IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th June 2013, 12:11 PM   #41
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
Originally Posted by pteridine View Post
One basis for questioning the investigation is that the aircraft was cut in two just forward of the wings. The concept of a magic spark setting off lean jet fuel vapor is far-fetched but if that had occurred, it would seem that there would have been a central explosion and not a clean cut forward of the tank.
The damage was consistent with an expanding rod warhead [see, for example, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/rim-7.htm] on a radar guided missile such as the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow. This warhead depends on a guillotine effect and the damage was just that; a clean cut at the wing root which is also the center of radar mass. The aircraft size and altitude argue for something larger than a shoulder launched missile as does the type of damage.
Given this, the supposition is that the Navy inadvertently launched the missile and the disaster was then covered up.
So do the Math and come back and show us some numbers for "far-fetched" and "it would seem"? I can wave my arms too but neither of us will ever fly that way.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 03:08 PM   #42
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by fourtoe View Post
What a lame CT.
Sadly, I predict the movie will make money.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 03:10 PM   #43
JLord
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 426
A guy was on Coast to Coast yesterday talking about this film. He was not the maker but has worked with the maker and had seen the film. I don't remember his name off hand.

He said the film does not speculate as to who destroyed the plane but it conclusively proves that it was caused by an "outside explosion" and that other objects converged with the plane at the time of the explosion. It stops short of saying what caused it but leaves that open to the viewer. According to this guy although it isn't said in the movie, the viewer is left to speculate that the most likely explanation is that a US drone got out of control and then was shot at by the US navy. The missile, the drone, and the airplane all collided at the same time causing the explosion and crash.

I'm not exactly sure how the viewer could get this impression without it being explicitly said, but he was adament that the film sticks only to the known facts, which prove that the plane was taken down by an outside explosion, not a mechanical failure.

Last edited by JLord; 20th June 2013 at 03:12 PM.
JLord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 03:12 PM   #44
pteridine
Thinker
 
pteridine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
So do the Math and come back and show us some numbers for "far-fetched" and "it would seem"? I can wave my arms too but neither of us will ever fly that way.
Fortunately someone else has written the report and "done the math." Here is the flammability study done specifically because of the flight 800 disaster. http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ar98-26.pdf
Note figure 7. I helped you with this because you seemed at a loss to find it, yourself. Perhaps you are overly emoticonned.
The conclusion is that in spite of the many safety aspects of design, 'more study' is needed.
You may now avail yourself of your computer and look up 'fuel-air explosions' and discover that they are not likely to cleanly guillotine part of an airplane should they occur.
This will play out and we will either have another investigation or not. Don't get overly excited.
pteridine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 04:51 PM   #45
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by gebobs View Post
I don't get this part. Reflections on the see appear to as fire in the sky? What?

My understanding of the incident was that after the explosion, while the front of the aircraft fell, the rear shot up and that's what looked like a missile...a really slow missile.

But to your point, I suspect that any of these witnesses never saw an actual supersonic missile in flight. A stinger would cover the 20,000 feet in less than 10 seconds.
This is what the report stated regarding witness testimony:

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/AAR0003.html

p. 229 ff.

"The Witness Group determined that of the 736 witnesses, 239 were sound witnesses, 175 were sight and sound, 258 were streak-of-light witnesses, and 599 were fireball witnesses. Of the 258 streak-of-light witnesses, 38 reported that the streak was ascending vertically, or nearly so, 18 indicated that it originated from the surface of the earth, and 7 reported that it originated from the horizon. Of the 599 fireball witnesses, 264 reported seeing the fireball originate, 200 reported seeing the fireball split into two fireballs, and 217 reported observing the fireball hit the surface of the water (or disappear below the horizon). In addition, 210 witnesses reported seeing both a fireball and a streak of light."

Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 20th June 2013 at 04:52 PM. Reason: Carbunkles on the Sasquatch
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 05:40 PM   #46
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
"Conspiracy talk gets people's attention. As CNN commenter RUDucky2 points out: "Conspiracies are very comforting creatures." They give society "bad guys to hunt." And any proof that contradicts the conspiracy "becomes more 'proof' that there's a conspiracy."

And colleagues of the ex-investigators featured in the documentary fear this is all nothing more than an effort to stir up conspiracy theories.

"I would never be part of any cover-up. Period," former NTSB official John Goglia told CNN. Goglia, who served on the five-member NTSB during the investigation, said he "took offense" at any suggestion that his team ignored evidence. None of the evidence detailing how the plane fell apart supports the missile theory, he said.

It's not like the missile theory was dismissed at the outset, said the top FBI investigator on the case, James Kallstrom. "We took the ... possibility a missile brought down the plane very, very seriously," Kallstrom told CNN." -- http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/us/twa...ate/?hpt=hp_c3
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 06:29 PM   #47
Graham2001
Graduate Poster
 
Graham2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,697
Originally Posted by pteridine View Post
Fortunately someone else has written the report and "done the math." Here is the flammability study done specifically because of the flight 800 disaster. http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ar98-26.pdf
Note figure 7. I helped you with this because you seemed at a loss to find it, yourself. Perhaps you are overly emoticonned.
The conclusion is that in spite of the many safety aspects of design, 'more study' is needed.
You may now avail yourself of your computer and look up 'fuel-air explosions' and discover that they are not likely to cleanly guillotine part of an airplane should they occur.
This will play out and we will either have another investigation or not. Don't get overly excited.
Given this film seems to be nothing more than a 'Loose Change' style exercise in JAQing off I doubt there's going to be any investigation, just a lot of needless grief and anger.

As for clean structural breaks, lookup Aloha Airlines Flight 243 (Wikipedia) or track down two episodes of the TV Series 'Mayday' (aka 'Air Emergency' & 'Air Crash Investigations'), namely "Hanging by a Thread" & "Scratching the Surface", the former for Aloha 243 and the latter for a good discussion of just what constitutes proof of a missile impact or external explosion.
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!"
'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail

Everybody gets it wrong sometimes...
Graham2001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 07:11 PM   #48
Myron Proudfoot
Master Poster
 
Myron Proudfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern VA/DC
Posts: 2,361
this is the same error the 9/11 Truthers make. The collapse of Building 7 "looks like a demolition" therefor it must have been a demolition. Flt 800 "looks like a missile hit it" there a missile hit it.
__________________
InfoWars. Punching logic in the face on a daily basis. (from Facebook)
Myron Proudfoot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 08:00 PM   #49
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by gebobs View Post
I don't get this part. Reflections on the see appear to as fire in the sky? What?

My understanding of the incident was that after the explosion, while the front of the aircraft fell, the rear shot up and that's what looked like a missile...a really slow missile.

But to your point, I suspect that any of these witnesses never saw an actual supersonic missile in flight. A stinger would cover the 20,000 feet in less than 10 seconds.
The FBI/NTSB tried to cover all the bases.

My personal illusion for a light going up is a refection of the fire/incident in the water which appears to go up. I did not do the geometry yet.

When I was on night solo at 20,000 feet or so, IFR in VFR conditions, I saw the moon in the ground, it was moving... I had to check my instrument to make sure I was not sideways, as I saw the moon where the ground should be, an illusion (we were warned in general about illusions in class, and how your eyes and brain work to fool you into illusions). After a few minutes the Moon appeared from behind a cloud cover, I had been looking at a reflection from the swamps near the Georgia Florida border.

There were clouds when 800 crashed; I think it is possible people had an illusion based on various reasons of seeing something go up. The sea would reflect the light. The report goes into human perception, etc.

you are right, I added my own illusion to the long list of possible reasons people will stand by their claim of a missile; I saw the moon rise in the ground, and fought the illusion. Illusions can kill a pilot, and have.

Sorry for my BS, but the people did have an illusion, not sure why.

Your are right, the people who saw the "missile" did not match the time, or sounds. Many times accidents are seen when people hear the sound, look up and think the action taking place is when the sound happened, but the wings snapped off many seconds before they see a wingless plane crash, then hear the crash later. Witnesses are good, but you have to understand the limitations.

I bet my geometry might be off.

The plane most likely climbed after the nose fell off, and that could be the missile rising illusion. I have to repeat my Moon war story, sorry. In the report they cover some of the reasons witnesses think missile but saw something else.

In pilot training (USAF) we spent a lot of time on illusions and the limitations of our senses, which were not meant to fly MACH1 and pull 7 gs, more suited for running at sub 20 mph from tigers and bears, down the path to our hideout, or safe area. Our senses are not made for flying, and can suck when we are witnesses.

Illusions are cool, unless they get you into trouble; more cool when you catch them before you make a mistake.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 08:06 PM   #50
chris lz
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 182
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Sad to see Henry go nuts, if he did on this issue -
My guess is the movie will be regurgitating Hughes' sworn testimony from years ago about the FBI's taking parts as if it were fresh news. It's no secret this pissed off the NTSB.

The most dramatic but little read testimony on F800 was that given by the FBI's chief metals expert, William Tobin, who, as he described it, ended up "wearing several particles" of Jim Kallstrom's saliva after a heated exchange in which Kallstrom was dressed up to give a news conference announcing a bomb as the cause. So it seems the CTists have it exactly backwards - the evidence tampering was a result of the absolute conviction at the FBI that sabotage brought down the plane, and declaring it so would allow the FBI to take over the investigation. In my book Tobin deserves an award for outstanding public service. The testimony is a must read before anyone decides about F800.
chris lz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 08:16 PM   #51
chris lz
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 182
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The FBI/NTSB tried to cover all the bases.
My take on this is that suggested by William Tobin. At beginning of the formation of the fireball - at which point F800 had already descended, largely unseen, to 6-8 thousand ft, there could have been omni-directional explosions, like a fire-work giving off upward streaks, only much more violently. I tend to doubt the zoom climb happened, as the radar doesn't seem to indicate it. My guess is this was a PR move designed to shut up the CTists, an anxiety that too many people thought the NTSB was hiding something. This could have been their way of trying to protect their reputation. It worked in so far as it satisfied the media. But not everyone else was convinced, including one of the investigators who on another forum said he was least comfortable with this part of the investigation.
chris lz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 08:31 PM   #52
chris lz
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 182
Originally Posted by fourtoe View Post
I just happened to watch this on CNN at the fastfood chain I am at, atm. One of the journalists shows a video with someone (probably Stalcup but I dunno) looking at radar of the flight. The journalist showed that there was no missile blip on the radar heading to the plane and the guy didn't deny it.

What a lame CT.
I tend to agree. In the book Accident or Incident (by Cap Parlier), one of the better books supporting a missile, they print copies of the radar images showing an unidentified blip near F800. But to me it seems obvious the blip moves away from F800, not towards it, with each frame. But who knows, maybe they have something new. Or you could always go with Jack Cashill's and Jim Sanders' theme that misssils were coming up from below at the same time a terrorist plane was dive bombing from above. This, it was said, was out of respect to Bill Donaldson, who always was against friendly fire and for terrorism- what better way to prove each side of the missile theorist camp right!
chris lz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 08:35 PM   #53
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by chris lz View Post
My guess is the movie will be regurgitating Hughes' sworn testimony from years ago about the FBI's taking parts as if it were fresh news. It's no secret this pissed off the NTSB.

The most dramatic but little read testimony on F800 was that given by the FBI's chief metals expert, William Tobin, who, as he described it, ended up "wearing several particles" of Jim Kallstrom's saliva after a heated exchange in which Kallstrom was dressed up to give a news conference announcing a bomb as the cause. So it seems the CTists have it exactly backwards - the evidence tampering was a result of the absolute conviction at the FBI that sabotage brought down the plane, and declaring it so would allow the FBI to take over the investigation. In my book Tobin deserves an award for outstanding public service. The testimony is a must read before anyone decides about F800.
I think the NTSB guys were quietly doing their job because the first rumors from the accident were about the CWT, air condition packs, and the possible risk associated with Air Force One.

The rules for evidence are not the same for an accident (NTSB), as for a crime (FBI). That would screw up the game, but any group effort can degrade to problems. The FBI should have a clue the NTSB looks at a big picture, a broad investigation into thousands of things; and then assembles the findings and causes of the event. Maybe the FBI could learn from the NTSB.

The aircraft accident investigation course I went to has a big section on witnesses, and the associate illusions, and problems.


The CT side seems to be locked in on quote-mining/cherry-picking the investigation as it evolved, and not closing the loop as it finished. I see all the missteps in the CT versions, and then reading the NTSB report they are closed out, one by one; did the CT guys read the report?


Missing the nose, the cg moves aft, the plane goes up, stalls and falls, quickly; altitude with Primary RADAR is possible but not that good all the time; what was nearby the airframe falling? Nose, what would be climbing the body. It is aero, not magic, not made up to help those who think a light in their eye is a missile going MACH with no sonic boom, no sonic boom trail that sounds like lighting. The movie claims MACH 2 or MACH 4 stuff (i think); again, what is the sweep speed of RADAR...

Movie of woo, to make money for someone, and that someone has 6 or 7 "experts" who are being used to sell woo, to make money; EPIX paid, someone is laughing as they cash the check of gullibility. CT, follow the money.

Don't run the AC packs with empty CWT for extended time on the ground...


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/747-...mined-19311154

An aircraft at cruise speed will climb further, unlike the 747 CG change at takeoff, only climbing a little. Pitch up when the nose left.

Last edited by beachnut; 20th June 2013 at 08:57 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 08:59 PM   #54
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by chris lz View Post
... Kallstrom was dressed up to give a news conference announcing a bomb as the cause.
Bomb? Is the story about a missile just a smokescreen? That the government doesn't want to admit that it was a real terrorist event. Some terrorist group perhaps even took responsibility for the bomb. And the government ordered mainstream media to keep quiet about it so to not encourage more terrorist deeds.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 10:25 PM   #55
chris lz
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 182
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
I see all the missteps in the CT versions, and then reading the NTSB report they are closed out, one by one; did the CT guys read the report?

Yes, as I read the final report there is much more specific examination of the witnesses and the timing issue than had been given in the earlier exhibits. The missile proponents have to come to terms with the 30-40 second gap between the streak-end and the fireball. Many of them still seem to think the the main fireball was the CWT explosion. The Zoom climb also seems to be more marginalized in the final report. Not saying it didn't happen. But shouldn't the radar have indicated a pronounced slow down in forward speed to account for a sudden climb? It's one of exactly two points for which I tend to give credit to the CT camp.
chris lz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 10:30 PM   #56
chris lz
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 182
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Bomb? Is the story about a missile just a smokescreen? That the government doesn't want to admit that it was a real terrorist event. Some terrorist group perhaps even took responsibility for the bomb. And the government ordered mainstream media to keep quiet about it so to not encourage more terrorist deeds.
You raise another interesting point. If you were intent on covering up a missile strike would you

1) Declare the crash a bomb and be done with it (they had all those initial positives for explosives)

or 2) Drag out the investigation for 4 long years and insist on dredging up every last piece of wreckage, only to come up with an obscure spark-initiation mechanism never before seen (I believe) in a commercial aircraft in flight. Not to mention the costliest investigation at the time.
chris lz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 10:38 PM   #57
chris lz
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 182
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Bomb? Is the story about a missile just a smokescreen? That the government doesn't want to admit that it was a real terrorist event. Some terrorist group perhaps even took responsibility for the bomb. And the government ordered mainstream media to keep quiet about it so to not encourage more terrorist deeds.

On the other hand covering up a bomb seems odd when you consider that the NTSB and their counterpart in Britain have seemed (so far as I know) to be forthcoming in past bombings - BEA 1967, TWA F841 (1974), and Pan Am 103, examples. Pan Am 103 was declared a bomb after exactly one week; TWA first denied that 841 could have been a bomb. But the evidence became clear very soon after.
chris lz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 10:39 PM   #58
chris lz
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 182
BTW, I see references here and at another forum that some may already have seen this movie. If so, I'm wondering where.
chris lz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 10:41 PM   #59
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by chris lz View Post
You raise another interesting point. If you were intent on covering up a missile strike would you

1) Declare the crash a bomb and be done with it (they had all those initial positives for explosives)

or 2) Drag out the investigation for 4 long years and insist on dredging up every last piece of wreckage, only to come up with an obscure spark-initiation mechanism never before seen (I believe) in a commercial aircraft in flight. Not to mention the costliest investigation at the time.
If they blamed it on a bomb, then they could have claimed it was Al Quaeda. But if it wasn't a planned false flag attack, then it could be problematic to blame it on a bomb because of the lack of planning and beforehand preparedness of information agendas.

If it was a missile, then it would hardly be a mistake by the U.S. Air Force, nor anyone having a Stinger missile etc. So maybe the missile story is dubious.

If it was a REAL bomb, then blaming it on a missile would make sense if the story about engine failure (or whatever it was blamed on) no longer can be upheld.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2013, 11:07 PM   #60
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
I've been involved in a rather heated thread on this on another site. Can anyone verify the claim that Stalcup, Hughes, Young & Speer were actually members of the original investigation? All the articles promoting the show state they were, but are the claims authentic? How many were on the team? What makes these guys such authorities?

I'd appreciate any help on the subject.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 12:04 AM   #61
SlightlyAbovePar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 80
I've watched the rough cut, as hosted by the creators on Vimeo (sp?) . The password needed is Epix123. This information is gleaned from a Epix press release.

There is a whole lot of people talking out of their ass, without actually having seen the film. Loose Change, it's not. Watch the film, then draw your conclusions.
SlightlyAbovePar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 01:02 AM   #62
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
So the government, which usually tells us right away if something is a terrorist attack, this one time decides it must be a secret and in doing so frames Boeing for a design flaw that costs them a buttload of money and puts another major corporation (TWA) completely out of business.

Yeah. I can totally see that happening.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 01:25 AM   #63
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
So the government, which usually tells us right away if something is a terrorist attack, this one time decides it must be a secret and in doing so frames Boeing for a design flaw that costs them a buttload of money and puts another major corporation (TWA) completely out of business.

Yeah. I can totally see that happening.
National security trumps corporate interests. So if it was a real terrorist bomb, and the terrorist organization responsible claimed it was them, then the government would have reason for doing a coverup and putting a gag order on the media. Because to acknowledge the real terrorists (not some fake Al CIAda) would give them and other real terrorist groups massive marketing value through the mass media coverage. Not recommended.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 02:35 AM   #64
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
National security trumps corporate interests. So if it was a real terrorist bomb, and the terrorist organization responsible claimed it was them, then the government would have reason for doing a coverup and putting a gag order on the media. Because to acknowledge the real terrorists (not some fake Al CIAda) would give them and other real terrorist groups massive marketing value through the mass media coverage. Not recommended.
You're kidding, right?
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 03:54 AM   #65
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
You're kidding, right?
No. Giving terrorist organizations a huge media platform is a really bad idea. Because that will fuel their causes tremendously and cause a cancer-like growth of terrorism.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 04:13 AM   #66
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
No. Giving terrorist organizations a huge media platform is a really bad idea. Because that will fuel their causes tremendously and cause a cancer-like growth of terrorism.
Er... it was a rhetorical question and your hypothesis is contrary to what actually happens in the real world.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 05:45 AM   #67
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
If they blamed it on a bomb, then they could have claimed it was Al Quaeda. But if it wasn't a planned false flag attack, then it could be problematic to blame it on a bomb because of the lack of planning and beforehand preparedness of information agendas.

If it was a missile, then it would hardly be a mistake by the U.S. Air Force, nor anyone having a Stinger missile etc. So maybe the missile story is dubious.

If it was a REAL bomb, then blaming it on a missile would make sense if the story about engine failure (or whatever it was blamed on) no longer can be upheld.
...or maybe the simplest explanation is the most likely one.

Who knows? Crazier things have happened.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 06:11 AM   #68
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
Er... it was a rhetorical question and your hypothesis is contrary to what actually happens in the real world.
So you believe it was a missile? That seems unlikely to me. The U.S. Air Force would hardly shoot at a passenger jet as a kind or horror mistake or as an act of deliberate insanity. And I doubt terrorists in the U.S. have access to surface-to-air missiles.

Or do you believe the initial official story? Then why do experts want a reinvestigation? Something doesn't compute with that either.

On the other hand, if the government covered it up to PROTECT the U.S. citizens, then that makes more sense. It's even similar to the NSA snooping scandal, where Obama says something like: Look, we do this for the protection of our citizens.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 08:58 AM   #69
chris lz
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 182
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
I've been involved in a rather heated thread on this on another site. Can anyone verify the claim that Stalcup, Hughes, Young & Speer were actually members of the original investigation? All the articles promoting the show state they were, but are the claims authentic? How many were on the team? What makes these guys such authorities?

I'd appreciate any help on the subject.
I don't know too much except that Hank Hughes was the only official investigator working with the NTSB. He was a senior investigator. Stalcup had no direct role in the investigation - like a Steve Jones of F800. The others I'm not sure of.
chris lz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 09:50 AM   #70
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by pteridine View Post
The damage was consistent with an expanding rod warhead [see, for example, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/rim-7.htm] on a radar guided missile such as the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow. This warhead depends on a guillotine effect and the damage was just that; a clean cut at the wing root which is also the center of radar mass. The aircraft size and altitude argue for something larger than a shoulder launched missile as does the type of damage.

Except that the examination of the human remains does not match that hypothesis. There are telltale signs which would show on the human remains had a missile struck the cabin. I refer you back to the book I mentioned in my earlier post.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 09:58 AM   #71
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
I haven't researched the event basically at all but it would be interesting to examine if the location of the explosion is consistent with a luggage bomb. Not any evidence, but at least that would make it possible to exclude the possibility of a bomb.

Sure, the experts are much better skilled and equipped to examine that, and they already have, but from a conspiracy perspective it's good as a layperson to understand what happened based on own reasoning rather than just blindly trusting information from official authorities.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 10:28 AM   #72
SUSpilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
Just to stir the pot a little, forget missiles. Look up Philippine Flight 434 and read about the where the device was placed. Although I think the NTSB/FBI would have found and reported evidence of a similar device, it's something to think about.

In the meantime, I'll stick with vapors sparked in the center tank.
SUSpilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 10:45 AM   #73
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by SUSpilot View Post
In the meantime, I'll stick with vapors sparked in the center tank.

And it's not as if that type of event was unprecedented.

FWIW I just stumbled across this article that might be of interest: Safer Fuel Tanks - Once airliners implement this pending FAA rule, a spark will no longer become a flame.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 10:45 AM   #74
pteridine
Thinker
 
pteridine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Except that the examination of the human remains does not match that hypothesis. There are telltale signs which would show on the human remains had a missile struck the cabin. I refer you back to the book I mentioned in my earlier post.
An expanding rod warhead is designed to cleave the airframe. It does not explode in the aircraft but parallel to it, some feet away. It has a limited charge so that the segments of the warhead stay linked together.
pteridine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 10:57 AM   #75
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by pteridine View Post
An expanding rod warhead is designed to cleave the airframe. It does not explode in the aircraft but parallel to it, some feet away. It has a limited charge so that the segments of the warhead stay linked together.
Sounds like you're just looking for an alternative. Any reason you should do so, considering the lack of evidence?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 11:02 AM   #76
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by pteridine View Post
An expanding rod warhead is designed to cleave the airframe. It does not explode in the aircraft but parallel to it, some feet away. It has a limited charge so that the segments of the warhead stay linked together.

Most anti-aircraft missiles do not physically strike the target but rather instead use a proximity fuze to detonate a short distance from the aircraft, with the shrapnel from the detonation causing the damage to the target.

You still have the same problem: the damage done to the human remains is consistent with a fuel tank explosion, not a missile strike on or near the aircraft. Quoting from section 1.13 of the NTSB's report on the accident (emphasis added):

Quote:
During the investigation of the accident, the Medical Forensic Group, which included medical/forensic experts from the USAF, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Army (retired), the FBI, the Safety Board, and the Suffolk County Police Department, was formed to review the available medical and forensic documentation for evidence that an explosive device (bomb or missile) had detonated near any passenger or crewmember. The review revealed no localized areas of damage or injuries in the airplane.
Quote:
  • Exhaustive analysis of all available medical data on the victims of TWA Flight 800 by an experienced team of forensic pathologists, biomechanicists and criminal investigators failed to find any evidence that any victim was directly exposed to a bomb blast or missile warhead detonation.
  • All injuries found in the victims were consistent with severe in-flight break up and subsequent water impact.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 11:51 AM   #77
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by pteridine View Post
An expanding rod warhead is designed to cleave the airframe. It does not explode in the aircraft but parallel to it, some feet away. It has a limited charge so that the segments of the warhead stay linked together.
If it was that type of warhead, given the missile's speed and the detonation velocity, the rods would expand out in a cone at about a 45 degree angle to the missile's flight path. In that case, for it to cut the aircraft perpendicularly through the longitudinal axis, and given the aircraft's own speed, the missile would have to intersect the aircraft at slightly less than a 45 degree angle, either in the horizontal or vertical plane or in some combination of both.

Where in relation to passenger seating did the sever occur? There is one gap in the seating plan for the galley and lavoratories forward of the wing. If a continuous rod warhead cut through that gap the passengers might not have been hit. If it cut through the seating area then there is no way there wouldn't be many mangled bodies.
__________________
Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000
probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 12:16 PM   #78
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
I'm going to ask this because I do not have sufficient familiarity with TWA 800 to know, but this supposed "clean break", did it happen to occur along a joint in the airframe? To my mind, it's possible that the explosion in the CWT may not have literally blown the aircraft apart, but was still strong enough to cause a stress-related separation in a natural fault in the airframe.
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 01:12 PM   #79
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
IIRc, the targeted plane will see a spike on their radar when the fire control for the guided missile system locks onto it. I would think there would be a mention of that on the CVR, however the transcript does not show any indication. It does have mention of "look at that crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four" at 2029:15.


ETA: Come to think of it, unless a Navy vessel is in the middle of combat or a live fire exercise, an accidental targeting and firing on an aircraft is nearly impossible. They would not have missiles ready unless they were in such a situation. That plane was not in an exercise area, and there would be a NOTAM also.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 21st June 2013 at 01:16 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2013, 01:25 PM   #80
jadebox
Master Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,870
Concerning "The petitioners contend that the testimony of more than 200 witnesses who reported seeing streaks of light headed toward the plane should be reconsidered" ....

I don't understand why so many eye witnesses came to the conclusion that they saw a missile. A missile wouldn't leave a streak of light in a night sky.

Long-exposure photographs display a streak, but I've watched lots of night rockets launches and, from any distance, all you see with the naked eye is a moving dot (if anything).

And surely, at least in retrospect, it should be obvious that what the eyewitnesses described doesn't fit the missile theory.

-- Roger

Last edited by jadebox; 21st June 2013 at 01:30 PM.
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.