New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Vixen

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

Then why did they find residue from explosives used in a security test?

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/24/n...-jetliner.html

https://apnews.com/article/6c4cee4e3...74ac5cbe89a16e

Quote:

A month before the crash of TWA Flight 800, the airliner was used to train bomb-sniffing dogs, and the explosives in those exercises could explain the traces of chemical residue found on the plane, a government official said Friday.

Investigators have been stymied for weeks in determining exactly what caused the plane to plunge into the Atlantic Ocean July 17, killing all 230 people on board.

Traces of chemicals often used in bomb-making have been found. But investigators say they have not gathered enough evidence to conclude that the plane was brought down by a terrorist act.

A federal official familiar with the investigation said on Friday that in June, as part of a routine training exercise, the TWA plane was used as a testing ground for bomb-sniffing dogs.

``It was this plane, and the test bombs contained explosive material,″ said the official.

Weird. They found trace levels of chemicals. Imagine what they would have found with an actual bomb.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Then why did they find residue from explosives used in a security test?

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/24/n...-jetliner.html

https://apnews.com/article/6c4cee4e3...74ac5cbe89a16e



Weird. They found trace levels of chemicals. Imagine what they would have found with an actual bomb.

See this citation here:

Quote:

The NTSB considered the possibility that the explosive residue was due to contamination from the aircraft's use in 1991 transporting troops during the Gulf War or its use in a dog-training explosive detection exercise about one month before the accident.[1]:258–259 Testing conducted by the FAA's Technical Center indicated that residues of the type of explosives found on the wreckage would dissipate completely after two days of immersion in sea water (almost all recovered wreckage was immersed longer than two days).[1]:259 The NTSB concluded that it was "quite possible" that the explosive residue detected was transferred from military ships or ground vehicles, or the clothing and boots of military personnel, onto the wreckage during or after the recovery operation and was not present when the aircraft crashed into the water

wiki

I think this is what Braidwood was referring to. It is interesting the accident investigators ruled out explosives by terrorists by saying the residues must have come from previous bomber dog training or from off the boots of military personnel in previous flights. It even said some could be due to the adhesive used in seat upholstery.

This reminds me of how Barry George got off the murder rap of broadcaster Jill Dando, as it was ruled the ammunition residues found on his clothing could have got there by chance.

Do you know what? At least TWA800 was investigated for explosives.

The Estonia never was, despite a neat petal-shaped hole exactly opposite a matching bolt on the side visor at the port bulkhead.

ETA: The bow visor was tested for explosives but none was found.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

See this citation here:

wiki

I think this is what Braidwood was referring to. It is interesting the accident investigators ruled out explosives by terrorists by saying the residues must have come from previous bomber dog training or from off the boots of military personnel in previous flights. It even said some could be due to the adhesive used in seat upholstery.

This reminds me of how Barry George got off the murder rap of broadcaster Jill Dando, as it was ruled the ammunition residues found on his clothing could have got there by chance.

Do you know what? At least TWA800 was investigated for explosives.

The Estonia never was, despite a neat petal-shaped hole exactly opposite a matching bolt on the side visor at the port bulkhead.

TWA800 was investigate for explosives because it was seen to explode in mid air.

Edited by Agatha:

Removed material pertaining to another thread

[Agatha]

Recent posts in this thread were moved from another thread, in which they were off-topic. Some of the moved posts may contain reference to the MS Estonia, but do not discuss that incident in this thread.

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:Agatha

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Vixen

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

And yet in forensic science traces of explosives can, and have, been recovered from objects immersed in water.

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by catsmate

And yet in forensic science traces of explosives can, and have, been recovered from objects immersed in water.

Yes. The quote above said the "residues of the type of explosives found on the wreckage" would dissipate, not residues from all types of explosives.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

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....

Fired in error? Did someone hit "autofire" and run to the head for a minute?

I'm not aware of any missile that could have taken down a plane in that manner. I worked on the HAWK system between 1989 and 1993, so I am familiar with the product during the time this happened. The missile in question would have been a variant of the RIM-66M which bears a striking similarity to the HAWK. They break the sound barrier as they leave the launcher. Someone on the surface of the ship would have noticed. There is no way that nobody noticed. If it happened that way, everyone from a deck hand to the cook would have noticed. (also, they have a self destruct so if they noticed, someone in fire control could have made it go boom safely.)

But, hey, I'm a government stooge to this day. What do I know.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Leftus

Fired in error? Did someone hit "autofire" and run to the head for a minute?

I'm not aware of any missile that could have taken down a plane in that manner. I worked on the HAWK system between 1989 and 1993, so I am familiar with the product during the time this happened. The missile in question would have been a variant of the RIM-66M which bears a striking similarity to the HAWK. They break the sound barrier as they leave the launcher. Someone on the surface of the ship would have noticed. There is no way that nobody noticed. If it happened that way, everyone from a deck hand to the cook would have noticed. (also, they have a self destruct so if they noticed, someone in fire control could have made it go boom safely.)

But, hey, I'm a government stooge to this day. What do I know.

Sea Dart could have done it but the problem there is they weren't a US system.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Sea Dart could have done it but the problem there is they weren't a US system.

It's also a proximity HE fragmentation missile. Get close enough, frag and poke holes in everything. So while I'm not an expert in that specific missile, I would put it in the same category as my HAWK, of which I'm no longer an expert, but feel secure in knowing the limitations of the class of missile in discussion.

I just think it's funny people put so much faith in people who have never even seen a SAM speak with such authority on the subject. Back in the day, I saw news reports on it, saw the recordings of it and said "Nope, not a missile" I've seen them in action, and they look nothing like that. Real ones, with real warheads. I've even put my hands on them. But, again, I'm a government stooge, so I'm in on it, I guess.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Leftus

It's also a proximity HE fragmentation missile. Get close enough, frag and poke holes in everything. So while I'm not an expert in that specific missile, I would put it in the same category as my HAWK, of which I'm no longer an expert, but feel secure in knowing the limitations of the class of missile in discussion.

I just think it's funny people put so much faith in people who have never even seen a SAM speak with such authority on the subject. Back in the day, I saw news reports on it, saw the recordings of it and said "Nope, not a missile" I've seen them in action, and they look nothing like that. Real ones, with real warheads. I've even put my hands on them. But, again, I'm a government stooge, so I'm in on it, I guess.

I was a WEM in the RN in the 80s. I used to look after them.
I saw them in action in the South Atlantic

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

I was a WEM in the RN in the 80s. I used to look after them.
I saw them in action in the South Atlantic

I wasn't trying to imply you to were one of the those conspiracy nuts. I'm certain you would agree that the difference between any number of SAMs or even AAM are largely the same. They chase heat or a radar beam. Chasing a beam isn't pin point. They get into the neighborhood and go boom and they don't make impact. HAWK, I think, considered inside a meter to be good enough. I can't speak to the Sea Dart with any authority, but I feel safe in saying they work on the same principal.

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by Leftus

They get into the neighborhood and go boom and they don't make impact. HAWK, I think, considered inside a meter to be good enough. I can't speak to the Sea Dart with any authority, but I feel safe in saying they work on the same principal.

When I worked on the AMRAAM program during its testing phase years ago, the press started reporting that the missile had never hit its target. It wasn't designed to, of course.

In any case, as I probably mentioned years ago, the eyewitness accounts of seeing a missile don't match what a missile would really look like at night. The witnesses reported a streak of light. But, a missile would actually look like just a moving dot.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I was doing a bit of looking into this question earlier. It's just barely plausible that a man portable anti aircraft missile could do this. The plane exploded at about 16 000 feet, which is near the limit of such missiles. There were various types available at that time, which reported maximum ranges between 16 and 20 000 feet.

And to range the plane in question, they'd have to pretty much shoot straight up. No significant horizontal offset. Because, as Mark Watney said, Pythagoras is a dick.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

And to range the plane in question, they'd have to pretty much shoot straight up. No significant horizontal offset. Because, as Mark Watney said, Pythagoras is a dick.

Sea Dart had a range of 40 nm and the) Mod 2 upgrade gave it 80 nm
It's ceiling was 60,000.
It was powered by a Rolls-Royce ramjet that powered it for the entire flight to the target.

It still wouldn't have looked like a streak of light though. After the solid fuel launch booster separated it didn't have much of a glow at all even in the dark.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

A number of people = Salinger following goombahs.

Usually the idiots say it was a missile from a US Navy ship. Never mind there were no missile capable ships in the region and somehow an entire crew that launched a missile has kept silent about it for years.

Your reading on TWA 800 appears to have been very one sided. The case for TWA 800 being downed by a missile is very credible and is supported by many, many commercial pilots, former military pilots, former military missile personnel, and aircraft engineers, among many others, not to mention over 100 of the eyewitnesses who witnessed the plane's destruction.

The government's animation that supposedly explains what the eyewitnesses saw has been soundly debunked. The animation shows the separated fuselage flying upward by some 3,000 feet and then descending, which is supposedly the upward-streaking object that so many witnesses described. This is preposterous and impossible. Even the NTSB eventually rejected the animation, which, for some odd reason, was done by the CIA. The radar data show that the fuselage flew virtually straight for a very short time and then dropped like a rock after separating from the nose of the aircraft, which is exactly what the eyewitnesses said occurred after they saw an object streaking toward the aircraft.

The only kooky theory about TWA 800's destruction is the government's silly theory, which says that the center fuel tank exploded from an alleged electrical spark, an event unknown in aviation history before or since, and an event that defies everything we know about jet fuel.

I recommend the 2013 documentary TWA Flight 800 directed by Kristina Borjesson, a former CBS producer. The documentary includes appearances by whistleblowers who worked on the federal investigation into the crash, eyewitnesses, and various scientists. The documentary is available on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and YouTube to rent or own (for a very reasonable price).

[jadebox]

Nope.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Your reading on TWA 800 appears to have been very one sided. The case for TWA 800 being downed by a missile is very credible and is supported by many, many commercial pilots, former military pilots, former military missile personnel, and aircraft engineers, among many others, not to mention over 100 of the eyewitnesses who witnessed the plane's destruction.

The government's animation that supposedly explains what the eyewitnesses saw has been soundly debunked. The animation shows the separated fuselage flying upward by some 3,000 feet and then descending, which is supposedly the upward-streaking object that so many witnesses described. This is preposterous and impossible. Even the NTSB eventually rejected the animation, which, for some odd reason, was done by the CIA. The radar data show that the fuselage flew virtually straight for a very short time and then dropped like a rock after separating from the nose of the aircraft, which is exactly what the eyewitnesses said occurred after they saw an object streaking toward the aircraft.

The only kooky theory about TWA 800's destruction is the government's silly theory, which says that the center fuel tank exploded from an alleged electrical spark, an event unknown in aviation history before or since, and an event that defies everything we know about jet fuel.

I recommend the 2013 documentary TWA Flight 800 directed by Kristina Borjesson, a former CBS producer. The documentary includes appearances by whistleblowers who worked on the federal investigation into the crash, eyewitnesses, and various scientists. The documentary is available on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and YouTube to rent or own (for a very reasonable price).

So you've just decided to be wrong in as many threads as possible?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

The case for TWA 800 being downed by a missile is very credible...

Speaking as a professional aerospace engineer with decades of experience including forensic methods:

No.

[jadebox]

Speaking as someone who has seen hundreds of rockets launched at night, I assure you the descriptions given by the eyewitnesses do not match what a missile would look like.

[kookbreaker]

I am just going to point out that you are replying to a 10 year old post I made in this thread. Even so, nothing convincing has come out on the Salinger side.

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Your reading on TWA 800 appears to have been very one sided. The case for TWA 800 being downed by a missile is very credible and is supported by many, many commercial pilots, former military pilots, former military missile personnel, and aircraft engineers, among many others, not to mention over 100 of the eyewitnesses who witnessed the plane's destruction.

And I am wagering you could not name any of these so claimed pilots and other alleged experts.

Quote:

The government's animation that supposedly explains what the eyewitnesses saw has been soundly debunked.

According to......?

Quote:

The animation shows the separated fuselage flying upward by some 3,000 feet and then descending, which is supposedly the upward-streaking object that so many witnesses described. This is preposterous and impossible.

As your aeronautics degree and decades of airplane failure experience tell you?

<Further nonsense and spam for a kook video (as if this thread already wasn't about a kook's video) snipped>

But hey, maybe if you are going to follow up maybe you can tell us who the "Long Island Police" are?

Mikey faceplants again.

[mikegriffith1]

Someone asked about Tom Stalcup, one of the producers of the documentary TWA Flight 800. Dr. Stalcup is a physicist. He became interested in the TWA 800 case when he watched the CIA's bogus animation of TWA 800's destruction, which shows the fuselage flying 3,000 feet upward after separating from the nose. He knew this was a physical impossibility, a fact that the NTSB tacitly conceded later (but then the NTSB posited a zoom climb of around 1,500 feet, which is also impossible and refuted by the radar data).

Here's my website on TWA 800:

https://sites.google.com/view/twa800/home

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Someone asked about Tom Stalcup, one of the producers of the documentary TWA Flight 800. Dr. Stalcup is a physicist.

As a person with a Physics degree, I would not trust myself or anyone with a higher degree in Physics to reliably assess an airplane accident. Yes, some of the basic skills are there, but there is a reason engineering and physics are separate fields.

(The rest of Mikey's argument from incredulity and spamming of his website deleted.)

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Dr. Stalcup is a physicist.

And therefore unqualified to investigate a transportation accident.

Quote:

Here's my website..

There's always a website.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

As a person with a Physics degree, I would not trust myself or anyone with a higher degree in Physics to reliably assess an airplane accident.

Correct. Stalcup's academic expertise is in the magnetic properties of crystals. His professional experience is in designing sensors for environmental monitoring. He has no training and experience in aviation or aerospace. He has no experience or training in engineering, and is not licensed. He has no experience or training in forensic methods. Lately he seems more interested in political activism than in being a scientist.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by jadebox

Speaking as someone who has seen hundreds of rockets launched at night, I assure you the descriptions given by the eyewitnesses do not match what a missile would look like.

The government's own missile test refutes your claim. The multiple missile firings in that test look exactly like what the witnesses described. I take it you haven't watched the Borjesson-Stalcup documentary, which includes a segment that shows some of those test firings.

One of the witnesses who saw an object streaking upward toward the airliner was a former Army chopper pilot who had seen many surface-to-air missiles fired in combat in Vietnam.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Speaking as a professional aerospace engineer with decades of experience including forensic methods: No.

I doubt that you've studied the evidence for a missile strike and against an (unprecedented) in-flight explosion of the center fuel tank. I also suspect you are unaware of the qualifications of the experts who reject the FBI-NTSB-CIA version of the airliner's destruction. Here are just a few of those experts:

-- Dr. Gregory Harrison, four degrees in engineering, former professor of fire science at the University of Maryland, 36 years of experience in fire investigation, accident investigation, and explosion investigation. You might read the affidavit he filed:

https://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/h...y-harrison.pdf

-- Dr. Vernon Gross, air disaster analyst and former member of the NTSB. Dr. Gross appears in the Borjesson-Stalcup documentary. Dr. Gross rejects Salinger's theory that a missile flew head-on at the airliner, but he agrees that the hole on the left side of the plane must have been made by something that was external to the aircraft, as he notes in this video interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGQOY17XVwk

-- Ray Lahr, a former airline pilot who became an air crash investigator for the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), and a former chairman of the ALPA Aircraft Evaluation Committee. Here is one of the many articles Lahr has written on the case:

http://raylahr.com/tenyearcommemoration.php

-- Glen Schulze, an electrical engineer who worked as a consultant for the U.S. Navy and the University of Texas Applied Research Labs, and a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. He analyzed the TWA 800 Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR) tapes at the request of the Associated Retired Aviation Professionals (ARAP). Here are two of his articles on the TWA 800 FDR:

https://twa800.com/schulze/4secfinal.htm

http://www.thic.org/pdf/Jul03/gschulze.030723.pdf

And here's the affidavit he submitted:

https://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/bb-glen-schulze.pdf

-- Rear Admiral Clarence Hill (U.S. Navy-Ret), a former Navy officer with extensive experience in ship-fired surface-to-air missiles, and a former air crash investigator in the Navy. Here's Admiral Hill's affidavit:

https://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/c...rence-hill.pdf

[jadebox]

Nope. You don't see something "streaking up." Rockets don't leave streaks through the sky. Those witnesses were comparing what they saw to photographs of rocket launches where long exposures capture the flights as streaks. That is not anything like what you see with the naked eye.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

I doubt that you've studied the evidence for a missile strike and against an (unprecedented) in-flight explosion of the center fuel tank.

You would be wrong about that. Not everyone who disagrees with conspiracy theories does so from a position of ignorance of what those theories say. You might want to read more of the thread to which you are contributing.

Quote:

I also suspect you are unaware of the qualifications of the experts...

Also incorrect, but now you're changing horses.

You led with Stalcup, trying to position him as the expert we should respect because he was a physicist. If you're now withdrawing your claim to his purported subject-matter expertise, please say so explicitly. Then we can proceed with void voir dire on the other individuals you're belatedly trying to substitute for Stalcup.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by jadebox

Nope. You don't see something "streaking up." Rockets don't leave streaks through the sky. Those witnesses were comparing what they saw to photographs of rocket launches where long exposures capture the flights as streaks. That is not anything like what you see with the naked eye.

Agreed. I have attended the launches of several rocket-powered vehicles of all types and sizes at all times of the night and day. At night, one sees a moving spot of light, not an elongated streak.

[sackett]

"Void dire!" God how I love it! It's cool, terse AlmostLatin for arguing with conspiracy bleevers!

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by sackett

"Void dire!" God how I love it! It's cool, terse AlmostLatin for arguing with conspiracy bleevers!

Fixed. Ugh, the MacBook doth love to rewrite things I type without me paying attention to what happened.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Your reading on TWA 800 appears to have been very one sided. The case for TWA 800 being downed by a missile is very credible

Utter bollocks. As usual.

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

You would be wrong about that. Not everyone who disagrees with conspiracy theories does so from a position of ignorance of what those theories say. You might want to read more of the thread to which you are contributing.

It's called projection. When someone is pulling **** out of their nether regions, they assume everyone else is too.

[sackett]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Fixed. Ugh, the MacBook doth love to rewrite things I type without me paying attention to what happened.

What? Why Otto Krekt is our friend, he is there to help us. I can see arguing in front of a judge with a feeling for language, "Your Honor, I move that this witness's utterance be struck from the record. This is VOID DIRE!" Laughter in the courtroom.

Well, tittering maybe.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

The government's own missile test refutes your claim. The multiple missile firings in that test look exactly like what the witnesses described. I take it you haven't watched the Borjesson-Stalcup documentary, which includes a segment that shows some of those test firings.

Cool, please explain - IN DETAIL - how the wreckage of TWA-800 matches up with the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines - 17. Should be easy. I mean, TWA-800 was used to train hundreds of NTSB investigators for over twenty years. Why is it that nobody ever saw evidence of a AA missile strike anywhere on the airframe? Why does the wreck look like the center fuel tank exploded?

Oh, and why were no missile fragments found in the fuselage, or recovered from the sea floor?

I'm a simple man, please use small words in your reply.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

...the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines - 17.

There was a great film on this subject at this year's Sundance Film Festival, Iron Butterflies.

[mikegriffith1]

In 2009, the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) in New Mexico conducted an experiment with a center fuel tank in an attempt to validate the FBI-NTSB theory that a spark from faulty wiring ignited vapors in TWA 800’s center fuel tank, caused the fuel tank to explode, and blew up the airliner. The experiment actually provided powerful evidence against the theory, even though defenders of the government version claimed the opposite.

In the EMRTC experiment, the engineers were eventually able to get the fuel tank to explode from a spark they generated inside the tank. Defenders of the FBI-NTSB theory hailed the experiment as proof of the theory. However, even a cursory analysis of the video of the experiment proves it strongly refuted the FBI-NTSB theory. Consider the following facts:

-- The center fuel tank in the EMRTC experiment was from a Boeing 737, not a Boeing 747, and it was only one-fourth the size of TWA 800’s center fuel tank, as the chief engineer admits in the video.

-- The EMRTC experiment heated the fuel tank to 112 degrees because the FBI-NTSB theory is that running the A/C units under TWA 800’s center fuel tank while the plane was delayed caused the tank to heat up to 112 degrees, which in turn produced enough explosive vapors to cause the alleged spark-induced explosion.

However, we see in the video that it took the EMRTC engineers nearly three hours to heat the undersized center fuel tank to 112 degrees, even though they were using a high-powered industrial heater. However, TWA 800 was only delayed for just over an hour--no more than 74 minutes. Since it took nearly three hours to heat the smaller fuel tank to 112 degrees, this proves that operating the A/C units under TWA 800’s center fuel tank for 74 minutes could not have heated the tank to 112 degrees.

In fact, in the video, the chief engineer says, “we've been heating this now for about three hours and we're finally approaching the temperature that we need for testing.” In other words, even after about three hours of heating the fuel tank with an industrial-grade heater, the fuel tank was only “approaching” the needed temperature of 112 degrees.

-- The video narrator says that the engineers sought to set the conditions “to mimic that hot summer day in 1996.” “Hot summer day”? TWA 800 took off at 8:19 p.m. When TWA 800’s delay began at 7:00 p.m., the temperature at JFK International Airport was 82 degrees. 51 minutes later, 20 minutes before takeoff, the temperature had dropped to 80 degrees. This was hardly sweltering heat. As William Donaldson, a retired U.S. Navy Commander said,

Quote:

The NTSB would have you believe that Jet A fuel vapors are a virtual bomb waiting to go off, yet every day hundreds of 747s are sitting on hot runways in places like Saudi Arabia, India, etc., with empty center tanks and none have ever exploded. Every day aircraft with empty fuel tanks are hit by lightning, a spark thousands of times greater than necessary to ignite this vapor, yet these aircraft do not explode. (https://twa800.com/pages/fuel.htm)

-- The EMRTC engineers had to increase the electrical spark to 75 millijoules to get the tank to explode. They started with 4 millijoules, then 8, then 32, then 50. No explosion. The undersized fuel tank did not explode until they increased the charge to 75 millijoules. This was at the upper end of the range theorized by the NTSB, which was 5 to 100 millijoules.

Furthermore, a key point to note is that in the EMRTC test, the charge was not introduced through faulty wiring but from a charging probe placed in the fuel tank.

Boeing engineers designed their tanks with the assumption that the vapors were always flammable; therefore, they took steps to prevent any energy from entering the tank through wiring to ignite these vapors. To do this, they added extra protection to fuel gauge wiring by adding a nylon sheath; they also included proper surge protection. Although only 120 volts were available on a Boeing plane to short into these wires, Boeing engineers tested their wiring up to 3,000 volts on new airplanes; they also did wiring testing after the crash of TWA 800 on many older airplanes still in service. No electricity ever escaped from the wiring in fuel tanks in any of these tests.

Perhaps this is why there was never an in-flight fuel tank explosion from an internal cause in any Boeing airliner before TWA 800 and why there has never been one since. The EMRTC experiment is powerful evidence that TWA 800’s center fuel tank did not explode from a spark from faulty wiring.

-- The EMRTC test made no effort to simulate the cooling effect that would have been produced when TWA 800 took off, increased speed, and gained altitude. As many experts have pointed out, when an airliner climbs, the air temperature outside the plane decreases. The higher the altitude, the colder the air gets. Plus, the effect of cool air blowing rapidly under the center fuel tank would have helped to decrease the tank’s temperature. In short, TWA 800’s center fuel tank would have experienced substantial cooling as the plane increased speed and gained altitude in the 12 minutes between takeoff and destruction.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

In 2009...

Please do us the courtesy of reading the thread before you raise again all the arguments that have already been considered and addressed in it.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Please do us the courtesy of reading the thread before you raise again all the arguments that have already been considered and addressed in it.

Oh, well, just post a link to the reply or replies that address the EMRTC test.

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Ok...lets look at that for a second...let's say it was a missile...

If it was a terrorist missile, then why didn't the terrorists "take credit" for it?

They did. Two TV stations received calls from men with Arabic accents who claimed to represent "Jihad" and who took credit for shooting down TWA 800. And, at around the same time, a newspaper in Beirut received an Arabic language fax from people claiming to be "mujahadeen" who took credit for TWA 800's destruction.

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

...and if it was a naval missile, are we really expected to believe that all the sailors on that ship actually were able to keep that a secret?

Some evidence suggests that a Navy ship or ships fired missiles at a small plane that was approaching TWA 800 because they believed the plane was a terrorist plane that was going to ram TWA 800, and that the missiles homed in on TWA 800 instead because it had a much larger heat signature. Investigative journalist Jack Cashill explores this possibility in his 2016 book TWA 800: The Crash, the Cover-Up, and the Conspiracy. A small plane was seen flying near TWA 800 shortly before the crash.

Cashill reports that he was contacted by a Navy sailor who claimed he had been on a missile frigate off the East Coast at the time of the crash, and that he heard over the command radio circuit on the bridge that another missile ship had fired a live missile at a commercial aircraft. The sailor said that on his ship a dire warning was issued, with the threat of court martial, to everyone who had heard the radio broadcast to never discuss it. The sailor provided a number of specific details about his ship, the commander at the time, etc., and they all checked out.

A few other sailors who said they were on ships on the East Coast at the time have contacted researchers and have related similar accounts, though not with as much detail as the above-mentioned account.

I think it's just as likely that terrorists fired two missiles at the airliner from two boats separated by several hundred feet to give themselves a better chance of hitting the target. That said, I don't rule out Cashill's scenario, or a variant of it.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Oh, well, just post a link to the reply or replies that address the EMRTC test.

No, read the thread. You're eight years late to this party and you're posting in a thread that has already gone nearly 60 pages discussing Stalcup's claims. It's your responsibility to catch up.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
Oh, well, just post a link to the reply or replies that address the EMRTC test.

No, read the thread. You're eight years late to this party and you're posting in a thread that has already gone nearly 60 pages discussing Stalcup's claims. It's your responsibility to catch up.

I said nothing about Stalcup in the post to which you replied. I talked about the EMRTC test, which proved that TWA 800's center wing fuel tank could not have heated to 112 degrees during the 74-minute delay before takeoff. A search for "EMRTC" in this thread shows only my post about the EMRTC test.

Now, would you care to address the facts I pointed out regarding the EMRTC test?

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Then why did they find residue from explosives used in a security test?

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/24/n...-jetliner.html

https://apnews.com/article/6c4cee4e3...74ac5cbe89a16e

Weird. They found trace levels of chemicals. Imagine what they would have found with an actual bomb.

This claim was debunked many years ago, not long after it was made. The news media obediently ran with the claim without doing any checking.

If they had interviewed the police officer who did the "security test" (actually, it was training for a bomb-sniffing dog), they would have learned that the test was not done on the TWA 800 airliner but on a different airliner.

If they had bothered to check the airliner's flight history, they would have learned that the TWA 800 plane was being boarded and preparing for takeoff when the bomb-sniffing-dog training was being conducted. (Kallstrom either lied through his teeth or was fed bogus information about which plane the training was done on.)

And, if they had checked the explosives used in the bomb-sniffing test, they would have learned that the chemical mixtures in those explosives were not the same ones that were detected on TWA 800.

Here's an article about a recent major TWA 800 lawsuit filed a few months ago by the Boston law firm of Bailey and Glasser against several federal agencies on behalf of numerous family members of those killed on the flight:

Could the TWA 800 Cover-Up Finally Come Undone?
https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...me_undone.html

And, here's an article about the Navy whistleblower who contacted journalist Jack Cashill regarding TWA 800--the is the Navy man I mentioned in a previous reply:

The TWA 800 Whistleblower Is Legit
https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._is_legit.html