New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

If you’re new to this thread and are new to the TWA 800 case, there are a few things you should know:

-- Most of the people in this thread who are attacking and dismissing the TWA Flight 800 documentary haven’t even watched it..

You are, as usual, spouting bollocks.
Many of the posters here know far more about the loss of 800, and related matters, than you do. There is little need to repetitively watch the same debunked rubbish.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

<snip wall of text?>

To explain these accounts, the NTSB theorized that the main part of TWA 800 zoomed upward before crashing and that the eyewitnesses merely saw this upward zoom and mistook it for a missile. However, largely thanks to FOIA lawsuits, we now know that the radar data refute this theory, that the radar data show that the main part of the fuselage did not climb after the nose separated.

We also know—thanks to FOIA-released documents--that CIA analysts revealed in internal communications that they aware that the radar data did not support their own zoom-climb scenario.

Of course, aside from being refuted by the radar data, the NTSB’s zoom-climb explanation also ignores the fact that the witnesses specified that they saw the upward-moving object before TWA 800 exploded.

IIRC none of that radars used had vertical image capability, just position relative to the radar. So, no radar did not support a vertical rise nor do they refute a vertical rise.
<snip>

Quote:

Hence, Donald Trump’s arranging for hush money to be paid to Stormy Daniels through Michael Cohen and others is not described as a “conspiracy” but as a hush money scandal and a cover-up. Hence, the Trump campaign’s attempt to conceal these payments is not called a “conspiracy” but a cover-up and fraudulent campaign finance reporting. Hence, Nixon’s attempt to cover-up the Watergate break-in is not described as a “conspiracy” but as a cover-up and an obstruction of justice, even though, yes, it was a “conspiracy” because it involved two or more people acting together.

A CT is anyone who disregards convention wisdom in exchange for a scenario that they believe dispute said conventual wisdom and present a different version involving any number of variations.

Quote:

What has Donald Trump' alleged actions is 2020 have any relative information to the TWA 800 crash. This is wildly off topic.
You are now suggesting a second missile without any proof of a first missile. Eye witness testimony is the lowest form of evidentiary support, CTs have it at the top. Get a reality check.

The "story" you support grows and grows with nothing supporting your position.
Yes, I have watched the "documentary" and find it lacking in hard evidence. I did find a power struggle that the FBI "won" to the dismay of the NTSB investigators who say this "never happened before". How many other investigations did they do working side by side with the FBI. My guess is none.

[Axxman300]

Strange that seconds before the explosion the captain was looking into an issue with the #4 fuel tank:

Quote:

2029: 15 CAM-1 look at that crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four.
2029: 23 CAM-1 see that.
2029: 35 CAM-1 some where in here I better trim this thing (in/ up).
2029: 39 CAM-2 huh?
2029: 39 CAM-1 some place in here I better find out where this thing's trimmed.
2030: 15 CTR TWA eight hundred climb and maintain one five thousand.
2030: 18 CAM-1 climb thrust.
2030: 19.2 RDO-2 TWA's eight hundred heavy climb and maintain one five thousand leaving one three thousand.
2030: 24 CAM-1 Ollie.
2030: 24 CAM-3 huh.
2030: 25 CAM-1 climb thrust.
2030: 28 CAM-1 climb to one five thousand.
2030: 35 CAM-3 power's set.
2030: 42 CAM (( sound similar to a mechanical movement in cockpit))
2031: 03 CAM *.
2031: 05 CAM (( sounds similar to recording tape damage noise)).
2031: 12 end of recording.

Almost as if the plane was talking to the flight crew.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by bknight

IIRC none of that radars used had vertical image capability, just position relative to the radar. So, no radar did not support a vertical rise nor do they refute a vertical rise.

Correct. ATC primary radar uses a vertical-fan beam. The equipment cannot generally differentiate the vertical position of an aircraft within the beam. This is different than military air search radar. Because ATC relies so heavily on secondary radar, which is meant more to interrogate cooperating targets than to detect any flying object, the simpler primary radar is preferred. Secondary radar provides altitude information via transponders.

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

If you’re new to this thread and are new to the TWA 800 case, there are a few things you should know:

-- Most of the people in this thread who are attacking and dismissing the TWA Flight 800 documentary haven’t even watched it.

I agree that there are a few things new readers should know. However, in this post, I will only deal with your fallacious style of argument. The above quoted hierarchical standing of your first complaint being indicative of your unreasonable and illogical temperament. No one needs to slog through hours of edited out-of-context ignorant claims, mixed with bits of reality slipped in to help lure the gullible, when all one needs to do is be presented with the argument(s) in a terse, factual manner. This is a very common suggestion (if not requirement) in all serious forums. So, your invention of a supposed fault in the knowledge of the responders is actually your own untenable position that everyone should be as indoctrinated as you are.

Moreover, should the reader actually be new, since this is page 68 of topical discussion, your assumption that the reader would need to arrive at this point without having gleaned the pertinent declarations cited in your post up to his point, or perhaps just arrived here by a random stroke of luck, speaks of the convoluted manipulations your mind makes to cling to your contentions.

Perhaps you already know this and are just dishonestly repeating previous claims that have been soundly eviscerated? Either way, this style of argument is incongruent with logical discourse.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by MBDK

So, your invention of a supposed fault in the knowledge of the responders is actually your own untenable position that everyone should be as indoctrinated as you are.

Bingo. He's trying to redefine competence and expertise so that he doesn't have to deal with not having any. Specifically he wants to redefine it to mean using a conspiracy theory as the shortcut to erudition. If you "really" want to understand the TWA 800 crash, you shouldn't become an engineer or learn to design, build, and fly airplanes. You shouldn't spend years in the military and learn how it works. You shouldn't actually officially investigate airliner accidents or learn the quirks of interpreting radar data.

No, the only way to "truly" understand what happened on July 17, 1996 is to steep yourself deeply in claims that almost immediately reveal themselves to actual experts as nonsense. (But of course they're all "biased.") You can't be truly an expert until you take fully and seriously the desperate efforts of a failed physicist, a gaggle of doddering (and mostly dead) retirees, and a cadre of politically-minded operatives. As is common in conspiracy theories, "expertise" is exactly the limited, misdirected knowledge the conspiracy theorist already has, not the hard-won expertise it takes others years of training and experience to attain. That's because conspiracy theories are about creating a world in which you are already the hero. Anyone who hasn't closely duplicated the ham-fisted, ignorant foibles of fringe claimants can't be considered knowledgeable in a way that matters inside the conspiracy-theory bubble.

Quote:

Perhaps you already know this and are just dishonestly repeating previous claims that have been soundly eviscerated? Either way, this style of argument is incongruent with logical discourse.

His dishonesty is already evident. After everyone realized he had misquoted his sources regarding the fluid-dynamics effects of explosives, he took two weeks off and then staged a fringe reset. During the hiatus, a few others took it upon themselves to find his hilarious missteps on other forums.

His other incongruence with logical discourse is immediately becoming belligerent and abusive when challenged.

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

His other incongruence with logical discourse is immediately becoming belligerent and abusive when challenged.

Ah, yes... The well-known CT go-to when their facade crumbles under critical examination. With the limited knowledge he has displayed, he reminds me of three-fingered Joe, who thinks he can carelessly handle dynamite because he used to play with firecrackers.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by catsmate

You are, as usual, spouting bollocks.
Many of the posters here know far more about the loss of 800, and related matters, than you do. There is little need to repetitively watch the same debunked rubbish.

SO his evidence that Flight 800 was the victim of a terrorist attack is the same quality as his evidence that FDR was behind the attack on Pearl Harbor?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by dudalb

SO his evidence that Flight 800 was the victim of a terrorist attack is the same quality as his evidence that FDR was behind the attack on Pearl Harbor?

"Terrorist attack" is only one (or possibly two) of the three incompatible scenarios he entertains, all from different authors and conspiracy factions. He swaps among them as necessary, explicitly declining to pick one and prove it. He considers them essentially interchangeable but for allegedly insignificant differences. In fact they differ dramatically in terms of what evidence is needed to prove each.

In one scenario, an AIM-54A missile is fired intentionally at the airliner from an Iranian terrorist gunboat operating in or near U.S. territorial waters.

In another scenario, an SM-2 missile is fired as part of a planned (but secret) live-fire exercise from a U.S. Navy warship operating near the commercial air corridors, and accidentally strikes the airliner.

In the third scenario, a surface-to-air missile is fired from a U.S. Navy warship in an attempt to interdict a light airplane loaded with explosives that was suspected of trying to ram the airliner. The air-intercept missile strikes the airliner instead.

None of these is a credible scenario. They don't just border on fantasy; they stride confidently over the line. As is customary in conspiracy rhetoric, the line of reasoning is that the conventional narrative must be discarded for various reasons, and therefore we are forced to embrace any or all of these alternative narratives no matter how patently absurd and ill-supported they may be.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by dudalb

SO his evidence that Flight 800 was the victim of a terrorist attack is the same quality as his evidence that FDR was behind the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Question is from my standpoint, is there a conspiracy theory he doesn't embrace?

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by bknight

Question is from my standpoint, is there a conspiracy theory he doesn't embrace?

Perhaps...just perhaps...the theory that the FBI/CIA/MIB (choose one, add another, or consider them all in cahoots) are actually the originators of all these conspiracy theories in their own version of the Thousand Flowers Period in Chinese history? Bamboozled by their own paranoia of government overreach, the conspiracy believers have ironically fallen prey to their worst fears and are being closely surveilled with who-knows-what in store for them down the road. MUAH-HA-HA-HA!!!!

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by bknight

Question is from my standpoint, is there a conspiracy theory he doesn't embrace?

Well he's also spouting nonsense about abortion.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Well he's also spouting nonsense about abortion.

Tere's a conspiracy surrounding abortion? New to me.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by bknight

There's a conspiracy surrounding abortion? New to me.

Oh yes, lots of them. Mainly as part of the "White Replacement" bollocks. Though mikegriffith1 is currently just spewing the usual anti-abortion nonsense.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

No, it's because all missiles look like poles.

Except for the ones that look like planes, like the one that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 via Dick Cheney's remote control laser beams.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Except for the ones that look like planes, like the one that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 via Dick Cheney's remote control laser beams.

Were the laser beams Jewish?

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Were the laser beams Jewish?

Aren't they all? I mean...Maiman, Gould, Schawlow. *cue conspiracy theory; ignore Townes*

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Were the laser beams Jewish?

Only the space-based ones.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Were the laser beams Jewish?

Well, considering the subforum we’re in, probably.

But enough about…a sitting member of Congress.

[JesseCuster]

Originally Posted by MBDK

Perhaps...just perhaps...the theory that the FBI/CIA/MIB (choose one, add another, or consider them all in cahoots) are actually the originators of all these conspiracy theories in their own version of the Thousand Flowers Period in Chinese history?

It's not uncommon for conspiracy theorists to distance themselves from the truly nuttier ideas out there (holographic airplanes disguising missiles on 9/11) by claiming that those ideas were planted in the conspiracy community in order to discredit them by making them seem crazy.

I think they're doing a fine job of that themselves without needing help.

[JayUtah]

As it was told to me, when the Groom Lake facility in Nevada became more widely known, the USAF was quite content to let everyone believe they were storing captured alien technology there. It distracted people from what was actually going on there, which—while secret—were not nearly as exotic.

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

It's not uncommon for conspiracy theorists to distance themselves from the truly nuttier ideas out there (holographic airplanes disguising missiles on 9/11) by claiming that those ideas were planted in the conspiracy community in order to discredit them by making them seem crazy.

I think they're doing a fine job of that themselves without needing help.

True, but the point I had with the Thousand Flowers reference, means the planted CTs by the "Powers that Be", don't have to be all that crazy. The actual Thousand Flowers purpose was just to pretend to accept the opposition in China, then once identified, they were culled, imprisoned, or "re-educated". In reference to CTs, ANYONE who promotes them, regardless of woo-level, is now on the Government radar, having fallen for their ploy. In other words, the CTs were fishing lures for identification purposes and monitoring. I suppose you could say that the crazier CTs identified individuals worthy of having even more surveillance resources assigned.

Regardless, it was just speculation regarding the question asked.

[sackett]

Spreading loony CTs isn't for the purpose of spotting crazies who need watching, it's for recruitment. How do you think they found Bloatbert and Empty G?