New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[sts60]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1, elsewhere

… But, in general and generic terms, and realistically speaking, an ICBM most certainly is a type of surface-to-air missile because it is launched from the surface into the air.

Oh, dear Lord, that’s hilarious.

mikegriffith1, on that other board you said you were “undecided” but in another post you mentioned two missiles from Navy vessels.

Can you specify what kinds of missiles were involved, and how many of each kind? Because otherwise you haven’t really defined your claim.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Originally Posted by sackett

wrote that is mixing metaphors that have never been mixed before.

He must be shooting craps with about 25 cards left in his bag.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[sackett]

I just read the G. Keilllor thing and there's not a marble in it.

Or was that the point? ETA: Goddammit, Jay!

Anyway, I have a Real Question: Why are the cavities of shaped charge warheads lined w/ metal, often copper? Or is my layman's knowledge obsolete?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Garrison Keillor

Should a Lutheran play the bassoon? Not if you want to be taken
seriously, I don't think so. The name kind of says it all: bassoon.
It's an instrument that isn't playing with a full deck of marbles.

https://rec.music.classical.guitar.n...rrison-keillor

Do your very best to find the audio recording of this. It's priceless.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by sackett

Why are the cavities of shaped charge warheads lined w/ metal, often copper? Or is my layman's knowledge obsolete?

Your knowledge is not at all obsolete. The copper lining is an explosively-formed penetrator (EFP). Cue the 14-year-old's giggle. Strictly speaking, it doesn't need to be there in order for the shaped explosive to create the jet of very hot gases. But it gives those gases something very narrow to propel at hypersonic velocity, in order to penetrate target armor mechanically instead of just thermally and gaseously.

The initial stage of the explosion squashes that cone together to form a long, narrow copper stick. That's the "explosively-formed" part. By geometrically arranging the explosive and the penetrator, you can arrange for it to take on any number of shapes. Other metals besides copper work too, but copper is the most common. The advantage here is that entrainment (dragging something along in a fluid) occurs at the stage when the penetrator is still spread out, and you can generate a lot of kinetic energy in the projectile. Then after it has all that energy, it becomes long and hardened so that it can enter heavily-defended target regions.

Despite its aerodynamic instability, the penetrating power of an EFP generally extends for a greater range than the jet itself, which peters out (as we mentioned) after only a few centimeters. This is its tactical advantage.

[sackett]

So the EFP, being long and of small diameter, has high sectional density. That means it will penetrate as efficiently as possible for a given weight.

After all these decades, I finally make the connection between shaped charges and the more latter-day (cue LDS tut-tutting) EFPs. (It helps to have been brought up a handloader too.) Thankee kindly.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

https://rec.music.classical.guitar.n...rrison-keillor

Do your very best to find the audio recording of this. It's priceless.

rmcg, a blast from the past.

(It seems like years since I played an oboe, but it's only been a few decades.)

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by sts60

Oh, dear Lord, that’s hilarious.

mikegriffith1, on that other board you said you were “undecided” but in another post you mentioned two missiles from Navy vessels.

Can you specify what kinds of missiles were involved, and how many of each kind? Because otherwise you haven’t really defined your claim.

They were Polaris missiles launched from a submarine... after all, they were launched from the surface and went into the air... amrite?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

They were Polaris missiles launched from a submarine... after all, they were launched from the surface and went into the air... amrite?

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

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by sackett

Thankee kindly.

My pleasure. However, I figured you of all people would be the one to call out all the phallic double entendre references I painstakingly put into that post.

[sackett]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

My pleasure. However, I figured you of all people would be the one to call out all the phallic double entendre references I painstakingly put into that post.

Not me, buddy. I let people climb the greased pole on their own.

That's rather an odd metaphor. I wonder what it refers to?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by sackett

Not me, buddy. I let people climb the greased pole on their own.

That's rather an odd metaphor. I wonder what it refers to?

I will not be Googling that answer.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

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

Except Pye Wacket.

[Spektator]

Originally Posted by sackett

Not me, buddy. I let people climb the greased pole on their own.

That's rather an odd metaphor. I wonder what it refers to?

A rural amusement. The greased pole was a wooden, not metal, pole (you had to have wood). It was shaved smooth and liberally lubricated with bear grease or hog fat. Once fully erected, it might be twenty feet tall. A prize waited at the tip. Contestants would wrap their thighs around the pole, hug it tight, and attempt to climb to the prize and get it off. The pastime fell out of favor because it made everybody feel weird.

ETA: Dear God, this is so off-topic. My apologies.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

... Oh, wow. What a sleazy argument, and what a slimy display of demagoguery. Conservative critics such as Jack Cashill and James Sanders have more respect and love for the Navy in their pinky fingers than you have in your entire liberal body.

Are Jack and James MAGA nuts to boot? You are mocking liberals, yet ignore the dumbed down conspiracy theories from conservatives, Jack and James.

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

... When patriots discuss the rare occurrences of misconduct in the military, such as the attempt to cover up the facts about the Vincennes incident, they do so to be constructive and in the hope of discouraging such actions in the future. Only a disreputable demagogue would call this “trashing” the military.

Saying it was a missile from the Navy without evidence, is trashing the Navy. Ironically you are calling the unfounded claims you accept without evidence, associated with patriotic duty... how much money have these "patriots" made by pushing claims without evidence?

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

... You liberals are the ones who are usually trashing the military, trying to gut the defense budget, accusing our soldiers of committing war crimes, and imposing ridiculous rules of engagement on our forces in combat... ?

As demonstrated in many post here and around the Internet, you have no evidence. Off topic tripe, weak attack on liberals, are not evidence.

Note: So the liberals here are saying the Navy did not shoot down the aircraft which could be support for the Navy, unlike James and Jack who make money spreading speculation based on BS - $14.99 a book.

OH MY,,, it is money, not truth, not justice - good old fashion Capitalism - you might be gullible.

FIRST STRIKE
TWA FLIGHT 800 AND THE ATTACK ON AMERICA
by Jack Cashill, James Sanders
$14.99

Clinton was upset about the event! Why... Guess what AF One is? It was a serious accident.

Yet, James and Jack, the conspiracy nuts making money from speculation, blame the U.S. government, from the White House to the NTSB, FBI and CIA, for a dumbed down cover-up. And thus their book is put in the


What category is the BOOK? Is it non-fiction? NO
The book, it is POLITICAL SCIENCE

Jack makes money writing books based on opinions, short on facts. He does not seem like Obama.

[sackett]

Odd, the way USA conservatoids try to make every goddamn thing political, and political in current terms. That's including decades-old issues and events. How long will it be before Franklin Roosevelt is implicated in TWA 800?

Or Teddy Roosevelt, come to that? Goddamn bussinessman's enemy!

[MarkCorrigan]

An ICBM is a SAM because it flies into the air?

That's amazing. Absolute comedy gold.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

An ICBM is a SAM because it flies into the air?

That's amazing. Absolute comedy gold.

No because they both look like poles!

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by bknight

No because they both look like poles!

Originally Posted by JayUtah

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

Scottish combination SAM/ICBM missile launcher

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Scottish combination SAM/ICBM missile launcher

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yeey6cf2c4...Toss.gif?raw=1

And look at all those witnesses.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Scottish combination SAM/ICBM missile launcher

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yeey6cf2c4...Toss.gif?raw=1

Well my comment was an ethnic pun! Neither was Jay's I'm quite confident.

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

And look at all those witnesses.

And 20% of them claim they saw a streak of light strike it at the apex of its flight.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by bknight

Well my comment was an ethnic pun! Neither was Jay's I'm quite confident.

Obviously my post was missing the word "not".

Well my comment wasn't an ethnic pun! Neither was Jay's I'm quite confident.
Sorry.

[JayUtah]

Yes, to be clear, my reference to "poles" was not to people from Poland, but to the literal Latin meaning of polaris—"relating to a pole." I know very few Poles, so I cannot state from an strong foundation of evidence whether missiles look like Poles.

And to further clarify: being half-Scottish myself, I am not only unoffended by the illustration of the Scottish missile launcher in this thread, I'm laughing my kilt off.

[jadebox]

I didn't notice the possible pun until I read the apologies.

My wife's mother was Polish. She was short and stout like a Polaris missile.

Oops ...

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by jadebox

I didn't notice the possible pun until I read the apologies.

My wife's mother was Polish. She was short and stout like a Polaris missile.

Oops ...

Where was she on July 17, 1996?

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by sts60

“Jets of hot gas.”

ETA: I’m trying to understand the proposition here. Is the claim that the Navy (whether accidentally or on purpose) fired a breaching charge at TWA 800?

No, the issue about "jets of hot gas" arose when a self-proclaimed pseudo-expert here disputed a factual statement by former TWA crash investigator Jim Speer regarding indications of a high-order explosion in the TWA 800 case. Speer said the following:

The holes piercing the part in question were definitely from the high-velocity blast front of a high explosion, as opposed to a low order fuel-air explosion.

I even went to the JFK hangar on Sunday, after Boeing identified the part as a wing leading edge rib, and had a TWA mechanic lower the leading edge slats so I could photograph the large cavity in the leading edge. I did this to help people in ALPA and the NTSB understand that the holes piercing the part had to have been caused by a directed jet of high velocity gas from a high explosion as opposed to a low velocity fuel-air explosion that simply would have rolled around the ribs.

A poster named JayUtah replied as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah:

And this is how we know Speer has no idea how an air-intercept fragmentation warhead works. You don't seem to understand that when people spout howlers like this one, we aren't compelled to respect their judgment. . . .

But the problem in all cases is that the bursting charges don't produce a "jet" of hot gas that can cut aluminum as Speer seems to expect. . . . There is no "jet" of gas.

I then observed that such a comment revealed that JayUtah did not even know the basics about high-order explosions:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1:

And this is how we know you are a phony. Speer’s point is perfectly valid. Your answer is nonsense and shows you don’t even know the basics of anti-air missiles and high-order explosions. I’ve suspected for some time that you are one of those folks who gets on the Internet and pretends to be something they are not.

Well, this time you’ve peddled nonsense in an area where I have some expertise and experience.

All high explosions produce gas, very hot and high-pressure gas. When a high-order explosion begins, the explosive material becomes high-pressure gas. In fact, it is this high-pressure gas that creates the shock wave that breaks the warhead’s case and causes the case to fragment into shrapnel traveling at supersonic speeds. So James Speer is correct, and you are woefully wrong.

Let’s look at a few of the many sources that can be cited on this fact, and I bet not even you will dare to call them “conspiracy sources” or accuse the authors of being Clinton-hating conservatives:

From an ATF manual on explosives:

A high order detonation is a complete detonation of the explosive at its highest possible velocity. A low order detonation is either incomplete detonation or complete detonation at lower than maximum velocity. . . .

When an explosive is detonated, the block or stick of chemical explosive material is instantaneously converted from a solid into a rapidly expanding mass of gases. The detonation of the explosive will produce three primary effects and several associated secondary effects which create great damage in the area surrounding the explosion. . . .

When an explosive charge is detonated, very hot, expanding gases are formed in a period of approximately 1/10,000th of a second. These gases exert pressures of about 700 tons per square inch on the atmosphere surrounding the point of detonation and rush away from the point of detonation at velocities of up to 7,00,0 miles per hour, compressing the surrounding air. This mass of expanding gas rolls outward in a circular pattern from the point of detonation like a giant wave, weighing tons, smashing and shattering any object in its path. . . .

The entire blast pressure wave, because of its two distinct phases, actually delivers a one-two punch to any object in its path. The blast pressure effect is the most powerful and destructive of the explosive effects produced by the detonation of high explosives. . . .

This improved effectiveness is caused by the focusing of the hot gases released by the detonating explosive. The extremely hot, swiftly moving spit of concentrated power is called the "jet" and performs in much the same manner as the white-hot flame of a cutting torch. (Modular Explosives Training Program, The National Bomb Data Center, pp. 5-6, 9, 17, https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digiti...60137NCJRS.pdf, emphasis added)

From a GICHD report on explosive weapon effects edited by Samuel Paunila (GICHD) and N.R. Jenzen-Jones of Armament Research Services (ARES), and reviewed by John Rawson (GICHD) and John Ismay (ARES):

An explosive is a material that is capable of producing an explosion by releasing the potential energy contained within it. All high explosives produce heat and gas. The rapid expansion of gas is the primary medium for measuring the power of an explosion (Cullis, 2001). When a high explosive charge detonates, it produces a blast wave (overpressure) that consists of two parts: a shock wave and a blast wind. The blast wave pushes outwards from the core of the detonation at supersonic speed. The outer edge of the blast wave is made up of the compressed gases contained in the surrounding air. This layer of compressed air is more properly described as a shock wave or shock front. (Explosive Weapon Effects: Final Report, February 2017, p. 44, emphasis added)

From a U.S. Navy report on weapons systems fundamentals:

A blast warhead is one that is designed to achieve target damage primarily from blast effect. When a high explosive detonates, it is converted almost instantly into a gas at very high pressure and temperature. Under the pressure of the gases thus generated, the weapon case expands and breaks into fragments. The air surrounding the casing is compressed and a shock (blast) wave is transmitted into it. (Fundamentals of Naval Weapons Systems, U.S. Naval Academy, section 13.4.1, https://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part13.htm, emphasis added)

From a FEMA reference manual:

When a high order explosion is initiated, a very rapid exothermic chemical reaction occurs. As the reaction progresses, the solid or liquid explosive material is converted to very hot, dense, high-pressure gas. The explosion products initially expand at very high velocities in an attempt to reach equilibrium with the surrounding air, causing a shock wave. A shock wave consists of highly compressed air, traveling radially outward from the source at supersonic velocities. (Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks, FEMA, 2003, p. 4-1, https://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/preven...ma426_ch4.pdf; https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/f...08/fema426.txt, emphasis added)

From an article in American Scientist by Gary Settles, a mechanical engineer:

The loss of life caused by an explosion is often due to fragmentation rather than the overpressure or the following wind of the shock wave itself. Shrapnel behaves like a hail of supersonic bullets, being accelerated along radial lines in all directions from the explosion center by the aerodynamic drag force exerted by the rapidly expanding gas. (Gary Settles, “High-speed Imaging of Shock Waves, Explosions and Gunshots,” American Scientist, January 2006, https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...s-and-gunshots, emphasis added)

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

I then observed that such a comment revealed that JayUtah did not even know the basics about high-order explosions:

Oh, please.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by sts60

So how many missiles actually affected the aircraft, and what kinds?

The evidence indicates there were two proximity-fused missiles, along the lines of the Iranian AIM 54A or the RIM-66/RIM-67/SM-2. Both skeptical theories agree that the missiles were not MANPAD/Stinger missiles, that they were proximity-fused missiles, that they were fired from a ship, and that one of the missiles exploded near the left-front of the plane, and that that explosion severed the nose from the rest of the plane.

The only difference between the two skeptical theories is that the Donaldson theories posits that the ship was a private ship manned by terrorists (and thus that the shootdown was deliberate), while the Stalcup theory posits that the ship was a Navy ship taking part in a missile exercise (and thus that the shootdown was accidental).

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Another wall of fail!

(And no, I have not read any of it, because nothing you have said in the last few pages is any different from the rest of the regurgitated lies, spurious half-truths, intentionally misrepresented and misunderstood facts, wilful ignorance, poorly sourced conspiracy-theorist claptrap and complete bull-**** you have been spouting all along.)

If you have not "read any of it," then you have no business pontificating on the subject. I would never get on a public board and discuss a controversial subject if I had only read one side of the story. That violates the most basic principles of critical thinking.

Your few attempts to respond to my arguments have been pitiful. You twist words, ignore much of the arguments, and somehow miss the point over and over again. It is obvious you've only read one side of the story.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

As for your constant attacks on Jay, you should know they are summarily dismissed by the considerable number of people here, including me, who know Jay outside of this forum, and who know that he is a qualified Aerospace Engineer with extensive experience who knows exactly what he is talking about in regard to the topic of this thread. I am an Aeronautical Engineer (retired) and while I am not not up to Jay's level of expertise and experience, I am nonetheless sufficiently qualified and experienced to recognize bull-**** when I read it, and you mikegriffith1 are full of it!

And I say HOGWASH. He is no expert on this case. He is full of hot air and tries to bluff his way through. He clearly has not read half the stuff he swore up and down that he'd read.

He went on and on and on for weeks about how Donaldson and ARAP supposedly posited Stinger missiles, when the ARAP report expressly rejects Stingers as the offending missiles.

When I quoted James Speer, a genuine expert on the case, not to mention a former ALPA investigator with an engineering background, regarding the indisputable fact that high-order explosions produce powerful blast jets that include very hot gas, he committed the astonishing blunder of mockingly dismissing this fact and then belittled Speer's expertise.

Well, sorry, Charlie, but I happen to have some background and expertise in this area, and when I called him on this severe gaffe, his evasive, disingenuous reply only showed his lack of objectivity and candor.

I have no idea about JayUtah's background and experience, because he hides behind a fake username, offers no website, offers no online CV, and offers no contact information. Now, yes, that's his right. But, one has to wonder why a genuine expert would hide his identity in such a manner.

How many times has this "expert" fallen back on the phony tactic of saying, "You're wrong, but I won't tell you why you're wrong." Give me a break. Are we in high school or something? He's full of bluff and bluster and hot air.

And what about his ludicrous, ridiculous "aerodynamic deformation" theory to explain the severe structural damage done to the nose landing gear? Are you kidding me? What kind of an "expert" would float such a laughable, absurd theory?

When I cited an article on the USS Vincennes cover-up published by the U.S. Naval Institute and written by retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. David Evans, he again resorted to his favorite dodge, claiming that he could not begin to tell me how I was wrong about the Vincennes incident.

Just hogwash. Let's see you or him name one thing that Evans got wrong in his article:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...nes-case-study

Let's hear it. He can't name one error because there aren't any. Nor can you, and for the same reason.

The Vincennes incident is instructive because not a single officer on that ship has ever come forward to expose Rogers' lies about the helicopter engagement that he used as his cover and his entrance into Iranian territorial waters with the bogus excuse of innocent passage.

[sackett]

There's enough hot gas in this thread to shoot down the Hindenburg.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Well, sorry, Charlie, but I happen to have some background and expertise in this area...

No, you don't. You tried to argue ICBMs were surface-to-air missiles.

Quote:

But, one has to wonder why a genuine expert would hide his identity in such a manner.

Literally because of people like you. I think we've sufficiently indulged your sick personal fixation and your immature rants.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

I have no idea about JayUtah's background and experience, because he hides behind a fake username, offers no website, offers no online CV, and offers no contact information. Now, yes, that's his right. But, one has to wonder why a genuine expert would hide his identity in such a manner.

He doesn't really try very hard!

[sts60]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

The evidence indicates there were two proximity-fused missiles, along the lines of the Iranian AIM 54A or the RIM-66/RIM-67/SM-2. Both skeptical theories agree that the missiles were not MANPAD/Stinger missiles, that they were proximity-fused missiles, that they were fired from a ship, and that one of the missiles exploded near the left-front of the plane, and that that explosion severed the nose from the rest of the plane…

Thank you for clarifying what you think happened. But neither version makes any sense.

The first case has Iranians firing a missile launched only from an F-14, but somehow magically adapted to be launched from a boat - after being transported across the planet for some reason, presumably to maximize the scheme’s complexity and logistical needs.

The second case has the Navy conducting a shootex right off the coast off Long Island, in a major trans-Atlantic commercial travel corridor. Without telling anyone.

That is not how such things work in reality.

Furthermore, a quarter-century later, no one has let slip what happened; none of the sailors or contractor personnel have mentioned it or even wondered about it; and the hole in the inventory of some very expensive missiles is just shrugged over like a paper clip that fell under an inconvenient portion of the desk.

That is not how such things work in reality.

The next problem is that anti-aircraft missiles do not work the way you describe, boring holes in targets with “jets of hot gas”. They really, really don’t. The missiles you posit carry blast-fragmentation warheads and they destroy targets primarily by sending shrapnel through parts of them at very high speeds. The blast effect is secondary. The collimated-jets-of-hot-gas effect is neither primary nor secondary; it is imaginary.

Please note that appealing to the existence of cover-ups in general, or to the fact that missiles generate hot gases, does not help your case. They are general facts you are trying to shoehorn into specific evidence for your claim, a rhetorical trick with which I’m quite familiar. But both are misapplied in your story.

And please, please don’t appeal to personal authority by telling me “you know something” about missiles. I won’t go into specifics, but I assure you that in my case that will not work out like you hope. And that was so even before you told us that ICBMs were surface-to-air missiles.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by jadebox

I didn't notice the possible pun until I read the apologies.

My wife's mother was Polish. She was short and stout like a Polaris missile.

Oops ...

Come head or round head?

[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.

-- There are two basic theories about what caused the TWA 800 crash.

One theory, proposed by the NTSB, says that the crash was due to mechanical failure, specifically, that a short circuit occurred outside the center wing tank, that a spark from this short circuit somehow made its way into the tank, and that this spark ignited vapors in the tank and blew up the tank, causing the plane to crash. This scenario had never occurred before and has not occurred since. The NTSB could not even identify the source of the short circuit, and none of the recovered wiring and FQIS gauge showed any evidence of pre-flight damage.

The investigative team of the IAMAW (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) rejected the NTSB theory. Similarly, the Boeing investigative team argued against the theory that a spark from a short circuit entered the center wing tank and caused the tank to explode.

The other theory is that one or two proximity-fused missiles detonated near TWA 800 and caused it to crash.

This theory is based on the fact that over 100 eyewitnesses, positioned in a wide range of locations, reported seeing an object flying upward from ground/sea level toward TWA 800 before the plane exploded. The witnesses described this object as a “rocket,” “flare,” “firework,” or “missile,” and many of them said it was trailing smoke and/or flames. These witnesses were located on the beach, farther inland, on boats on the water, and even in the air (in a helicopter and in several airplanes that were within visual range of TWA 800).

Analysis of these accounts shows that the witnesses were describing the ascent of two objects, with one of the objects approaching the plane from one direction and the other coming from a different direction.

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.

The missile theory is also based on the physical evidence of the wreckage, specifically, inward-penetrating holes in the exterior of the fuselage, the fact that a large portion of the center wing tank’s floor was blown inward/upward, severe structural damage to the nose landing gear, severe structural damage to--and two inward-penetrating holes in--a wing leading edge rib, the irregular damage pattern to seats and passengers (wholly inconsistent with the NTSB theory but entirely consistent with the missile theory), the fact that so many passengers above the center wing tank had no burn injuries whatsoever, the WCAS lab test results on two pieces of foam from one of the seats, and the 100-plus EGIS 3000 detections of explosive residue on parts of the wreckage.

-- You will notice that most of those who attack the documentary and defend the NTSB theory pretend that only crackpots and kooks reject the NTSB’s explanation, even though two of the investigative teams involved in the original investigation rejected the NTSB scenario.

-- You will also notice that most of the NTSB defenders in this thread insist on using the label of “conspiracy theorist” for anyone who dispute the NTSB theory, even though the argument is that the primary action was a cover-up.

Any unethical action done by two or more people working together is technically a “conspiracy,” and those who allege the action occurred are technically “conspiracy theorists,” but this is not how such matters are normally described, except in this thread. The standard usage and normal practice is to describe the primary resulting action.

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.

-- Finally, if you read many of the replies in this thread that defend the NTSB theory, you may be surprised by how many NTSB defenders proudly insist that they have not read any of the published books and articles that challenge the mechanical-failure explanation, and that they have not watched the TWA Flight 800 documentary nor any of the other skeptical documentaries (such as Jack Cashill’s documentary Silenced).

This failure to research the other side of the story becomes readily apparent when we see NTSB defenders repeating in this thread false claims that have long since been debunked.

For example, you’ll notice that several NTSB defenders repeat the claim that the explosive residue detected on TWA 800 wreckage was deposited by bomb-sniffing training that was done on the TWA 800 plane at St. Louis International Airport five weeks before the crash. The NTSB report repeats this claim. However, the claim was debunked even before the NTSB report was published and has been even more thoroughly exposed as false since then.

Private researchers have long since established that the bomb-sniffing training was done on a different Boeing 747 that was parked at the next gate over, that the pilots who flew the TWA 800 plane from St. Louis that day both confirmed that no bomb-sniffing training was done on the plane, and that the police officer who did the training said the plane on which he conducted the training was totally empty, whereas the TWA 800 plane had its crew on board and was boarding passengers at the time the training was conducted.

[sts60]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

The other theory is that one or two proximity-fused missiles detonated near TWA 800 and caused it to crash.

This is the only part of your claims on which I’ve commented significantly. I’m not really interested in arguing about the details of all your subclaims, because, as I explained above, the main premise (which you kindly detailed previously) is incompatible with reality.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

If you’re new to this thread...

Are ICBMs surface-to-air missiles?

[sts60]

When you confidently assert a lot of things with “We know that…” and “…is refuted by…”, coming out with howlers like “ICBMs are SAMs” really undercuts subsequent assertions of personal authority such as, “I happen to have some background and expertise in this area.”

That doesn’t necessarily mean the arguer is incorrect, but it reminds the reader to understand that assertions need to be evaluated carefully. I first really realized this a long time ago when reading claims like “We know the Apollo Guidance Computer wasn’t capable of flying the spacecraft to the Moon.”

[sackett]

You can tell a conspiracy follower this: "The things that you believe aren't knowledge, and the things that you do aren't work." Your reward for being succinct will be walls, enclosures, skyscrapers of enraged text, none of it coherent, all of it a feast of boredom.

Yes I've tried it. Bet you have too.