New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[mrbusdriver]

...like Godzilla vs Bambi...

but, wait...AL may have something here....has he finally found some actual "findings"??!! I get the impression he never read the actual accident report...

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

On the contrary. It supports the deliberate detonation.

Nonsense. You're simply quoting the established chain of events and declaring in non sequitur fashion that it is evidence of malfeasance. 100 percent wishful thinking.

Quote:

Brushing it off as coincidences is an insufficient excuse.

You're not qualified or competent to make that determination.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Nonsense. You're simply quoting the established chain of events and declaring in non sequitur fashion that it is evidence of malfeasance. 100 percent wishful thinking.



You're not qualified or competent to make that determination.

A chain of events consistent with the deliberate detonation scenario, which stands on its own without me having to prove I'm an expert.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

A chain of events consistent with the deliberate detonation scenario...

No, it's consistent with several scenarios, including the prevailing findings.

Quote:

...which stands on its own...

No, it's one of several possible explanations for the temperature of the fuel. That you arbitrarily prefer one of these is not proof that it's the one that must have occurred.

Quote:

...without me having to prove I'm an expert.

The opinion that it was "brushed off as a coincidence" and that such an explanation is an "insufficient excuse" is probative only when so judged by a competent expert. You are simply trying to browbeat people into agreeing with your uninformed denial of the experts' findings.

[Anders Lindman]

"Another potential ignition source that investigators considered was the detonation of a small explosive charge585 that had been placed on the CWT that could have breached the fuel tank and ignited the flammable fuel/air vapor. However, testing by the Safety Board and the British Defense Evaluation and Research Agency in August 1997 at Bruntingthorpe Airfield, Leicestershire England, demonstrated that when metal of the same type and thickness as the CWT walls was penetrated by a small charge, there was petalling of the surface on which the charge was placed, pitting on the adjacent surfaces, and visible hot gas washing damage in the surrounding area. As discussed in section 2.2.1.2, none of these damage characteristics were found on the recovered CWT wreckage, and none of the areas of missing skin were large enough to represent the damage that would have been caused by the detonation of a small explosive charge. Therefore, it is very unlikely that a small explosive charge detonated on the CWT, breached the fuel tank, and ignited the fuel/air vapor." -- 2.3.1.4 Small Explosive Charge -- http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf

The official report says it's very unlikely that a small explosive charge caused the TWA 800 fuel tank explosion because of petalling of the surface. Wait a minute, what petalling?

Shaped charge -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdrmCYBPP2g

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Wait a minute...

No, Lindman. Not all "petalling" is automatically interchangeable. Again, here you go attempting to play expert while not having the requisite expertise.

[fess]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Whoa. I found interesting information. Not any direct proof but anyway. The jet fuel vapor had to be warm enough to be flammable. And since the explosion happened only 12 minutes after takeoff, the center wing fuel tank had to be "cooked" before takeoff. And that's what happened. The tank was exposed to heat from air condition units for nearly 3 hours just before the plane took off.

Nearly 18 years after the fact, and you found out something that was known the following day after the crash? You are really good at research…. not.
You do know it is common practice to run the air conditioning equipment while the aircraft is sitting on the ramp right?

[fess]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Both the first source and the second source support the idea of a shaped charge as being the cause of the explosion, since the reasons for ruling it out are weak and vague. Ask an expert if you don't believe me.

Who is the “they” you keep mentioning?

How did we go from a remote controlled B-747 taking off complete with false voice communications to an aircraft brought down by a shaped charge? If a shaped charge had been used, it would have deformed the outer skin of the aircraft. There was no mention of this in any of the reports.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by fess

You do know it is common practice to run the air conditioning equipment while the aircraft is sitting on the ramp right?

Yes, I think it was staged so that the plane could sit and cook the fuel tank for a long time. For example some missing/misplaced luggage took a long time to sort out. Nothing unusual yet a necessary part for making the fuel tank explode.

[Anders Lindman]

"Chemical analyses by the laboratories were consistent and showed that the dark brown splatter material was consistent with a polyurethane elastomer." -- 16.4.6 Examination of Brown Splatter Material -- http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf

"A shaped charge casing 1 designed to be nested to reduce overall volume, which benefits storage or carriage. ... The lid and body portions may be formed of polymeric material. Preferably the lid and body of the shaped charge will be comprised of structural polyurethane foam. This is a lightweight material that is easy to manufacture at low cost. This material is considered non-fragmenting which allows a very low weapon danger area when compared with other commonly used shaped charge casing materials." -- http://www.google.com/patents/US20140060369

[Anders Lindman]

"The group explored possible airplane sources of higher than normal heat incoming to the area of the splatter. The only airplane source identified by the group was possible overheated trim air entering the duct between stringers 21-22. Splatter on the top of the WCS appeared to extend to the *‘Y” inlet area for the trim air. The insulated metal trim air pipe attaches to the conditioned air duct inlet via an elastomeric sleeve/jubilee clip connector. This trim air pipe was located within the recovered wreckage and examined. As recovered it contained a separated portion of the elastomeric sleeve still connected to the end that attaches to the **Y” inlet. Examination of the sleeve piece disclosed no evidence of an overheated condition." -- Factual Report on Splatter Deposits, pp. 10: http://twa800.sites.usa.gov/files/tw...070/255738.pdf

From the same report, pp. 9:

"Had been at a temperature in excess of 493" F (256" C), as determined by the softening temperature and may have been at higher temperatures resulting in a scorched appearance and/or hardening (a portion of deposit 1 around SWB3)."

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by fess

Who is the “they” you keep mentioning?

How did we go from a remote controlled B-747 taking off complete with false voice communications to an aircraft brought down by a shaped charge? If a shaped charge had been used, it would have deformed the outer skin of the aircraft. There was no mention of this in any of the reports.

The remote control / autopilot would still have been needed. The fuel tank was detonated without any people on board.

The official report describes lack of evidence of small explosive charge and says that none of the missing pieces were large enough to cover the damage from such explosion.

As I indicated in an earlier post, the damage from a shaped charge would have been a tiny hole, not a big area as the report describes. And at most splatter material ejected in the direction of the charge. The report seems to be describing an ordinary small explosive charge, not a shaped charge which conveniently has been omitted in the report.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by fess

Who is the “they” you keep mentioning?

A secret cabal. The U.S. government was taken by surprise, first via a large number of false witnesses who claimed they saw a streak of light moving towards TWA 800. This was to make the FBI involved early on in the investigation, because when no bodies were found of victims, the entire U.S. government apparatus needed to start doing a massive coverup.

So the U.S. government was forced/tricked into doing a coverup, as a preparation for the 9/11 attacks a few years later where the U.S. government again was taken by surprise.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

"Chemical analyses by the laboratories were consistent and showed that the dark brown splatter material was consistent with a polyurethane elastomer." -- 16.4.6 Examination of Brown Splatter Material -- http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf

"A shaped charge casing 1 designed to be nested to reduce overall volume, which benefits storage or carriage. ... The lid and body portions may be formed of polymeric material. Preferably the lid and body of the shaped charge will be comprised of structural polyurethane foam. This is a lightweight material that is easy to manufacture at low cost. This material is considered non-fragmenting which allows a very low weapon danger area when compared with other commonly used shaped charge casing materials." -- http://www.google.com/patents/US20140060369

Watch out Anders, your keyboard is a shaped charge, since it is full of polyurethane.

[SUSpilot]

I haven't participated here in a long time, Anders, but I recall mentioning to you that I knew the flight engineer's brother. How does that square with "no people on board"?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by SUSpilot

I haven't participated here in a long time, Anders, but I recall mentioning to you that I knew the flight engineer's brother. How does that square with "no people on board"?

Simple. In Anders World^TM you are an ebil gubbmint shill and disinfo agent. You are paid to pretend. That's what he believes, or at least pretends to believe.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by SUSpilot

I haven't participated here in a long time, Anders, but I recall mentioning to you that I knew the flight engineer's brother. How does that square with "no people on board"?

If my conspiracy theory is correct, and if you are correct, then the flight engineer could still be alive today!

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Impossible because the government wouldn't lie to you? Not even in the name of national security?

My government would never lie to me, why right now I have a chicken in every pot* their agent is coming here to help and they have the check in the mail.

*do you have a good solution for cleaning chicken poop from pots?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

The crew and the passengers never entered the plane. And then the plane took off with some kind of remote control perhaps. Radio communication was done from another location nearby, with the real crew pretending to be inside the plane.

Remote control was done by telekinesis.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

More believable than an electric spark and victims' bodies having the same DNA because their flesh had been fused because the explosion was so strong, as one of the experts claimed.

The bodies had the same DNA because they were vat grown clones.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

It seems that you start your line of reasoning with the idea that a coverup is impossible instead of checking if the official claim really holds when scrutinized closer.

It could even have been a "small and weak" shaped charge. If an electric spark could cause the explosion, so could a tiny shaped charge. And how the experts could rule that out smacks of a coverup.

I hope you at least consider the possibility that there can have been a coverup.

I hope you at least consider the possibility that there can have been a coverup of the coverup.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mrbusdriver

...like Godzilla vs Bambi...

but, wait...AL may have something here....has he finally found some actual "findings"??!! I get the impression he never read the actual accident report...

I get the impression he doesn't read what's posted here.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Yes, I think it was staged...

Fantasy.

Quote:

Nothing unusual...

That's right, it's a fairly standard procedure. Ordinarily it's safe, except in the very rare case where that condition combines with an unforeseen ignition source in the fuel system.

Quote:

...yet a necessary part for making the fuel tank explode.

You do realize that's how ordinary accidents happen. As I said, you're simply preferring the most farfetched and outlandish of a number of potential scenarios.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

A secret cabal.

No. This is your deus ex machina for every single completely absurd scenario you post.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

The remote control / autopilot would still have been needed.

Asked and answered repeatedly. Do not attempt yet another fringe reset on this point.

Quote:

As I indicated in an earlier post, the damage from a shaped charge would...

No, you're not an expert in demolitions, Lindman. Kindly stop trying to impose your own uninformed interpretations.

Quote:

...not a shaped charge which conveniently has been omitted in the report.

Because, as was demonstrated in your source, a shaped charge is wholly inconsistent with the evidence.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

"...a polyurethane elastomer."

An elastomer is not even remotely the same thing as...

Quote:

"...lid and body of the shaped charge will be comprised of structural polyurethane foam."

You're so hung up on the apparent congruence between two usages of "polyurethane" (which happens to be an almost ubiquitous polymer binder in industrial engineering) that you don't pay attention to the context.

I want you to pause and consider that your scenario is so abjectly absurd that you just essentially proposed a rubber bomb casing! The casing proposed in your second source is not elastomeric.

Further, no casing of any composition would prevent the residue from the explosive itself from being deposited on a receiving material. You're trying to claim that the casing residue was left behind while -- magically -- none of the explosive residue was.

Give it up, Lindman. You don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. Random, frantic Googling for imaginary similarities and congruences is not a substitute for actual understanding and expertise.

[fess]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

The remote control / autopilot would still have been needed. The fuel tank was detonated without any people on board.

The official report describes lack of evidence of small explosive charge and says that none of the missing pieces were large enough to cover the damage from such explosion.

As I indicated in an earlier post, the damage from a shaped charge would have been a tiny hole, not a big area as the report describes. And at most splatter material ejected in the direction of the charge. The report seems to be describing an ordinary small explosive charge, not a shaped charge which conveniently has been omitted in the report.

You keep going on and on about this remote control idea of yours without offering any evidence whatsoever that this is possible. Retrofitting a 747 with a remote control system would be a major undertaking requiring a huge amount of time (if at all possible). How was this performed while the aircraft maintained its scheduled flight service?

Where are all of the kids and chaperones from Montoursville PA? They were bussed to JFK and were seen entering the aircraft. They have not been seen since then. Where are they?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by fess

You keep going on and on about this remote control idea of yours without offering any evidence whatsoever that this is possible.

Yeah, don't be fooled. Lindman pulled this same stunt in his Maylasia airliner thread and had no usable answers there either. Basically his understanding of commercial aviation, whether from an airframe design standpoint or an operational standpoint, is nonexistent. Hence he postulates an Anders-World "magical" solution where everything just works out the way he needs it to, regardless of how things actually work.

[fess]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

A secret cabal. The U.S. government was taken by surprise, first via a large number of false witnesses who claimed they saw a streak of light moving towards TWA 800. This was to make the FBI involved early on in the investigation, because when no bodies were found of victims, the entire U.S. government apparatus needed to start doing a massive coverup.

So the U.S. government was forced/tricked into doing a coverup, as a preparation for the 9/11 attacks a few years later where the U.S. government again was taken by surprise.

Is this the same “secret” cabal that was responsible for 9/11, or was it a different one?

A lot of claims were made by witnesses; most were shown to be false and/or implausible.

No bodies were found?

If this was a cover up, why did the ATC controller tell the eye witness pilot who saw the explosion that it was flight 800? BTW, this eye witness did not report seeing a streak of light.

If you are going to keep on posting this junk, at least offer some type of intelligent statement that would resemble some knowledge of the subject.

[dudalb]

And today,on the anniversary of flight 800,a Malaysian airliner is shot down on the Russian Ukranian Border. Watch Anders go insane over that coincidence....

[matt.tansy]

This is what an airliner hit with a SAM looks like:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1d6a9ac2-1...#axzz387cQkALB

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I had initially thought they had found explosives but what they found was a twinning deformation which was caused by a force of between 3,000 - 5,000 metres per second. A force of 1,000mps is categorised as an explosion. These were the results of three independent laboratories (including one that did police forensics) in the USA, UK and Germany.

As the metal had been immersed in water, it was realised from the TWA800 accident in 1996, that explosive substances may not be traceable. (See reference, above.)

There were no explosives on TWA800

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Vixen

... TWA800 accident in 1996, that explosive substances may not be traceable. ..

What explosives?

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

It's this sort of stultifyingly ignorant and scientifically-illiterate nonsense which makes this the threat that just keeps on giving....

It's palpably ridiculous to propose - as Vixen appears to be doing here - that the Atlantic Ocean is "much deeper by a country mile" than the Baltic Sea. I'd hope the sheer wrongness of such a statement would be immediately apparent.

And for the record, TWA800 sank to around 36m. The Estonia sank to around 90m. The difference - wrt the relative ease of exploration and recovery - is actually huge. For example, someone with my scuba certification could have dived to TWA800 three times per day, and would be able to spend an average time of around 20-25 mins per dive at the wreck site. By contrast, the Estonia could only be reached by either a tech diver, high-pressure manned submersible, or ROV*. In the first of those possibilities (the only one where humans could actually touch the wreck with their (gloved) hands) the divers would only have been able to spend around 15 mins at the wreck site, and would only be able to dive once per day.


** And NB to Vixen (or nota bene ), "ROV" stands for "Remotely Operate Vehicle". It does not, ceteris paribus, stand for anything else. Kimo sabi?

This.

The teams recovering the TWA 800 victims were hard-hat divers hooked to hoses on the surface allowing them to spend hours on the bottom.

If you'd bothered to watch any of the Youtube videos about the Estonia dive teams you'd know they went down with an exotic mix of gases strapped to their backs for that depth. Maybe look up Saturation Divers if you want to sound knowledgeable on the real effort needed to pull victims from the wreck.

Oh, and by the way, we pulled TWA-800 off the bottom and rebuilt it in an NTSB hangar, and up until this year the airframe has been used to train investigators:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/27/us/tw...rnd/index.html

They're finally scrapping it.

There was no bomb. This was the single most extensive search and investigation in US history. This was done to shut up conspiracy loons.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

There were no explosives on TWA800

It was an explosion.

Quote:

Trans World Airlines Flight 800 (TWA 800) was a Boeing 747-100 that exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean near East Moriches, New York, on July 17, 1996, at about 8:31 p.m. EDT, 12 minutes after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport on a scheduled international passenger flight to Rome, with a stopover in Paris.[1]:

wiki

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Vixen

As the metal had been immersed in water, it was realised from the TWA800 accident in 1996, that explosive substances may not be traceable. (See reference, above.)

TWA800 exploded because of fuel fumes. There was no explosive device.

Christ, do you ever get anything right?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Belz...

TWA800 exploded because of fuel fumes. There was no explosive device.

Christ, do you ever get anything right?

No..... but but BUT Pierre Salinger knew that it was actually a SAM (fired in error by a US Navy ship) which brought that aircraft down! He had actual eyewitnesses who saw a missile flying up towards the aircraft and exploding! And don't you think any observant person would know a surface-to-air missile when they saw one??!

Salinger even held press conferences and everything! I think you'll find he knew what he was talking about. The official NTSB report was a whitewash - the shadowy powers-that-be nobbled the FBI and NTSB in order to protect the US Navy and the Govt. This thing went right to the top!!

But yeah: you carry on believing the nonsense about the short circuit in the centre fuel tank. As if that could ever bring down a 747....

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Yes. This is far more in line with how eyewitness testimony is -- nay, must be -- handled in a real-world forensic investigation. And, frankly, how it's handled in a court of law too.

Interviewing the witness is also an art. We trained using interviews of TWA 800 witnesses as case studies. A court of law has adversarial questioning to probe gaps or differences in eyewitness testimony, but that's not what a forensic engineering investigation does. The goal in forensic engineering investigation when interviewing a witness is to extract as much factual evidence as possible, not to undermine witnesses in order to receive a favorable judgment. That means questioning the witness in a way that strips away assumptions, interpretations, conclusions, and other things that we all do in the process of encoding memories as narratives. It may seem untrusting or adversarial, but it should be more accurately viewed as a collaboration between the interviewer and the witness to extract the best information.

I guarantee that the point is not to make the witnesses feel like their testimony "counts for zilich." And I guarantee it's not to make light of whatever they may have suffered, or whatever strengths and flaws there might be in their character. It's to obtain purely factual information as dispassionately as possible. The notion that brave witnesses who suffered so much deserve to have their statements taken entirely, literally, at face value is simply foreign to the practice of productive, realistic investigation. The conspiracy movement seems bent on lionizing survivors. But that is not good science.

I disagree with this. If a whole bunch of eyewitnesses claim to have seen some kind of missile hitting TWA800, even if they were mistaken, should stand as what they claim they saw and not rewritten in any way.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I have no idea whether there were explosives or not. All I know is that some survivors claim to have heard explosions - in fact a series of them - and a naval military explosives expert, Brian Braidwood, claims to have identified possible explosive devices at the bow bulkhead.

The JAIC should have investigated these claims. It is all very well their saying no trace of explosives was found on the bow visor but maybe it didn't realise that certain explosives are not traceable after two days in water (see TWA800 case). This is why Braidwood's team sent samples for deformation analysis instead.

Is it a sound premise? The answer is, I don't know.

there were no explosives on TWA800

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

there were no explosives on TWA800

But it was tested for explosives and it was pointed out that they would have dissolved in the water.