New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

I said nothing about Stalcup in the post to which you replied.

I am attempting to get you to address the rebuttals to your claims in the order in which you made those claims. This entire thread is a debate about the findings of Stalcup and Cashill. You resurrected it by noting that Stalcup was a physicist—a point already made early on this thread. You insinuated that this qualified him to speak authoritatively on airline disasters. This too was discussed earlier in this thread. I've asked you whether you wish to attempt rehabilitate Stalcup as an expert witness or withdraw him. You didn't answer. You changed the subject. Now you're just Gish-galloping a whole bunch of stuff we've already covered at length.

Do you concede that Stalcup is not a subject-matter expert in aerospace engineering or forensic investigation? Yes or no.
Have you read this thread? Yes or no.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

This entire thread is a debate about the findings of Stalcup and Cashill. You resurrected it by noting that Stalcup was a physicist—a point already made early on this thread. You insinuated that this qualified him to speak authoritatively on airline disasters. This too was discussed earlier in this thread. I've asked you whether you wish to attempt rehabilitate Stalcup as an expert witness or withdraw him. You didn't answer. You changed the subject. Now you're just Gish-galloping a whole bunch of stuff we've already covered at length.

Do you concede that Stalcup is not a subject-matter expert in aerospace engineering or forensic investigation? Yes or no. Have you read this thread? Yes or no.

Is this going to be your tactic to avoid addressing the EMRTC test, to just keep asking about Stalcup? Stalcup had nothing to do with the EMRTC test--indeed, the test's designers were trying to validate the fuel-tank-explosion theory, but ended up destroying it.

Anyway, about Stalcup:

First of all, this case involves more than just aerospace engineering and forensic investigation.

Second, the two forensic pathologists who examined the bodies from the crash both reject the NTSB version and agree with Hughes, Donaldson, Stalcup et al. The pathologists appeared in the Borjesson-Stalcup documentary.

Three, Stalcup is most certainly a subject matter expert in physics, which qualifies him to discuss (1) the mythical and impossible zoom climb posited by the CIA (3,000 feet) and the NTSB (1,500 feet), (2) the movement of objects seen in the radar data, and (3) the physics of explosive forces.

Four, a number of crash investigators, missile experts, 747 pilots, and aircraft maintenance/engineering experts agree with Stalcup and reject the fuel-tank-explosion theory and the zoom climb. Without a zoom climb, there is no way to explain the 100-plus eyewitness accounts of an object streaking upward from ground/sea level and heading toward TWA 800.

By the way, here is the TWA 800 Project's reply, written with extensive input from Stalcup, to the NTSB's response to the Hughes investigative team's petition for reconsideration:

https://twa800project.files.wordpres...ate-report.pdf

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Is this going to be your tactic...

Yes. I'm going to address your points in the order you bring them up and stick with each in turn until there is some resolution before moving on. That you seem to want to forge ahead—bringing up new issues without resolving those brought up previously—is not my problem. As a prefatory question to your ongoing Gish gallop, I'm asking you whether you have read the entire thread. Have you done so?

Quote:

First of all, this case involves more than just aerospace engineering and forensic investigation.

The question is not whether those are sufficient qualifications but whether those are necessary qualifications. We'll start with those, since they are the most basic. Do you concede that a credible investigation of an airliner disaster requires expertise in aerospace engineering and forensic methods?

Quote:

Second, the two forensic pathologists...

Please suspend the Gish gallop.

Quote:

Three, Stalcup is most certainly a subject matter expert in physics, which qualifies him to discuss (1) the mythical and impossible zoom climb posited by the CIA (3,000 feet) and the NTSB (1,500 feet), (2) the movement of objects seen in the radar data, and (3) the physics of explosive forces.

No, it does not.

I routinely employ PhD physicists at my engineering company, and these subjects are not part of their education or training. Stalcup's actual education, training, and professional experience are a matter of record. Stalcup's academic field of study was the magnetic properties of crystals. He worked for a company that designed sensors for environmental monitoring. He most lately started a company that aggregates environmental data. What part of that training and experience qualifies him as an expert in (1) the aerodynamics and structural dynamics of commercial airframes, (2) the operation of ATC radars, and (3) high-energy structural dynamics?

And since you're now attempting to vouch for him, what are your qualifications in either engineering or physics? How are you able to determine whether Stalcup is qualified as you claim?

Quote:

Four, a number of crash investigators...

As I promised, we will conduct voir dire on other purported experts after we're finished with Stalcup.

[jadebox]

Quote:

Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Is this going to be your tactic to avoid addressing the EMRTC test, to just keep asking about Stalcup? Stalcup had nothing to do with the EMRTC test--indeed, the test's designers were trying to validate the fuel-tank-explosion theory, but ended up destroying it.

You're late to the party. You've been asked to do your homework as this topic has already been examined at length in this thread. If you're lazy, cool, but it doesn't reflect well on your website.

Quote:

Three, Stalcup is most certainly a subject matter expert in physics, which qualifies him to discuss (1) the mythical and impossible zoom climb posited by the CIA (3,000 feet) and the NTSB (1,500 feet), (2) the movement of objects seen in the radar data, and (3) the physics of explosive forces.

And yet, somehow, he's got it wrong.

Quote:

Four, a number of crash investigators, missile experts, 747 pilots, and aircraft maintenance/engineering experts agree with Stalcup and reject the fuel-tank-explosion theory and the zoom climb. Without a zoom climb, there is no way to explain the 100-plus eyewitness accounts of an object streaking upward from ground/sea level and heading toward TWA 800.

It certainly climbed.

Why hasn't Stalcup named the US Navy destroyer that fired this missile? Where are the crew of this ship? Why hasn't he tracked down the ship's crew manifest to interview them? What about the ship's log? What about the missile inventory? You do know they count those things before leaving port, and when they return, right? If a missile is unaccounted for it's a big deal, so where are the reports of a USN AA missile going missing? How has nobody in the USN has ever passed along rumors of an accidental missile launch?

These are easy questions to answer, so why do they remain unaddressed? The fact that Stalcup does not name the ship, bring forward officers and crew of the ship to tell their story, and provide the serial number of the missile suggests he's full of crap.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Is this going to be your tactic to avoid ...

Anyway, about Stalcup:

First of all, this case involves more than just aerospace engineering and forensic investigation.
...
...
Four, a number of crash investigators, missile experts, 747 pilots, and aircraft maintenance/engineering experts agree with Stalcup and reject the fuel-tank-explosion theory and the zoom climb. Without a zoom climb, there is no way to explain the 100-plus eyewitness accounts of an object streaking upward from ground/sea level and heading toward TWA 800.

...
https://twa800project.files.wordpres...ate-report.pdf

So you failed to ready the thread? Great tactic, just report SPAM/Hearsay stuff?

Wow, you have a number of crash investigators? Names? Realize it is based on hearsay?

Missile experts who are basing their claims on things they did not see. Good one, that is "super evidence". Good job.

747 pilots who did not see the event? Another great NOT evidence thing of woo.

I would go with don't operate the AC pack on the ground for extended periods without lots of fuel in the Center/Tank in question due to lots of heat. But go ahead, deny the science and evidence, go with hearsay what BS from people you can't name.

You might want to NOT the sources you use which are based on far right-wing bias, full of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, which also use bad/poor sources.

Why do you post bad sources to back up your claims, to repost the conclusion based on BS and conspiracy theories - you seem to have figured out the Holocaust, but can't figure you 800, JFK, and RFK.

Ignore the science, go with hearsay. Don't research reflections, visual illusions, and the problems using eyewitnesses.


How many is "a number"? 1?

Plus you might want to study RADAR, learn all about RADAR, to learn why the report you posted might be BS. Study RADAR, and get back to me.
OR, you can blindly believe what the guy responsible for establishing the reconstruction area for the exterior and major components of the airplane and later assigned to supervise the Airplane Interior Documentation Group charged with reconstructing the cockpit and passenger areas of the airplane, including the cargo bays, now an expert at RADAR? Go for it.

You might know more about RADAR than that guy if you took time to study RADAR instead of studying BS conspiracy sources who are selling "soap".

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

I realize this comment was made in 2013, but even in 2013, the claim that there were no missile-capable Navy ships in the area had been refuted by information revealed in documents obtained via FOIA requests and lawsuits. Even before the FOIA-released information came to light, it was known that several witnesses saw Navy ships off the coast, and one of them was described as looking like a "battleship" (which is how your average civilian would describe a destroyer, frigate, or cruiser).

Eventually, the government was forced to admit that, yes, there had been some Navy combat ships in the area when TWA 800 went down.

A good summary of the main evidence of a missile strike on TWA 800 is presented in the lawsuit filed by the Boston law firm of Bailey and Glasser on behalf of numerous family members of victims of the crash. The lawsuit discusses misconduct on the part of some FBI and NTSB personnel. Here's the lawsuit:

Bailey and Glasser 2022 Lawsuit

And just for the record, Bailey and Glasser is a major and respected law firm whose attorneys include 27 Ivy League and Top 20 law school graduates. Bailey-Glasser has handled many major, high-profile cases in a number of areas of law, including criminal, tort, financial, energy, and corporate cases. In short, this is not some fledgling law firm that's taking on a questionable case in the hope garnering publicity.

[KDLarsen]

It's basically "Dr. Stalcup: The Lawsuit", seeing as he's mentioned in just about every other paragraph.

And why wouldn't "a major and respected" law firm with "27 Ivy League and Top 20 law school graduates" (and 1 Rhodes Scholar, apparently) take on a case like this, as long as its not on the face it blatantly frivolous and the clients can pony up the fees to pay them to do so?

[kookbreaker]

Dude, that’s a plaintiff’s complaint. It’s full of nothing but assertions, not cross-examined evidence.

Unimpressive to say the least. Knowing how Navy ships (and military in general) there is no way you could keep a ship crew that launched this quiet for hours, let alone days.

[dudalb]

So Mikey has gone from BS conspiracy theores about Pearl Harbor (under a different name" to 9/11 crap?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

... there is no way to explain the 100-plus eyewitness accounts of an object streaking upward from ground/sea level and heading toward TWA 800. ...

Eyewitnesses were how far away? Was it 11 miles, to 23 miles away?

What does a 747 look like 11 miles away? 23 miles away?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

And why wouldn't "a major and respected" law firm with "27 Ivy League and Top 20 law school graduates" (and 1 Rhodes Scholar, apparently) take on a case like this, as long as its not on the face it blatantly frivolous and the clients can pony up the fees to pay them to do so?

Believing that a Big Law firm sees you as anything other than billable hours is tantamount to believing the stripper is really in love with you.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

I realize this comment was made in 2013, but even in 2013, the claim that there were no missile-capable Navy ships in the area had been refuted by information revealed in documents obtained via FOIA requests and lawsuits. Even before the FOIA-released information came to light, it was known that several witnesses saw Navy ships off the coast, and one of them was described as looking like a "battleship" (which is how your average civilian would describe a destroyer, frigate, or cruiser).

Eventually, the government was forced to admit that, yes, there had been some Navy combat ships in the area when TWA 800 went down.

A good summary of the main evidence of a missile strike on TWA 800 is presented in the lawsuit filed by the Boston law firm of Bailey and Glasser on behalf of numerous family members of victims of the crash. The lawsuit discusses misconduct on the part of some FBI and NTSB personnel. Here's the lawsuit:

Bailey and Glasser 2022 Lawsuit

And just for the record, Bailey and Glasser is a major and respected law firm whose attorneys include 27 Ivy League and Top 20 law school graduates. Bailey-Glasser has handled many major, high-profile cases in a number of areas of law, including criminal, tort, financial, energy, and corporate cases. In short, this is not some fledgling law firm that's taking on a questionable case in the hope garnering publicity.

No, it seems like an established law firm taking on a questionable case. For the money you see!

[sackett]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Believing that a Big Law firm sees you as anything other than billable hours is tantamount to believing the stripper is really in love with you.

Yeah? Well at least the stripper's trying.

[Axxman300]

Name the ships. They have names. List them, along with their GPS coordinates at the time of the crash. You said there was a FOIA release, show us. Provide the serial number of the missile while you're at it.

[Spoiler Alert: You can't]

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Dude, that’s a plaintiff’s complaint. It’s full of nothing but assertions, not cross-examined evidence.

Lest we forget Judy Woods. Even plaintiffs who possess entirely valid and relevant credentials can turn into cranks who file lawsuits written for them by notable attorneys.

Stalcup is simply not qualified to act as any sort of subject-matter expert in this action. As nearly as I can tell, Stalcup hasn't actually held a technical job since the early 2000s. He seems to be a full-time political activist now. There's nothing inherently shameful in that, as I count political activists of various stripes among my closest friends and I agree with many of Stalcup's political positions. But if you're trying to lay a foundation for yourself as an expert in aerodynamics, structural dynamics, radar operations, and forensic engineering methods—expecting to hold engineering firms accountable for your expert opinions of their negligence—then having excited crystals with electromagnetic fields won't pass the Daubert standard for that.

When Raytheon was my customer, a number of my conversations with them revolved around what a magnet they are for crank lawsuits. They retain their own Big Law litigation firm to handle just the nut jobs. I'll check the docket later to see if they've made an entry in appearance for this suit.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

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.

And where did the Mythical Missile come from?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

<snippage>.

Utter rubbish as usual.

[Axxman300]

I wish people knew just what a big deal it is to fire an anti-aircraft missile from a destroyer actually is. Just getting the missile from storage, transporting it to the ship, loading onto the ship, and inspecting the missile before signing off on it (obviously not in that order) creates an massive amount of paperwork, in triplicate.

Then there's the whole firing process, which in peace-time training is a long list of headaches starting with the budget, and coordinating the test launch with the other ships in the task force. There is an air-cap to make sure civilian aircraft don't fly into the designated test area which has to be in place before the test. And then everyone is alerted that a launch is imminent. It's not uncommon for sailors of neighboring vessels to take photos and videos of the launch.

With one missile test you have close to a thousand sailors who are eye-witnesses, or are aware a launch has occurred.

The Lawsuit claims Raytheon and the Navy were conducting a test. This usually entails a film crew and a P-3 Orion to record the launch from the ship, and following the missile to the target. If true, the event is on film, and video from FLIR cameras. Why was this footage not requested?

My guess, the footage doesn't exist, because no missile was fired.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

...creates a[] massive amount of paperwork, in triplicate.

The suit alleges this was all just covered up and remains covered up despite Stalcup's heroic efforts at eking information out of the military and FBI.

Quote:

There is an air-cap to make sure civilian aircraft don't fly into the designated test area which has to be in place before the test.

The suit alleges that Stalcup's FOIA requests uncovered records of live-fire exercises in May 1996 off the New Jersey coast. But he has no records of such exercises being conducted in July 1996, when TWA flight 800 crashed. As expected, he hangs most of the suit on the same claims he's been trumpeting unsuccessfully for so many years: "I have radar evidence!" and "All these witnesses said they saw a missile." It's a wash-rinse-repetition of his prior claims, sprinkled with a tidbit of new-but-irrelevant disclosure. The Navy were shooting missiles in May, so they "must" have been shooting missiles in July too, because what else explains all these witnesses who saw one?

Quote:

It's not uncommon for sailors of neighboring vessels to take photos and videos of the launch.

And for contractors (wink, wink) and relatives of officers who can pull strings for them (wink, wink) to be on hand to witness the tests. You know, for quality control purposes.

Quote:

Why was this footage not requested?

It likely was, since FOIA requests generally ask for "any and all" pertinent information "in whatsoever form." But it's irrelevant anyway, since he has zero documentary evidence for July from the Navy. He's very proud of having a court uphold his subpoena. But the actual evidence he got as a result is a big nothing-burger.

Quote:

My guess, the footage doesn't exist, because no missile was fired.

Of course that's the parsimonious answer. But Stalcup is undeterred. He chalks up his inability to obtain information for July 1996 on the ongoing efforts of the FBI, the CIA, and the Dept. of Defense to keep him from uncovering the truth. And he cites his recent victory in subpoenaing and obtaining previously undisclosed records as proof that they're probably still hiding things. In other words, standard conspiracy-theorist rhetoric.

I showed the complaint to a friend of mine who's a part-time law professor at the University of Utah and, until recently, was an associate in a Big Law firm. He's now in-house counsel for a very large company that I used to work for. He skimmed it over a cocktail and listened to me talk about Stalcup's prior work, then rendered this opinion :—

The case is not overtly crackpot; it has documentary evidence that is facially congruent with the representations made in the complaint regarding eyewitness testimony. It pleads plausibly, although that's an exceptionally low bar. You can allege all kinds of stuff "upon information and belief" in a complaint that will be utterly destroyed during discovery or at trial. What makes this case attractive to Big Law is the crusader pseudo-plaintiff. This case was clearly brought by Stalcup; the named plaintiffs are just for Article III standing. If the motivating party is at least facially credible and has shown a prior willingness to engage in long-term billable litigation, then that's an attractive client. If it goes to trial, they'll probably lose just based on the tenuous connection between the allegedly smoking missile launcher evidence and the eyewitness testimony. But they'll have made lots of money, and that's literally all a Big Law firm cares about.

[Axxman300]

It's clear with all the revelations of "Classified Documents" turning up in old offices, garages, closets, and elsewhere that they're not supposed to be that the people in charge of keeping track of them sometimes fall short.

[JayUtah]

This conspiracy theory, like many others, alludes to a nugget of irrelevant truth. It's true that some things are classified which shouldn't be. It's true that some FOIA requests are denied when they shouldn't be. It's true that some responsive documents will have been mishandled and thereby lost or destroyed. Therefore you'll almost always find evidence of impropriety if you just look hard enough. Stalcup is nothing if not persistent.

However, conspiracy-theory reasoning hypes up the significance and relevance of even the smallest and least remarkable bit of impropriety. "They acted improperly in this marginally relevant way, therefore my specific accusation must be true." It's amazing how many people buy that argument.

Stalcup finally got his hands on documents he's been seeking for many years. No, they probably should not have been withheld—welcome to America. But the fact that they provide no evidence for his specific claims is irrelevant to him. The fact that he got something he was entitled to, despite official resistance, is all the proof he needs that his cause is righteous and that his missile claim must be true.

[mikegriffith1]

Those who are defending the FBI-NTSB-CIA version of TWA 800 in this thread either have not read or are ignoring the formal reports that challenged that version, such as the Boeing report and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) report.

The Boeing report's refutation of the fuel-tank-explosion theory is especially devastating. Here are just a few paragraphs from the report:

No evidence was found to support a conclusion that a specific electrical system or component of the 747-100 fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) ignited a fuel/air explosion and initiated an event sequence such as the one suspected in the TWA 800 accident. The 747-100 FQIS is designed specifically to preclude fuel tank vapor ignition. The FQIS is designed to tolerate environmental factors that could contribute to conditions that might cause electrical shorting or grounding. Exhaustive lab testing for potential ignition sources were essentially negative. Rigorous initial qualification testing by Boeing and its suppliers demonstrated regulatory compliance. Boeing has thoroughly tested the FQIS system as part of the NTSB accident investigation without detecting electrical event conditions that would cause an explosion aboard TWA 800. . . .

There was no evidence of electrical stress on any components in the recovered indicators. The CWT [center wing tank] indicator was disassembled and the components were inspected and analyzed. All component damage was attributed to either high impact or saltwater contamination. None of the parts failed due to an electrical stress. In fact, some parts were fully operational once the salt contamination was removed. . . .

From inspections and tests of the flight deck fuel quantity indicators conducted by the NTSB as part of the accident investigation, there was no evidence of a failure or damage found that would contribute to, or be evidence of, excessive energy being introduced into the center fuel tank of the accident airplane. (Submission to the National Transportation Safety Board for the TWA 800 Investigation from the Boeing Company, April 28, 2000, pp. A-3-A-4, available at https://twa800.com/exhibits/twa800_Boeing.pdf)

The IAMAW were quite vocal about the suspicious and inappropriate way the "investigation" was conducted. Here are a few segments from the IAMAW report:

We feel that our expertise was unwelcome and not wanted by the FBI. It wasn’t until all avenues were exhausted that the FBI requested our help. The threats made during the first two weeks of the investigation were unwarranted and are unforgettable. . . .

We conclude that the existing wiring recovered from flight 800 wreckage does not exhibit any evidence of improper maintenance or any malfunction that would lead to a spark or other discrepancy. Examination indicates that the wiring was airworthy and safe for flight. . . .

An explosion did occur within the center tie1 tank during TWA Flight 800. We have not been a party to any evidence, wreckage, or tests that could conclude that the center tank explosion was and is the primary contributor to this accident. With a “low--order” explosion as this was believed to be, no report has been produced to confirm the force expected to be generated. This must be identified in order to confirm the force required to sever the keel beam of the aircraft in the manner that it was.

While studies have suggested that the explosion traveled at an angle that keep it from striking the front bulkhead. The damage to the potable water bottles and the failure of the cargo compartment fire bottles to open indicates that no fire or heat reached this area. . . .

During the investigation of TWA flight 800, cabin wreckage began to disappear from the cabin wreckage hanger. Indications were that the disappearance was due to the removal of wreckage by the FBI. Field notes from the Cabin Documentation Group (CDG) stated this fact. . . .

A definite cause cannot be determined at this time. The center wing fuel tank did explode. We find that its explosion was as the result of the aircraft breakup. The initial event caused a structural failure in the area of Flight Station 854 to 860, lower left side of the aircraft. A high-pressure event breached the fuselage and the fuselage unzipped due to the event. The explosion was a result of this event. (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Analysis and Recommendations Regarding TWA Flight 800, JULY 17, 1996, pp. 3-6, 8, 9)

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Those who are defending the FBI-NTSB-CIA version of TWA 800 in this thread either have not read or are ignoring the formal reports

And the Gish gallop continues. No, your critics are not uninformed or misinformed. No, you're not telling us anything new.

And no, you aren't really having a discussion. I have several open questions put to you which you have ignored. You're just spamming the thread with stuff you've cribbed from elsewhere, which you evidently don't really understand. There is no point addressing the stuff you've raised today until you demonstrate your willingness to engage with what we've already said in regard to your previous spam dumps.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

And the Gish gallop continues. No, your critics are not uninformed or misinformed. No, you're not telling us anything new.

And no, you aren't really having a discussion. I have several open questions put to you which you have ignored. You're just spamming the thread with stuff you've cribbed from elsewhere, which you evidently don't really understand. There is no point addressing the stuff you've raised today until you demonstrate your willingness to engage with what we've already said in regard to your previous spam dumps.

My analysis of the EMRTC test was my own work, and anyone can verify the validity of my observations by simply watching the YouTube video about the test.

Again, if the EMRTC engineers took nearly 3 hours to heat a much smaller center fuel tank to 112 degrees using an industrial-grade heater in the New Mexico desert, how could TWA 800's center fuel tank have become heated to 112 degrees merely by operating two of the three A/C packs under the tank during the 74-minute delay?

"Stuff you've cribbed from elsewhere"? You mean quoting segments from credible reports prepared by Boeing, the IAMAW, ALPA, and groups of former aerospace professionals and ex-military officers with missile experience and/or accident investigation experience?

Humm, I've been reading previous posts in this thread for the last two days, and I have not seen one post that explains the evidence I've presented. Most of the pro-NTSB replies I've read consist mostly of sneering and sarcasm and summary dismissals of evidence they can't explain.

In reply to evidence that the NTSB's theory is absurd and impossible, you guys pose a waft of questions about the possibility of a Navy ship firing a missile without most of the sailors knowing about it and/or without their ever saying anything about it. I mentioned that some sailors on ships that were there have contacted researchers with supportive accounts. Did any of you read the article that I linked about one of those sailors?

I'm guessing that not one of you has read any of the research that presents evidence that a missile or missiles took down TWA 800. That's obvious from the number of people I've seen repeat the long-debunked claim that no Navy combat ships were anywhere near the area where TWA 800 went down.

I have no fixed opinion on who fired the missiles, but the evidence that TWA 800 was destroyed by a missile attack, whether intentional or accidental, is compelling.

By the way, two former Navy admirals, Admiral Mark Hill and Admiral Thomas Moorer, publicly stated that they believed a missile or missiles took down TWA 800. You gonna call them "kooks" and "conspiracy mongers" too?

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

My analysis of the EMRTC test was my own work, and anyone can verify the validity of my observations by simply watching the YouTube video about the test.

Your relevant expertise is...?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

My analysis of the EMRTC test was my own work...

What are your academic and/or professional qualifications in forensic engineering?

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

My analysis of the EMRTC test was my own work, and anyone can verify the validity of my observations by simply watching the YouTube video about the test.

And your qualifications are?

Quote:

Again, if the EMRTC engineers took nearly 3 hours to heat a much smaller center fuel tank to 112 degrees using an industrial-grade heater in the New Mexico desert, how could TWA 800's center fuel tank have become heated to 112 degrees merely by operating two of the three A/C packs under the tank during the 74-minute delay?

That's the thing about freak accidents, they only have to happen once. To my knowledge, no freak accident has ever been conclusively recreated due to a long list of factors. Just look at the trouble the NTSB had chasing down the 737's tail rudder problem. And the FBI looked at everything, and if you recall, the investigation had several leaks from within from guys who thought they had the answer, but weren't high enough in the food chain to know the whole picture.

And you leave out the part where the test was eventually successful.

Quote:

"Stuff you've cribbed from elsewhere"? You mean quoting segments from credible reports prepared by Boeing, the IAMAW, ALPA, and groups of former aerospace professionals and ex-military officers with missile experience and/or accident investigation experience?

If they're wrong, are they really experts?

Quote:

Humm, I've been reading previous posts in this thread for the last two days, and I have not seen one post that explains the evidence I've presented. Most of the pro-NTSB replies I've read consist mostly of sneering and sarcasm and summary dismissals of evidence they can't explain.

I don't have to explain it. The FBI and NTSB did that years ago. But I do have a grasp of how electricity works, and how fire works, and the concept of basic combustion. I have better knowledge of airplanes, warships, the US Navy, the FBI, and explosive devices. I'm no expert, I can't fly, but I get the idea of lift, and I understand it doesn't take much for an airplane to crash (which is why I hate to fly).

The sneering you've detected is due to the fact that you jumped into this thread without reading it from the beginning. All of your points were addressed. The fact that you did not draws into question your basic research skills. Just because you made a video on Youtube doesn't mean you get to jump the line.

Quote:

In reply to evidence that the NTSB's theory is absurd and impossible, you guys pose a waft of questions about the possibility of a Navy ship firing a missile without most of the sailors knowing about it and/or without their ever saying anything about it. I mentioned that some sailors on ships that were there have contacted researchers with supportive accounts. Did any of you read the article that I linked about one of those sailors?

And yet here you are with the opportunity to directly address these questions, and again - you do not.

Name the sailors. Name the ships.

Quote:

I'm guessing that not one of you has read any of the research that presents evidence that a missile or missiles took down TWA 800. That's obvious from the number of people I've seen repeat the long-debunked claim that no Navy combat ships were anywhere near the area where TWA 800 went down.

Why would we read crap?

We've endlessly pointed out that the wreckage sat in an NTSB hangar where it was used to train new investigators (real ones, not Youtube hacks). They kept the hulk for 20 years. Why did nobody notice what would be obvious damage from a warhead? I ask because some of those new trainees had military experience with AA missiles.

You seem to be unaware that we test our missiles AND their warheads to insure proper effect on target. This means we fly drone airframes of all types in places like New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and elsewhere, and these drones are targeted by various missile systems along with their radars. The drone wreckage is inspected to evaluate the warhead's impact. We have 70 years of hard data on anti-aircraft warhead damage. You just made a video looking at someone else's work.

Quote:

I have no fixed opinion on who fired the missiles, but the evidence that TWA 800 was destroyed by a missile attack, whether intentional or accidental, is compelling.

I'll save you some time. There was no missile.

Quote:

By the way, two former Navy admirals, Admiral Mark Hill and Admiral Thomas Moorer, publicly stated that they believed a missile or missiles took down TWA 800. You gonna call them "kooks" and "conspiracy mongers" too?

Short answer, yes.

Moorer had a record of axe-grinding over the USS Liberty and the entire Vietnam War ( he's in the "We should have bombed the North flat, and we would have won" camp). Hill, for all I can find, just signed his name to an Op-Ed in the NYTimes claiming a cover-up in the investigation. Neither man walked the evidence collection hangar, inspected wreckage first-hand, nor conducted independent tests, nor a parallel investigation.

We salute the rank, not the man.

Oh, and why hasn't anyone rented a boat with decent sonar, and donned dive gear to recover all the rest of the wreckage pieces? It's probably illegal, but you don't have to announce your actions. Plenty of private boat activity in the area, many of those are out fishing. That pesky rocket engine might still be sitting out there. I won't hold my breath, that would take actual work.


Oh, and as far as the Boeing statement goes, that's their legal department talking. The same guys who blamed the pilots for the 737-MAX crashes until it was clear they were at fault. It's their job, defend against lawsuits by blowing smoke.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

And your qualifications are?

Nonexistent, I'll wager. So we'll get the customary dodges. "It's just common sense," or "I took a science class once," or "Stop making personal attacks."

Forensic engineering is not just applied common sense. It requires mastery of many engineering fields, which aren't just lay knowledge, aren't taught to physicists, aren't acquired by sitting in one's armchair browsing the web, and aren't free of consequences when gotten wrong.

Here's how it works in the real world. Any time the giant pile of regulations we work under require me to conduct an investigation of a "non-conformance," certain parts of that work have to be done by subject-matter experts. Not just smart people, but people whose expertise I have documented. That is, we don't just take their c.v. at face value. We have to supply documented proof to regulatory agencies that the people who conducted the relevant investigations did so according to knowledge and expertise we can legally prove they have.

So when some inexperienced bloke comes along and waves his hands about "industrial-grade heaters" and tell us some bench test should properly have been rejected as unfaithful and non-probative, most of us just roll our eyes. We really have so very little tolerance for armchair detectives.

No, I highly doubt Mike has the knowledge and experience to second-guess a forensic engineering investigation. And he doesn't seem to have the expertise to determine whether Stalcup does either. Stalcup's background is no mystery. Prior to declaring himself an expert in radar, aerodynamics, and other fields, he learned nothing in college, published nothing in the field, and did no professional work that would have led to the expertise he needs in order for his judgment in those areas to be worth listening to. They require specialized knowledge that Stalcup can't show he ever acquired. But Mike simply declares that Stalcup is "a physicist" and therefore apparently qualified to speak with superlative authority on any technical matter. All that tells me is that Mike doesn't know how any of this works.

Unwilling to qualify Stalcup, he's now quite willing to Gish-gallop a slate of other people whose allegedly expert opinions he thinks we should respect. But his unwillingness to slow down and perform a suitable voir dire on any of them individually—including himself—tells me he probably already knows how such an exercise would turn out.

Quote:

That's the thing about freak accidents, they only have to happen once.

To my knowledge, no freak accident has ever been conclusively recreated due to a long list of factors. Just look at the trouble the NTSB had chasing down the 737's tail rudder problem.

This is where it's essential to have experience in forensic engineering, and experience in the engineering you're getting all forensic over. No investigation proves what did happen. It only ever proves what likely happened. With that in mind, nit-picking the results rarely results in a better conclusion.

There will always be outlying observations we can't explain. There will always be gaps in the most likely causal chain. We have frameworks that help us reason impartially through all the combinatorics. But the truth is that we're getting so good an engineering that true failures really do have 3- and 4-way causes now. The fault trees are gigantic.

But none of this fixes conspiracism because it—like UFO hunting—is always based on the mere existence of outlying observations. As along as there are any observations the prevailing narrative has difficulty explaining, there will always be a conspiracy theory ready to exploit it for profit and attention.

The real-world question is never whether a conclusion is incontrovertible. Anyone who says their investigation gives incontrovertible results is probably exaggerating. The question is ever only whether you have the most parsimonious explanation. The missile theory here is definitely not the most parsimonious.

Quote:

And you leave out the part where the test was eventually successful.

And a qualified engineer can tell you why this can be considered a probative bench test despite what lay intuition might suggest.

Quote:

The sneering you've detected is due to the fact that you jumped into this thread without reading it from the beginning. All of your points were addressed.

To be fair, Mike is correct in saying we didn't address the EMRTC heating profile specifically, although we did discuss the center fuel tank heat transfer problem in more general terms. And we alluded to the solution to Mike's concern. I'm interested to see whether Mike can figure out for himself the relevant physics principle he didn't consider. Or whether he's even interested in it.

Quote:

The fact that you did not draws into question your basic research skills. Just because you made a video on Youtube doesn't mean you get to jump the line.

One of the more tedious aspects of having read and posted here (and on similar forums) for so many years is the arrogant presumption exhibited by conspiracy theorists who think they're the smartest person in the room. Often they do know more about the relevant subjects than a typical lay person. But too many of them think they can bluff and bluster their way through a discussion with people who actually know what they're talking about.

There's a whole psychology at work here, and I won't belabor it. But especially among some people, believing conspiracy theories—especially many dissimilar ones—is their shortcut to erudition. There's a sort of twisted satisfaction in thinking that one is smarter than most because one has rejected the conventional narrative on so many topics.

Quote:

Why would we read crap?

Indeed, the inexpert claimant whose argument boils down to, "This doesn't make sense to me, therefore someone else must have been naughty," can't expect to be taken seriously. The most parsimonious response is that something doesn't make sense to the claimant because the claimant lacks the appropriate knowledge and experience to make sense of it. The world literally has no obligation to respect uninformed (or ill-informed) judgment.

That doesn't mean we have to summarily reject it. We can have an open mind and ask what that judgment is based on. But if the claimant doesn't answer, or rejects the need for any basis of judgment, or claims to have it but can't demonstrate it, then we properly reject his judgment as uninformed. It's not closed-minded to do so. But eventually our willingness to entertain new ideas becomes tied to whether the author of those ideas can demonstrate he knows what he's talking about. So we increasingly ask that before delving into the purported merits.

Quote:

This means we fly drone airframes of all types in places like New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and elsewhere...

Quote:

The drone wreckage is inspected to evaluate the warhead's impact.

Stalcup's lawsuit alleges an SM-2 missile was fired at TWA 800. The fragmentation warhead on that missile creates characteristic damage that even a lay person can be taught to spot in the wreckage. It's actually pretty hard to miss when it's there, and nothing else causes that kind of damage. Nothing like that is seen in the TWA 800 wreckage. A lot of people have combed over it, including—as you say—people with extensive experience looking at SAM missile damage.

Quote:

I'll save you some time. There was no missile.

Mike's reasoning here is so very emblematic of the conspiracy-theorist mindset: start with the desired conclusion and then reason backwards to concoct a chain of causation that gets you there. It's the exact opposite of how real investigations work, and why we ask whether people have actual real-world (not armchair) investigative experience before we consider whether to pay further attention to them.

The reverse-reasoning mindset fails for another reason. Conspiracy theories almost always start by noting all the ways in which the theorist thinks the conventional narrative doesn't add up. It fails to account for this, or it doesn't know how that other thing happened. This suggests a standard of proof that any theory has to meet in order to be considered plausible. But this implied standard is used only to reject the conventional narrative. Then it's discarded.

If you start with the premise that the conventional narrative must be rejected, then your subsequent assessment of likelihood considers only those hypotheses that aren't the conventional narrative. This always invokes Conan Doyle: if you reject the impossible, then even the very improbable should be seriously considered. The improbable conclusion that a conspiracy theorist has had in mind from the start, and has only performatively investigated, is never subjected to the original—allegedly impartial—standard of proof to see whether it too must be rejected because it too is full of holes.

Parsimony cries out in agony. "I don't know or care how it might have happened, but it was definitely a missile strike." This ends up having more holes than the conventional narrative. It's only held because of the two-step process of first rejecting the conventional narrative by one standard, then applying a double standard to one's own desired conclusion.

This is why we have little patience for armchair investigators.

Quote:

Neither man walked the evidence collection hangar, inspected wreckage first-hand, nor conducted independent tests, nor a parallel investigation.

We salute the rank, not the man.

The past few years have seen more than their share of high-ranking military officers who have simply gone bat-crap crazy. Stars on your lapels don't insulate you from erroneous thinking. As you point out, this is a classically fallacious appeal to authority. The person who knows best whether a missile could have brought down TWA 800 is the person who—with appropriate subject-matter expertise—examines all the evidence and draws an articulated and defensible conclusion. That didn't happen in the cases of these two officers. Their rank alone is not the basis for what must inherently be a conclusion based on reasoning from evidence.

While we salute the rank, we respect the man or woman (or not). The men and women most respectable for subject-matter expertise on a topic like this are the master chiefs, petty officers, lieutenants, and ratings who actually have to carry out the live-fire exercises, the contract supervisors and contractors who conduct effectiveness assessments, and so forth. I guarantee the guys on the ships who actually have to ensure the safety of a live-fire exercise know more about it than some guy at the Pentagon.

Quote:

Oh, and as far as the Boeing statement goes, that's their legal department talking. The same guys who blamed the pilots for the 737-MAX crashes until it was clear they were at fault. It's their job, defend against lawsuits by blowing smoke.

To be fair, Boeing in 1996 was nothing like the Boeing that is responsible for the 737-MAX fiasco. Having been a contractor for them this entire time, I've watched them degrade from a prestigious engineering firm to a fiasco of American late-stage capitalism. The McDonnell Douglas rot hadn't even entered the building in 1996, but it was on full display for the 737-MAX.

That said, the Boeing statement is exactly the kind of legalistic smoke-blowing that often happens when an engineering company's product or service is suspected of defective operation. And that's why you need experience in the industry, so that you can put this kind of posturing in context.

You can't flat-out accuse the investigators of wrongdoing. But you can certainly spin the data to make it seem like a different investigation would have produced different (and more favorable) results. You can even conduct such an investigation and publish your own findings. The FAA encourages this, because part of its mission is to promote high standards in the aerospace industry. That's served by having companies figure out on their own how their products might fail. But investigative agencies like the NTSB are rarely interested in the findings of the target of their investigation. As for the FBI, my experience with them is that they like to drive every investigation they participate in. They don't suffer interlopers lightly. Nothing nefarious per se in that; that's just how they work.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Short answer, yes.

Moorer had a record of axe-grinding over the USS Liberty and the entire Vietnam War ( he's in the "We should have bombed the North flat, and we would have won" camp). Hill, for all I can find, just signed his name to an Op-Ed in the NYTimes claiming a cover-up in the investigation. Neither man walked the evidence collection hangar, inspected wreckage first-hand, nor conducted independent tests, nor a parallel investigation.

Moorer was a nutjob, and his hang-wringing over the Liberty (despite him being the Admiral who signed off on the original report) is actually just one of his antics. This is a man so paranoid he tried to spy on Nixon. Put that in perspective.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Yes. I'm going to address your points in the order you bring them up and stick with each in turn until there is some resolution before moving on. That you seem to want to forge ahead—bringing up new issues without resolving those brought up previously—is not my problem. As a prefatory question to your ongoing Gish gallop, I'm asking you whether you have read the entire thread. Have you done so?

The question is not whether those are sufficient qualifications but whether those are necessary qualifications. We'll start with those, since they are the most basic. Do you concede that a credible investigation of an airliner disaster requires expertise in aerospace engineering and forensic methods?

Quote:

Three, Stalcup is most certainly a subject matter expert in physics, which qualifies him to discuss (1) the mythical and impossible zoom climb posited by the CIA (3,000 feet) and the NTSB (1,500 feet), (2) the movement of objects seen in the radar data, and (3) the physics of explosive forces.

No, it does not.

I routinely employ PhD physicists at my engineering company, and these subjects are not part of their education or training. Stalcup's actual education, training, and professional experience are a matter of record. Stalcup's academic field of study was the magnetic properties of crystals. He worked for a company that designed sensors for environmental monitoring. He most lately started a company that aggregates environmental data. What part of that training and experience qualifies him as an expert in (1) the aerodynamics and structural dynamics of commercial airframes, (2) the operation of ATC radars, and (3) high-energy structural dynamics?

I think you discredit yourself and show an extreme bias when you say that Stalcup is not qualified to discuss (1) the zoom climb posited by the CIA and the NTSB, (2) the movement of objects seen in the radar data, and (3) the physics of explosive forces.

Really? A guy with a doctorate in physics is not qualified to discuss these issues? I think that's a silly argument that shows you are a blind partisan for the NTSB theory.

By the way, Stalcup is president of Upward Innovations Inc., an electronics company that designs and produces cellular and satellite environmental monitoring stations. And, just for the record, he received a PhD in physics in 2000 as a graduate student at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory at Florida State University.

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Second, the two forensic pathologists who examined the bodies from the crash both reject the NTSB version and agree with Hughes, Donaldson, Stalcup et al. The pathologists appeared in the Borjesson-Stalcup documentary.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Please suspend the Gish gallop.

"Gish gallop"??? Huh??? Have you watched the documentary? Have you seen what those two pathologists say therein? Their expert analysis is hardly "Gish gallop." You again show your extreme bias when you casually dismiss such serious, credible evidence.

As for the comments I've seen about Admirals Thomas Moorer and Clarence ("Mark") Hill, they are long on sarcasm and summary dismissal and short on facts. So Admiral Moorer, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Chief of Naval Operations, was a "nutjob"? Really?

Admiral Moorer probably knew more about Navy missile operations than all of you combined have read and forgotten. He did not just casually sign his name to some petition. He had several discussions with Commander William Donaldson, Dr. Stalcup, and others, and took part in ARAP press conferences.

Admiral Hill, who had been a Navy pilot, spoke with a number of experts before he finalized his view on TWA 800. Admiral Hill took a great interest in the case and took part in ARAP research and events. See Admiral Hill's comments in the documentary TWA 800: The Search for the Truth (his segment starts at 16:42):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AuAtSvJpqE

Originally Posted by JayUtah

As I promised, we will conduct voir dire on other purported experts after we're finished with Stalcup.

Oh, okay. I see. Uh-huh. So nobody who disagrees with the FBI-NTSB version can be a genuine expert, right? They're all either kooks and wingnuts or they are unqualified to be saying what they're saying. Nobody who has done even a semblance of balanced research on this case would make such a claim.

Have you read the affidavits and statements submitted by the likes of Glenn Schulze (an audio expert and acoustical research consultant), Ray Lahr (a pilot and accident investigator with a degree in engineering), Robert Young (a pilot and accident investigator who was trained as an accident investigator in the Navy), Richard Russell (an ALPA accident investigator who also served as an ALPA Air Safety Representative for 26 years), James Speer (a pilot and accident investigator who participated in the NTSB TWA 800 investigation), Hank Hughes (an NTSB accident investigator), Robert Donaldson (computer science expert), and Michael Hull (a doctorate in electro-chemistry and a bachelor's in chemistry)?

While we're talking about qualifications, let's just keep in mind that the government bureaucrats who drove the investigation away from missile attack and toward mechanical failure, namely James Hall, James Kallstrom, and Robert Francis, had zero background and zero experience in accident investigation, aeronautics, engineering, or physics. Zero. None. Zippo.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

I think you discredit yourself and show an extreme bias when you say that Stalcup is not qualified...

You can think whatever you want. I gave you Stalcup's actual fields of expertise and you have not addressed those. Instead, I'm a licensed engineer with considerable experience in forensic engineering. You don't appear have any scientific or technical qualifications, so I'll keep my own counsel on who else is qualified in my field and how those qualifications are obtained.

Quote:

Really? A guy with a doctorate in physics is not qualified to discuss these issues?

Correct, he is not qualified as an expert in those issues. What are your qualifications in forensic engineering? I've asked you three times now.

Quote:

I think that's a silly argument that shows you are a blind partisan for the NTSB theory.

No, I'm not hopelessly biased, but that appears to be all you can talk about.

Quote:

By the way, Stalcup is president of Upward Innovations Inc., an electronics company that designs and produces cellular and satellite environmental monitoring stations.

I told you that. That company doesn't seem to exist anymore. And it in no way qualifies him in the fields in which he is pretending to be an expert with regards to TWA 800.

Quote:

Gish gallop.

Yes. I can't seem to keep you on one topic long enough to determine how much you actually know about it and to address the challenges to your claims. You're all over the map. It seems you don't want any particular thing examined too closely.

Quote:

You again show your extreme bias...

Are you just going to keep saying this over and over?

Quote:

...when you casually dismiss such serious, credible evidence.

You don't seem to have a good track record of determining what's credible evidence. In any case, I told you we'd deal with all of this in turn. But you keep launching new lines of argument when challenged on the previous one. You're too evasive to be taken seriously.

Quote:

Oh, okay. I see. Uh-huh. So nobody who disagrees with the FBI-NTSB version can be a genuine expert, right?

I made no such claim, and you're Gish-galloping again. However, as I said, you led with Stalcup, and he seems to be an important driving force. So we'll talk about Stalcup until we've reached a resolution on him. You still claim he's some sort of expert in the fields I mentioned. But you've provided no evidence of how he allegedly acquired this expertise, other than he's "a physicist." Are you a physicist? How many physics PhDs do you actually know personally?

Quote:

Nobody who has done even a semblance of balanced research on this case would make such a claim.

Then it's a good thing I didn't make it. And no, you're not the smartest person in the room.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by 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. . . .[SNIP]

-- 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. . . . [SNIP]

-- 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.

One clarification and one revision.

Clarification: The EMRTC engineers chose the temperature of 112 degrees apparently because they viewed it as the approximate median point of the NTSB's temperature range of 101 to 127 degrees for the temperature inside the center fuel tank. The NTSB reported that in their 7/14/1997 flight test, the temperature inside the center fuel tank of an identical Boeing 747 got as high as 127 degrees (NTSB report, p. 261). (The report fails to mention, however, that this flight test was done when the outside temperature was 87 degrees, which was at least 13 degrees warmer than the outside temperature when TWA 800 was delayed for 74 minutes.)

Revision: It turns out that the historical weather website that I used when I wrote my post on the EMRTC experiment provided incorrect data. It was not 80-82 degrees at JFK Airport at the time in question. It was 70-74 degrees. The Weather Underground database says it was 74 degrees (https://www.wunderground.com/history...date/1996-7-13). Investigative journalist Pat Milton, who supports the FBI-NTSB version, says the temperature was 70 degrees (In the Blink of an Eye: The FBI Investigation of TWA Flight 800, Random House, 1999, p. 328).

This means the NTSB flight test was done when the outside temperature was at least 13 degrees warmer than it was when TWA 800 was waiting on the tarmac. Just about everyone would agree that a temperature difference of 13 degrees is quite significant, and that a difference of 17 degrees is even more significant.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Just about everyone would agree that a temperature difference of 13 degrees is quite significant, and that a difference of 17 degrees is even more significant.

Begging the question on a technical subject. I don’t agree with your analysis. What are your qualifications in forensic engineering? Fourth time asking.

[mikegriffith1]

In going through more of the previous replies, I continue to see evidence that those who defend the NTSB version herein have not read much, if any, of the research that challenges that version.

Originally Posted by Matt.Tansy

Not at all. An explosion inside could propel small pieces of aircraft out at Mach 2.

No way. The explosion posited by the NTSB could not have propelled debris out at a speed even close to Mach 2. The NTSB report says the board’s alleged center-fuel-tank explosion was an “overpressure event,” and NTSB investigators acknowledged that this explosion would have been a low-velocity event (or a deflagration), with max speeds of 700-800 mph.

Originally Posted by DGM

The FBI was able to find traces of an explosive used weeks before in a training exercise.

Wrong. This myth was debunked at least 20 years ago. Private researchers fairly quickly established that the bomb-sniffing-dog exercise was not done on the TWA 800 plane but on another 747 that was parked nearby.

The officer who conducted the exercise stated that he did the training on an empty plane, as usual. The TWA 800 plane left the gate with more than 400 passengers at 12:35 bound for Hawaii. The officer finished the bomb-sniffing exercise at 12:15 or 12:20. The cabin crew was already on the TWA 800 plane by 11:30. The passengers began to board the plane no later than 12:05. The pilots who flew the TWA 800 plane said they saw no bomb-sniffing dogs on the plane and saw no such training being conducted.

For more information on this issue, see “TWA 800: St. Louis Dog Exercise Exposed As Red Herring” at https://rense.com/general13/exps.htm.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

And the missile theory is perhaps possible, but the plane wreckage didn't show any obvious signs of that.

Actually, the plane wreckage showed numerous signs of a missile shootdown.

-- There was a large gash on the left side of the plane that was bent inward. This damage was the key piece of evidence that caused former NTSB member Dr. Vernon Grose to reject the mechanical-failure explanation (https://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/q-vernon-grose.pdf; https://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/7/prweb10903410.htm).

-- The front landing gear, even though it was in its housing when the plane exploded, suffered severe concussive damage. This is revealing and crucial because the landing gear is made of steel and titanium and is one of the strongest, toughest parts of the airliner. It could not have been damaged so severely merely from the impact of landing on the water. Someone inside the investigation leaked to the New York Times that the bomb experts concluded that the damage to the landing gear indicated the gear had been “very close to the source of the explosion.” The landing gear, of course, was well forward of the center fuel tank.

-- The front landing-gear doors on the exterior of the plane were blown inward. There is no way that an explosion of the center fuel tank could have blown those doors inward. Only an explosion outside the aircraft could have done this.

-- Explosive reside was found on the exterior and interior of the plane.

-- The plane’s exterior had several puncture holes in it, i.e., holes that were bent inward.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1
Just about everyone would agree that a temperature difference of 13 degrees is quite significant, and that a difference of 17 degrees is even more significant.

Begging the question on a technical subject. I don’t agree with your analysis.

So you can't even admit that a difference of 13 degrees, or even 17 degrees, is quite significant, when we're talking about a test that was supposed to simulate the conditions of TWA 800? Yeah, okay.

[jadebox]

In the movies, a missile smashes into an aircraft then explodes. In real life, not really.

In photographs, missiles create a bright streak at night. In real life, not really.

Reality. What a concept. :-)

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

In going through more of the previous replies, I continue to see evidence that those who defend the NTSB version herein have not read much, if any, of the research that challenges that version.

No, Mike, you're not the smartest guy in the room.

Quote:

So you can't even admit that a difference of 13 degrees, or even 17 degrees, is quite significant, when we're talking about a test that was supposed to simulate the conditions of TWA 800? Yeah, okay.

Yes, I resist your efforts to beg the question instead of providing an argument. This is engineering, which means you need to show your work. You've just thrown out a few numbers and then demanded that everyone agree with you that this is fatal to the mainstream narrative without providing a single computation to determine the actual effect or considering all the physical principles that apply. I'm a licensed engineer. Is your plan really to browbeat me into agreeing with your ignorant handwaving? Is this really how you think this sort of work is done?

I've asked you now five times to tell us what your qualifications are in forensic engineering, such that you can demand that we accept your judgment on forensic engineering done by others. You've avoided the question. Your list your credentials on your web site, so I already know you don't have the required expertise. The question now is why you aren't honest enough to own up to it.

The answer is simple. You turn to conspiracy theories to try to pretend to be something you're not. You latch onto crackpots like Stalcup and pretend that this gives you some sort of leg up in the real world. It doesn't. You're not properly informed to discuss this subject, and you're not wise enough not to try. No, steeping yourself uncritically in conspiracy theories, and blindly regurgitating them, doesn't compensate.

[sackett]

Yo mikegriffith1! Let's suppose that you & Stalbucks or whatever he calls himself are right. The US Navy shot that airplane down, streak o' light, boom!, coverup, liars w/ pants afire, conspiracy every damn place ya look, all of the usual stuff. Now what? What oh what are you gonna do about it? Post on a creaky old internet forum? Publish and try to sell a book? Run up some teeshirts? Picket the NTSB w/ a sign that says The End Is Near?

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

No, Mike, you're not the smartest guy in the room.

You certainly aren't that guy. You have done nothing but posture, insult, and duck and dodge.

I posted a refutation written by Boeing engineers that debunks the NTSB theory of the cause of the crash, and your "answer" was to call it spamming. I posted a critique of the EMRTC test, and you accused me of "cribbing" it from some other source and ignoring previous posts in this reply. Yet, when I pointed out that no previous post even mentions the EMRTC test, you blew more smoke and huffed and puffed about my "refusal" to answer every single question posed to me.

Are you ever going to come down from Mt. Olympus and grace us with your vast knowledge regarding the EMRTC test?

When I noted the conclusions of the two forensic pathologists who examined the bodies from the crash, you called that "Gish gallop" and said nothing of substance about their conclusions. I suspect you haven't even bothered to examine them.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Yes, I resist your efforts to beg the question instead of providing an argument. This is engineering, which means you need to show your work. You've just thrown out a few numbers and then demanded that everyone agree with you that this is fatal to the mainstream narrative without providing a single computation to determine the actual effect or considering all the physical principles that apply. I'm a licensed engineer. Is your plan really to browbeat me into agreeing with your ignorant handwaving? Is this really how you think this sort of work is done?

Well, then, since you are such an all-knowing engineer, gee, you should have no trouble explaining the observations I made about the EMRTC test. How about condescending and deigning to share your omniscient knowledge on the subject with us mere mortals?

And while you're at it, do deign to tell us why the engineers who wrote the Boeing refutation of the NTSB theory are wrong.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I've asked you now five times to tell us what your qualifications are in forensic engineering,

Well, Your Majesty, a person doesn't have to have qualifications in forensic engineering to make credible, intelligent arguments about the flaws in the NTSB's ridiculous theory.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

such that you can demand that we accept your judgment on forensic engineering done by others.

Phew! Pot, meet Very Black Kettle! Humm, where have I "demanded" that anyone accept my judgment on the case?

Originally Posted by JayUtah

You've avoided the question. Your list your credentials on your web site, so I already know you don't have the required expertise. The question now is why you aren't honest enough to own up to it.

I didn't bother with your question because you were using it as a polemical tool to avoid dealing with the evidence I have been presenting.

But, just FYI, what I don't mention in the bio on my website is that I spent 21 years in the U.S. Army in the intelligence field and that for the last 20 years I've worked in support of government agencies in jobs dealing with air and missile defense, homeland security, satellite reconnaissance, imagery analysis, and radar. I have seen many, many missile firings. So, I do know just a little bit about what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

The answer is simple. You turn to conspiracy theories to try to pretend to be something you're not.

First off, this isn't really a "conspiracy theory." It is much more a case about a cover-up and whistleblowing. Technically, any type of crime or unethical conduct that involves two or more people can be called a "conspiracy," but the case of TWA 800 is mostly about a cover-up and whistleblowing.

Two, I've never "pretended" to be anything. You've done nothing but serve up a bunch of bloviating, insults, and arrogant posturing.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

You latch onto crackpots like Stalcup and pretend that this gives you some sort of leg up in the real world.

Oh, so now Dr. Stalcup is a "crackpot"! Wow. Based on what I've seen from you so far, I'd say he knows far, far more about this case than you do, especially the radar data.

Here's a video of a lecture that Dr. Stalcup gave on TWA 800 at MIT at the invitation of Professor Thomas Eagar. He gave the lecture to a class in the Structural Materials course at MIT. Gee, the graduate students in the room didn't seem to think he was a "crackpot."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzEng1E2rEM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

It doesn't. You're not properly informed to discuss this subject, and you're not wise enough not to try.

Well, Your Majesty, then don't trouble yourself to read my posts anymore. I'm wise enough to know when I'm dealing with a rude, arrogant partisan who has no interest in serious, civil discussion.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

No, steeping yourself uncritically in conspiracy theories, and blindly regurgitating them, doesn't compensate.

So quoting from reports written by Boeing engineers, the IAMAW, ALPA accident investigators, former NTSB investigators, etc.--this is "regurgitating conspiracy theories"??? You certainly don't talk like a scientist.

If you ever do deign to honor us mere mortals with your infinite wisdom regarding the evidence I've presented, I'm sure it would be a momentous day.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Are you ever going to come down from Mt. Olympus and grace us with your vast knowledge regarding the EMRTC test?

I pointed out that you left out a vital physical principle in your analysis, one that a qualified engineer can see immediately. And no, I'm not going to spoon-feed it to you. You figure it out.

And yes, you continue to Gish gallop. You don't seem to want any part of your claims evaluated in depth. That's a red flag.

Quote:

Well, Your Majesty, a person doesn't have to have qualifications in forensic engineering to make credible, intelligent arguments about the flaws in the NTSB's ridiculous theory.

Yes, a person really does.

Quote:

I didn't bother with your question because you were using it as a polemical tool to avoid dealing with the evidence I have been presenting.

I'm using it as a tool to discover how much you really understand about the evidence you're presenting. You claim it is credible evidence, but you're not really qualified to determine how credible it is. More importantly, you're pointedly avoiding the question of how qualified you are. That indicates you know that qualifications are required, that you don't have them, but that you want to be taken seriously anyway.

Quote:

I have seen many, many missile firings. So, I do know just a little bit about what I'm talking about.

Good luck trying to convince the people here of that.

Quote:

First off, this isn't really a "conspiracy theory." It is much more a case about a cover-up and whistleblowing.

Yes, that's a conspiracy theory.

Quote:

Oh, so now Dr. Stalcup is a "crackpot"!

Yes.

Quote:

Wow. Based on what I've seen from you so far, I'd say he knows far, far more about this case than you do, especially the radar data.

No. And you're not qualified to determine whether Stalcup knows what he's talking about.

Quote:

Well, Your Majesty, then don't trouble yourself to read my posts anymore.

Sorry, you don't get off that easily.

Quote:

I'm wise enough to know when I'm dealing with a rude, arrogant partisan who has no interest in serious, civil discussion.

Oh, please. You admit you don't know how or by whom the missile was allegedly fired. You aren't really interested in determining what happened to the airliner. But from the very beginning you've been absolutely certain that you know more than anyone else what happened, and that everyone but you is biased an unreliable. This is just an ego-boosting game to you.

When you demonstrate enough genuine interest on your own to discover for yourself the critical flaw in your EMRTC analysis, then perhaps you can convince me and others that you are more than just a regurgitator of others' claims.