|
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. |
22nd June 2013, 12:52 PM | #121 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
anders youtube can not be taken seriously as a back up for your fantasies
|
22nd June 2013, 01:01 PM | #122 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
I'm curious about why experts want to do a reinvestigation about the tragic TWA 800 event. I don't believe they are completely deluded, plus mainstream media has reported about it, so something may be cooking. So I checked out some documentaries about it just to see what it's all about. And I checked one official report that said that large bombs and missiles had been ruled out. The official version may very well be correct in this case, but then the question is why some experts want a reinvestigation.
|
22nd June 2013, 01:05 PM | #123 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
only some conspiracy nuts on coast to coast do and that is joke radio station for kooks
|
22nd June 2013, 01:14 PM | #124 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
No, it's professional experts who want a reinvestigation. There must be SOME reason for why they want that. Seems really tricky since the official investigation looks genuine enough. That made me suspect that the experts are playing a part in some psyop as a test shot for something bigger to come.
|
22nd June 2013, 01:20 PM | #125 |
Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 222
|
I know nothing about the experts calling for a re-investigation but I can hazard one guess as to why they would: Money. It's possible that they are due to receive compensation for their part in the documentary that is tied to the proceeds the film generates. One way for them to increase interest in the film would be to create the impression that there is controversy about the conclusions reached by the NTSB and FBI. After all, why would we care to see the film if the experts involved in its making seemingly lack the confidence to call for a new investigation to test those beliefs?
To reiterate, I am not saying I have any knowledge of the people involved and everything in the preceding paragraph is pure speculation on my part. |
__________________
We all believe in silly things. What matters is how silly and how many. -- Guy P. Harrison |
|
22nd June 2013, 01:37 PM | #126 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
Aha! Now I found something potentially suspicious. The official report said that the nose dived down while the back of the plane flew upwards. And it was this upward flight, the official version said, that witnesses had mistaken for a missile. Check out this image:
From: The Final Report: Investigation of TWA Flight 800 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9aAQSKyzPU Notice how the smoke trace shows a smooth curved continuous down movement for the whole plane. Inconsistent with the official report! |
22nd June 2013, 01:54 PM | #127 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 182
|
|
22nd June 2013, 02:51 PM | #128 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
|
Snicker.
Read the Conclusions in that report. I have no idea what you think Figure 7 proves but it certainly does not support your case. No missile damage: http://twa800.com/exhibits/missileanalysis.pdf |
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
22nd June 2013, 03:02 PM | #129 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
22nd June 2013, 04:43 PM | #130 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Figure 7? Shows 800 was in the ignition zone, near rich. ... TWA 800 peak temperatures of 124 and 144°F (51 and 62°C) were recorded near the top and bottom of the compartment, respectively. (same report) The report supports the fuel air could be ignited. The CWT was over-pressured due to the fuel air explosion. That ruptured the part of the aircraft. Planes don't fly after parts are damaged. The paper you show does not negate the most probable cause of 800 CWT rupture, and that was enough to "cleanly" guillotine the nose. Cleanly? lol No big deal, the study you show was done to mitigate fuel air ignition. The CWT was hot due to extended ground operation, the AC packs are right below the CWT. Further study is needed by the nuts who did the woo movie on 800, which EPIX paid them to be wooish. There is no reason from the movie to do another investigation, the idiots who will show up in the movie already failed. Did you read the study you posted? What was the temperature of the CWT? Looks like the risk is high for ignition based on the conditions. Guess where the damage to the aircraft came from? CWT. The guys in the movie are not the experts at analyzing the damage, they were the helper guys, doing their jobs, but not much rational thinking if they show up in a movie of woo, rehashing old debunked nonsense. Follow the Money; the CT here is selling woo. The free advertising is icing on the woo cake. It is funny how CTers are able to use the press to get free advertising for woo. Who knew? |
22nd June 2013, 05:30 PM | #131 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
TWA 800 is permanently housed at the NTSB's facility at Ashburn, Loudoun County, Virginia, and is used to train new investigators.
So in all this time nobody has said "Hey, what's that?" Uncovering the crime of the last century would be a feather in a new investigator's cap one would think. |
22nd June 2013, 06:54 PM | #132 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,697
|
Because it is inconvenient to the CTs. I've read of several cases where bombing was proven because they found high speed fragments in the bodies, distinctive 'shredded' amputations, residue from the explosives and in one early case part of the timing mechanism embedded in the body of the victim.
In related news this is being discussed on an aviation safety forum http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=55171 The CTs seem to be winning at the last check. For those who believe it was a missile, where did it come from, the air, the ground/sea or space? Who fired it and from where? |
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!" 'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail Everybody gets it wrong sometimes... |
|
22nd June 2013, 07:09 PM | #133 |
Evil Fokker
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,806
|
|
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- |
|
22nd June 2013, 07:11 PM | #134 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
In one documentary (I don't have the link) they said that a small plane filled with explosives was steered towards TWA 800 by terrorists and that the U.S. Navy fired two missiles to shoot down the smaller plane which also caused TWA 800 to explode. Something like that. In another documentary they talked about the U.S. Navy having exercises in the area and a missile shot down TWA 800 by a horrible accident. And yet in another documentary they said that a fast-going boat left the area directly after the explosion and that those were terrorists who had used a missile.
So there is no consistency in the conspiracy theories. Something that may be suspicious about the official version though is that they say things like: there is no evidence of a direct contact hit by a missile, or: there is no evidence of a missile going through the plane. That sounds suspiciously like political talk to me. Because those statements could be true while a missile could have exploded near the plane. |
22nd June 2013, 07:19 PM | #135 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
I wanted to log on and tell them to read the report. Reports.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/AAR0003.html http://twa800.com/exhibits/missileanalysis.pdf http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ar98-26.pdf |
22nd June 2013, 07:57 PM | #136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
Hmm... Now I'm starting to find more evidence of a coverup. This is old news for those who have already looked into it, but the investigation found BOTH chemical residue consistent with explosives used in missiles AND other chemical residue consistent with solid rocket fuel used in missiles. The official explanation is that instead of solid rocket fuel it was glue, and the chemical residue from explosives was from a previous bomb sniffing exercise in the plane.
Plus some 90 witnesses had seen a missile/rocket type flare going up from the surface of the ocean up to hit the plane. So maybe it WAS a missile after all. If so, this could be a Pandora's box of government coverups! |
22nd June 2013, 08:39 PM | #137 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,697
|
|
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!" 'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail Everybody gets it wrong sometimes... |
|
22nd June 2013, 08:41 PM | #138 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
|
The explosive residue was pre-detonation compounds; no post-detonation residue was ever found. The chemical composition of an explosive is very different after it is detonated.
If you read the full descriptions given by the "missile" eyewitnesses, of those that mention hearing an explosion, they say they looked up, saw something streaking through the sky, saw it explode, and immediately or a few seconds later heard an explosion. Given their distance from the aircraft and the speed of sound in air, they should not have heard the explosion until 50 to 100 seconds later. The "missile" eyewitnesses who didn't mention hearing an explosion give similar sequence of events. |
__________________
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 |
|
22nd June 2013, 08:43 PM | #139 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,697
|
I'm going to call JAQing off for this one, but when Partnair Flight 394 crashed in 1989 it was also speculated that a bomb or missile was involved. (The wikipedia article (really a transcript of the 'Mayday' episode "Blown Apart") on the crash covers this.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnair_Flight_394 |
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!" 'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail Everybody gets it wrong sometimes... |
|
22nd June 2013, 09:46 PM | #140 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
|
And the results of the detailed examinations of the human remains is still being ignored by the missile mavens...
|
__________________
"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." |
|
22nd June 2013, 10:41 PM | #141 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
But there were (at least) two different kinds of explosives found:
Source: Traces of 2nd explosive found in TWA debris -- http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/30/twa.pm/index.html |
22nd June 2013, 11:00 PM | #142 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
From det cord used for bomb dog practice on 800 at an airport before the crash. oops, it was trace amounts, and where it was found was not exploded. The floor where it was found did not blow up. No explosives were found anywhere else, just the floor that did not explode, and trace levels which could not do anything. This stuff I just told you was why the trace was found, you posted the leak which news source added their own junk to. This is funny, you are exposing why people are confused, as your replay old reports which jumped the gun. Soon if you could find all the stuff, you would understand why it was the CWT... but you seem stuck on the false stuff. This is why the FBI had problems with the NTSB; the NTSB collects tons of junk, and then makes a decision, tons, being all the stuff about the plane, etc. like what the pilot ate, etc, details most people ignore... The FBI seems to be stuck with the eye witnesses on the missile, which the NTSB will listen to, but will analysis all the data before jumping on the missile theory;;; but then it would be the FBI alone, NTSB does not do crime.
But go ahead, ignore the reports you did not read and stick with woo. It is what you do. You keep bringing up stuff refuted in this thread, and failing to read all the available information, evidence, and facts. What next? |
22nd June 2013, 11:11 PM | #143 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Except that it didn't. The plane is on display it is viewed often. There is no damage consistent with a SAM of any kind.
While you are doing "research" look up Stingers used against the Soviets in Afghanistan and see how effective they really aren't. Only one large Antonov transport (similar in size to a 747) was brought down with one (allegedly), and it was hit as it was taking off. The Navy has a thing for inventories and paperwork. Had they fired a missile all anyone would have to do is inventory the SAMs on the ships in the area, and cross-match their inventories with central supply. If a missile comes up missing you have your smoking gun. No missiles went missing. Firing a missile on a ship is a big deal, the entire crew knows about it and the other ships in the formation also see that baby cook off. Nobody would have shut up about accidentally knocking a civilian jet out of the sky. I know this because the US Navy actually did that once. They shot down an Iranian 747 killing everyone on board. There was video of the incident within days shot from the bridge. Nobody denied anything. The TWA 800 conspiracy is inconsistent with historical facts. |
22nd June 2013, 11:24 PM | #144 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
From about 6 minutes into this video they talk about a hit on the right wing:
Did U.S. Gov't Lie About TWA Flight 800? Ex-Investigators Seek Probe as New Evidence Emerges. 2 of 2 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAkIdb-DUYQ |
22nd June 2013, 11:32 PM | #145 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
On a second thought, I'm starting to have doubts about the claim of a spark in the fuel tank. As they said in the video I posted in my previous post, the wires going to the instruments in the tank were for very low voltage and currents. And even the other wires in other areas inside the plain only had 150 volts maximum (if I remember correctly). So even if there was some short circuit and the wire nylon isolation broken in the fuel tank, would it be possible to produce such spark? The video said that attempts to reproduce the spark by the investigators had failed.
If 150 volt is enough to cause a spark, then how about 12 volt? And then cars with little fuel in their tanks would go boom all over the place on a hot summer day. Haha. Maybe not a fair comparison, but just to illustrate my doubt. |
22nd June 2013, 11:43 PM | #146 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,697
|
|
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!" 'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail Everybody gets it wrong sometimes... |
|
22nd June 2013, 11:48 PM | #147 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
22nd June 2013, 11:52 PM | #148 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
Yes, I have seen that test. But what I started to have doubts about is the spark itself, not that the fuel could cause an explosion.
In the other video I posted they said that the investigators had failed to reproduce such spark using the electricity system and wires in such plane. Best Evidence no doubt used voltages much higher than 150 volt to produce their spark. |
22nd June 2013, 11:52 PM | #149 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
Can I ask why you neglected to mention that once the plane was used as part of an explosives dog training exorcise a month before the accident? Or how it had been used in the Gulf to transport troops who carried explosives? How about the reason you left out that NASA determined the substance was consistent with the material used for adhesives used to make the seats?
Those things don't require a damage pattern consistent with a missile strike like yours does. The NTSB does not cherry pick like you are doing or hope that most people won't notice all of the very important details you intentionally leave out. |
23rd June 2013, 01:33 AM | #150 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
|
23rd June 2013, 02:30 AM | #151 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
usual standard anders fluff techniques, ifs maybes you tube videos and no real substance
|
23rd June 2013, 03:04 AM | #152 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
Yes, there were traces of pre-detonation explosives on some cloth IIRC. This was attributed to a dog-sniffing exercise conducted some weeks earlier. No trace of post-detonation material was found, nor did the bodies show any trace of explosive detonation.
Beachnut kindly provided the following link. Click on the PDF symbol for the report. It is advisable to read the report before watching boobtoob fantasies. http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/AAR0003.html ETA: Missed the post above by JohnnyClueless. |
Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 23rd June 2013 at 03:09 AM. Reason: Not paying attention while changing a vacuum cleaner bag. |
|
23rd June 2013, 03:09 AM | #153 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
|
23rd June 2013, 03:14 AM | #154 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
Yes, I have seen that. But the document doesn't specifically mention that it was pre-detonation explosives. Or have I missed something?
Actually a very fuzzy description about several types of explosives and some vague reference to a bomb sniffing exercise. Doesn't sound really conclusive. |
23rd June 2013, 05:23 AM | #155 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
Yes, you have missed something and it's quite obvious. Think on it for a while.
Meanwhile, try this for all your TWA 800 needs: http://www.100megspopup.com/ark/Rebu...Theorists.html |
Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 23rd June 2013 at 05:26 AM. Reason: Postcript to the Addenum's Bibliography |
|
23rd June 2013, 06:40 AM | #156 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
|
My boss is something of a soft-core conspiracy theorist. I generally ignore his comments, because I know that sometimes he makes them just to try to wind me up. One CT that he's firmly convinced of, however, is that TWA 800 was shot down by a missile, because he was at an Air Force base in the Northeast at the time, and he claims to have actually heard someone say over the radio, "We just shot down a civilian airliner!!"
I've considered trying to explain to him that, granting for the sake of argument that he heard correctly, and that the source was actually an Air Force pilot, that the man could simply have jumped to an unjustified conclusion based on his observations, but I know there's little point. |
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz |
|
23rd June 2013, 07:08 AM | #157 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
From the webpage: "1) For the missile to be seen, it would need to be an SM-2 or larger. Therefore, it wasn't a terrorist."
It was darkening outside, and surely even the engine of a small missile would have been visible. Some witnesses even described it as fireworks going up towards the plane. "2) Standards require large launching platforms." No, some people talk about a small fast-going boat leaving the area directly after the incident. Say a Stinger missile could easily have been fired from a small boat. "3) Of all the people who saw the streak, none saw the launch. This is strange, given that launch pyrotechnics are much brighter than the engine exhaust. Assuming an over-the-horizon shot means that the missile would be in coast and therefore not visible." From that far away, the launch would not have been significantly brighter than the rest of the travel path for the missile. See for example: FIM-92 Stinger Surface-to-Air Live Fire Exercise -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av2BzaXF6lg "4) 98% of the plane was recovered. How could the NTSB, made up in large part of civilians (some of whom would *love* to prove that it was a missile) hide the shrapnel damage? Please do not use Goddard/Rivero's entry and exit wounds unless you want to discuss the splaying of sheet metal in a semi-monocoque structure with an ex-aerospace engineer. I'll win that debate. Hell, I have pictures of gunshot holes that bend toward* the shooter." The missile hit one of the wings according to the new documentary. Sure, some shrapnel damage would still be found and I think it was in this video (about the new documentary) they talk about holes after such damage: Did U.S. Gov't Lie About TWA Flight 800? Ex-Investigators Seek Probe as New Evidence Emerges. 2 of 2 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAkIdb-DUYQ "5) Speaking of people, thousands would be involved. This would include the ships crew that would know they fired a missile off Long Island right when a plane was downed. How do you keep them quiet? Add to this the civilians who are involved (contractors, etc.) and the incredible paper trail that follows every missile. A hefty number of sailors who were in the service in 1996 have left it. How do you silence them?" If it was one of the wings that was hit and disintegrated mostly, then hiding the shrapnel damage would be easy, so only a few people would be in on it so to speak. Sure, thousands of people higher up in the chain of command would probably know about it, but they keep quiet because of national security. "6) Why shoot missiles off of Long Island when proper airspace is available (and no, the warning zone was not hot until after the crash, regardless of what Jim "What, Me Add?" Sanders says)?" A smaller missile would have limited reach, and launching from a boat is then a possibility since that would reduce the risk of getting caught right in the action so to speak, while operating and preparing the missile equipment. |
23rd June 2013, 07:12 AM | #158 |
Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 248
|
Gordo,
Snicker? I have not made a case. I never studied the wreckage. I don't know if any evidence was suppressed. I don't know what witnesses testified and who was ignored. I explained to Horatius that something bigger than a Stinger was likely necessary for a shootdown and why some people wanted a reinvestigation. I explained about the expanding rod warhead and provided a link. I provided a link to a report from those who have "done the math." Figure 7 shows limits of flammability of Jet A. I said that the spark was far fetched but never said that it couldn't happen. Your link is an examination of the possibility that a MANPAD shot down the plane. It looked specifically for high velocity penetrations of >4000 fps. An expanding rod warhead is limited to velocities on the order of 3000 fps to keep it intact until it reaches its design radius, so the report does not address this possibility. Read the executive summary for recommendations and limitations. |
23rd June 2013, 07:13 AM | #159 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
I love how all of the witnesses who reported seeing a streak said they heard an explosions, looked up and then saw a streak in the sky.
I would like to know more about these missiles that detonate their targets before they are launched. Is this what the term magic missile refers to? |
23rd June 2013, 07:46 AM | #160 |
Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 248
|
You can be as sure as you want on a trackable public forum. We are just now seeing such in the public press and the various weapons expositions. A while back, the Russians had SA-19's on a few Kilo's but these are small missiles and may have needed a sailor on the sail to shoot.
Skimmer |
Thread Tools | |
|
|