip up ct's. Ann empty fuel tank is way more dangerous than a full one. You are way more likely to cut yourself with a full knife than a sharp one. Etc...