# Anybody up for a TWA 800 discussion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2009, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944 "2009-03-27T01:32:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/221 "2009-05-16T13:18:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Was the TWA 800 747 a model so old that some official fuel capacities were not applicable on that plane? > > However, I would be glad to be wrong regarding the fuel capacity, your numbers actually make my case even better, the central tank was then definitely not filled for the final doomed flight. Age has nothing to do with fuel capacity. The numbers I gave were direct from Boeing for a 747-100. Later models hold more fuel and have a longer range. The problem is the link you gave us didn’t show all the tanks on a 747-100. For example the horizontal stabilizer on a 747 also carries about 3,000 gallons of fuel. ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/222 "2009-05-16T17:31:15Z")
A brief background to Brumley. Note in particular that his fellow passenger, Nugent, saw TWA 800’s cabin lights signifying that Brumley’s “bright light”, seen streaking right to left at high speed, couldn’t be the same object Nugent watched for as much as 45 seconds. Also note CIA’s attempt to change Wire’s words and note Wire’s reaction to it. And take note of CIA’s claim that no one saw the original explosion. Both Eastwinds pilots, National Guard pilot Meyer, and Brumley and Nugent all saw it. If that isn’t a case of CIA lying I don’t know what is: [http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-twa-800-eyewitnesses-demand-a-hearing/](http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-twa-800-eyewitnesses-demand-a-hearing/) [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=36103](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36103) ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/223 "2009-05-16T18:03:08Z")
The investigation’s handling of rocket propellant residue is obvious to any honest person as the cover-up it is. Mr Basset, the man who allegedly tested the seat glue material is clear in his protest that the sample he had been given was a mocked piece of evidence made to look like a reddish residue seat fabric sample from Flight 800 but was actually airline seat fabric with glue applied to it and red dye: From Jack Cashill: > [@](#): > > Much more chilling is the case of Jim and Liz Sanders. Aware of the dissatisfaction within the TWA community, reporter Jim Sanders sought out a few good sources at the investigation hangar on Long Island. Liz introduced Jim to Terrel Stacey, a TWA manager and 747 pilot. > > Stacey was identified to Sanders as “a straight arrow, go-by-the-rules kind of guy,” the least likely potential source. But given the consequences for being wrong, that’s exactly the kind of person Sanders hoped to find. > > “What he told me over those first hours,” relates Sanders, “was one thing – ‘I know there’s a cover-up in progress.’” > > Soon after their meeting, Terrel Stacey began to feed Sanders a series of documents related to the debris field – that is, what falls off a plane and in what order. Sanders, a retired accident investigator for a California police department, analyzed the sequence of events and saw what appeared to be a path of destruction sweeping right across the plane. > > When Sanders showed Stacey the path, Stacey for the first time connected that destruction to a reddish residue trail across those very rows, 17-19. According to Stacey, the FBI had taken samples of the residue months before but had refused to share the analysis with the other investigators, including Stacey, TWA’s number two man on site. > > Stacey knew the plane well. He had flown it from Paris to New York just the day before the crash. Without prompting, he volunteered to take the next step – secure some residue for testing. When he found he couldn’t scrape the residue off, Stacey removed two pinches of foam rubber out of a universe of thousands and sent them to Sanders that night by FedEx. > > Sanders had one sample tested in a California lab. He sent the second piece of foam rubber to a producer at CBS News’ 60 Minutes program for safekeeping as prearranged. The elements identified by the lab proved to be consistent with residue from a solid fuel missile or warhead explosion. On March 10, 1997, the Riverside Press-Enterprise in California ran a front-page story on Sanders’ research that was quickly picked up by other papers across America. > > This was no longer a polite debate about theories. If Sanders’ results were right, then someone in the FBI had not merely made a mistake, he had committed a crime. Sanders waited anxiously for an alternative explanation from the feds. He knew they would have to provide one. > > He didn’t have to wait long. The day after the article appeared, March 11, Dr. Bernard Loeb of the NTSB told a House Aviation Subcommittee, “One thing I can say categorically is that there is no such thing as a red residue trail in that airplane.” > > On March 7, however, the FBI’s Jim Kallstrom had told The Riverside Press-Enterprise, “There is a red residue trail. It has nothing to do with a missile. I’m not going to get into it.” > > Who was lying about the residue trail, Kallstrom or Loeb? Again, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Between March 7, when the FBI learned that a sample of the residue was out of its control, and March 11, when Loeb testified, it seems likely that the relevant seatbacks had been ripped out of the reconstructed airplane, never again to be seen. Technically, they may have both been telling the truth. > > As to the cause of the fuss, the missile residue, well it was really just glue – or so said the NTSB. In truth, the glue hypothesis was pure damage control. The media, as had become all too typical, never bothered to ask for proof. They should have. The fabric sample that senior NTSB scientist Dr. Merritt Birky sent to NASA for testing could have come from anywhere. > > Said Birky in a tape-recorded conversation, “So, in trying to prove we have the same samples as Sanders, I’m not sure it gets us very far. Supposing Sanders’ comes out differently?” > > The samples did come out differently. Charlie Basset of NASA confirmed as much. He signed a notarized statement saying the sample he tested had nothing to do with the Sanders residue. It is not hard to tell the difference. The Sanders’ samples are erratically streaked in a dark orange. The NTSB sample shows an almost perfectly applied layering of reddish pink that Bassett identified as red dye. On screen, the contrast is glaring. > > In December of 1998, in the course of discovery for his criminal trial (for conspiracy), Sanders was able to photograph the given seat, 19-2. He found no other trace of red around the square that had been removed for testing. In fact, he later detected through photo analysis that the entire seatback had been replaced, a rare re-upholstering job on a downed airplane. > > As to Sanders’ second sample, the one that could have easily revealed the chicanery afoot, CBS handed the fabric over to the FBI without protest and refused to renew the contract of the Emmy award-winning producer who received it. So much for an honest test. So much for a free press. With the media in check, the conspirators could proceed with a brazenness that stuns even the cynic. ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/224 "2009-05-16T18:27:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I’m not making this point, you are showing confusion again. And once again you are not citing what Brumley said. > :rolleyes: > > It bolsters the case that you are ignoring the quantity of fuel needed for the trip or that you are ignoring the fuel tanks of the wings, there was no need to fill up the central tank. As you had a chance to see how wrong you are we can safely dismiss you. ``` 1 - The point I was making was that the agent who recorded the 747 he had bomb tested in St Louis as being completely empty proves that he could not have tested the TWA 800 aircraft, but instead tested another 747 at the next gate. Since no 747 due for an 8 hour flight can reasonably be empty a half hour before departure on any normal flight, this proves he didn't do the bomb test which the investigation uses as the source for the explosives residue on the Flight 800 aircraft. Once the investigation loses its excuse for the explosives residue it therefore can't explain how it got there? This creates a greater possibility that it IS missile evidence - as does a false report on a bomb test create the possibility that a fraudulent investigation occurred. Unless you can answer this directly, I'll take it as the forfeiture of the point it is. Which, at this point, is as good as an admission to what it suggests. 2 - I never said anything about the filling of the center tank. Since your answers fail even a basic following of the points I'll consider them the credulous responses they are. I'll leave it up to you to respond to what has already been explained in simple terms about the St Louis bomb test. ``` ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/225 "2009-05-16T18:40:09Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > 1 - The point I was making was that the agent who recorded the 747 he had bomb tested in St Louis as being completely empty proves that he could not have tested the TWA 800 aircraft, but instead tested another 747 at the next gate. Since no 747 due for an 8 hour flight can reasonably be empty a half hour before departure on any normal flight, this proves he didn’t do the bomb test which the investigation uses as the source for the explosives residue on the Flight 800 aircraft. Once the investigation loses its excuse for the explosives residue it therefore can’t explain how it got there? This creates a greater possibility that it IS missile evidence - as does a false report on a bomb test create the possibility that a fraudulent investigation occurred. > > ``` > Unless you can answer this directly, I'll take it as the forfeiture of the point it is. Which, at this point, is as good as an admission to what it suggests. > 2 - I never said anything about the filling of the center tank. > Since your answers fail even a basic following of the points I'll consider them the credulous responses they are. I'll leave it up to you to respond to what has already been explained in simple terms about the St Louis bomb test. > > ``` You said that we are saying that the whole plane was empty, unless you were attempting to mislead by omitting the whole point. The wing tanks had fuel, enough to get to the destination. You just can not accept that you are clueless regarding what was the procedure and the actual state of the fuel tanks. And that is because you do know that accepting that the center tank was empty is deadly to your conspiracy theories. By the way, tap dancing around that does not help you at all. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/226 "2009-05-16T18:45:17Z")
Regarding the Eastwood pilots. [http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/15/nyregion/on-faa-tape-nearby-pilots-describe-explosion-of-flight-800.html](http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/15/nyregion/on-faa-tape-nearby-pilots-describe-explosion-of-flight-800.html) > [@](#): > > After the Boston controller’s fourth call, the unidentified voice said, ‘‘I think that was him.’’ > > ‘‘I think so,’’ replied the controller. > > ‘‘God bless him,’’ the unidentified voice said. > > From the cockpit of the Eastwind plane, the pilot said, ‘‘Ah, yes sir, it just blew up in the air, and then we saw two fireballs go down to the water.’’ > > The controller, who was not identified by name, replied, ‘‘Roger that sir, ah, that was a 747 out there you had a visual on that, anything else in the area when it happened?’’ > > The pilot answered: ‘‘I didn’t see anything. I thought it had a landing light on, maybe it was a fire, I don’t know.’’ Frederic Meyer described the streak of light as a “gradually descending ark”, Not quite what you expect from a missile. What I get from this is the now once again reasonable assumption that witness testimony is not reliable, it is the physical evidence then that then has to be preferred. > **[Page not found](https://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/exhibits_web.htm)** It is interesting that Brumley and Nugent were not interviewed for the latest conspiracy books, IMHO is because their testimony, besides being contradictory to the physical evidence, on the whole also showed inconsistency with other missile or second plane theories. BTW Jack Cashill has his own ax to grind against Clinton, as it is WorldNet Daily and Accuracy in the Media. Their efforts can be understood better on the light of trying to smear the Clinton administration on top of attempting to discredit the results of the tests. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/227 "2009-05-16T18:46:12Z")
FWIW speaking as a guy that has over 750,000 frequent flier miles, airplanes even 747s don’t load pax 1 hour before takeoff. They load the pax in 30 minutes or less. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/228 "2009-05-16T18:57:27Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > You can often tell a genuine argument by its form. A genuine argument tends to respond to the established facts and points being made. A less than genuine argument tends to seek the first and cheapest cracks in order to attempt to defeat the still-remaining reasonable points that then go unanswered. I also think people can see persons who pose an unfamiliar level of knowledge when answering those points but then suddenly show a very precise level of knowledge when seeking the cracks. You are correct, more on this later. > [@](#): > > ``` > We are focusing on radar data, but the truth is the black boxes were found in relatively shallow water of around 200 feet or so. They were not found for many days, or over week, if we research. The problem with this is the pingers were good and working when they were found. I doubt the pingers stopped working but then started again later on allowing them to be located. Let's put it directly, the black boxes were probably removed, altered, and then suddenly 'found' even though there was no reasonable excuse why they weren't found right away. We can look at an analysis of the data contained in those boxes and see expert analysis shows the final 4 seconds were removed. > > Part of the reason those seconds were removed is because CVR tape is capable of imprinting blast shock detectable by oscilloscope. > > ``` From the Wiki page on TWA 800 > [@](#): > > There was nothing unusual on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) tape until 20:29:15 when the Captain stated: ““Look at that crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four. . . see that?”[24] Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center cleared TWA 800 to climb to and maintain 15,000 feet (4,600 m) at 20:30:15, followed by the Captain ordering “climb thrust” and acknowledging the ATC clearance in the next few seconds. At 20:30:35 the Flight Engineer said “power’s set.”[24] At 20:30:42 the Cockpit Area Microphone recorded a mechanical movement in the cockpit, followed by an unintelligible word at 20:31:03, followed by sound similar to “recording tape damage” at 20:31:05. The tape suddenly ended at 20:31:12. Sound spectrum analysis revealed that during the last second of recording there were two unusual events on the Captain’s microphone channel where a brief 400 Hertz sound was recorded. (The aircraft’s AC power system normally operates at 400 Hz line frequency.)[25] Other background electrical noise normally recorded on that channel ceased during the two transient events, .73 and .68 seconds before the end of the tape. The other CVR channels recorded normally.[26] The last event on the CVR tape occurred on all channels, and involved a very short, loud noise lasting .117 seconds before the tape ended. **The CVR tape ended with power failure at 20:31:12, which was the same time as the last radar transponder return was received from the aircraft.[26]** > > The loud transient noise at the end of Flight 800s Cockpit Voice Recorder tape was compared to the similar noises on the recorders of two 747s that were destroyed by bombs in the forward cargo compartment, Pan Am 103 and Air India 182. It was also compared to the event on the tape of United 811, a 747-100 which suffered an explosive decompression due to failure of the forward cargo compartment, and with the explosion recorded on the CVR tape of a Philippine Airlines 737 which had suffered a fuel/air mixture explosion in its center wing tank on the ground. The bombed aircraft tapes showed a very rapid rise in noise level, brief duration, and a very rapid decline in the noise of the explosion. In the case of the other three aircraft, including TWA 800, the rate of the rise of the noise was more gradual, the duration of peak noise longer, and the decline of the noise was more gradual.[27] > > The flight data recorder data was consistent with an aircraft in a normal, wings level climb when the recorder suddenly stopped due to termination of electrical power.[28] Bolded and increased in size for the TLDR crowd. Where is the missing 4 seconds? The ground radars recording of the transponder stops at exactly the same time as the CVR. More on the genuine arguments. A genuine argument is one that uses facts like I have been posting instead of hand waving and the pay no attention to the man behind the mirror comments. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/229 "2009-05-16T19:15:39Z")
Regarding the Red residue issue, it is most unwise to rely on people that were actually involved a real conspiracy: [http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/14/nyregion/couple-convicted-conspiring-steal-wreckage-flight-800-part-research.html](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/14/nyregion/couple-convicted-conspiring-steal-wreckage-flight-800-part-research.html) > [@](#): > > Couple Convicted of Conspiring to Steal Wreckage From Flight 800 as Part of Research > > … > > The defendants, James Sanders, 53, the author of a 1997 book promoting the theory, and his wife, Elizabeth, 52, a former T.W.A. flight-attendant instructor, appeared stunned when the jury delivered its verdict after less than two hours of deliberation. > > The two were found guilty of conspiracy, as well as aiding and abetting in the theft of two small strips of passenger-seat fabric that contained a reddish-orange residue they said was left by a missile. > > They each face up to 10 years in prison when sentenced on July 9, but the assistant United States attorney prosecuting the case, David B. Pitofsky, said that under Federal sentencing guidelines, they would probably be sentenced to far less time. > > As the couple left Federal District Court here this afternoon, Mr. Sanders said: ‘‘We were surprised by the verdict and that the jury rendered it so quickly. It can’t help but send a strong and obvious message to journalists seeking to tell the truth.’’ > > Mrs. Sanders, who clutched her husband’s hand, said only, ‘‘We did nothing wrong.’’ They remain free, each on $50,000 bail. > > Mr. Sanders’s lawyer, J. Bruce Maffeo, said he planned to appeal, asserting that the court had not adequately addressed his argument that the couple’s actions were protected by the First Amendment. ‘‘This verdict,’’ he said, ‘‘has to be a chilling one for any journalist seeking evidence of the truth.’’ > > But Floyd Abrams, a constitutional lawyer and First Amendment expert, said he was doubtful about such grounds for an appeal. ‘‘It’s an extremely tenuous First Amendment claim, absent any extraordinary showing that the prosecution was engaged in the purpose of suppressing the book or some other purpose,’’ said Mr. Abrams, who added that he was stunned to have received 500 postcards from supporters of the couple. > > The seven-day trial drew nearly a dozen conspiracy theorists, who insisted that the Sanderses were being prosecuted as part of a Government cover-up of the cause of the crash. > > In his book, ‘‘The Downing of T.W.A. Flight 800,’’ Mr. Sanders contended that tests indicated the reddish-orange substance on the seat fabric was residue from missile exhaust – evidence that the plane had been accidentally fired upon when it exploded only 12 minutes after taking off from Kennedy International Airport on July 17, 1996. > > The Government has yet to determine the cause of the crash, but has rejected the missile theory and says its tests show that the residue is fabric glue. AFAIK it was on this trial where the tests that these thieves performed, showing that they found missile evidence, had to be shown. I have to conclude that they even failed to show that their tests were as reliable as the ones done by the FBI and the NTSB. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/230 "2009-05-16T20:10:30Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Just keeping score here … > > The conspiracy members are the FAA, the NTSB, the CIA, the FBI, the US Navy, Boeing, Caltech, the U. of Wisconsin, and Al Qaeda. Remarkably, every single person in all of those groups has kept mum for all these years, too. > > Did I leave anyone out? Maybe the Cubans and the Mafia? How about the Illuminati, the Freemasons, and the Hare Club for Men? You left out the Sandia labs that used their supper computers to model the scenarios, only to come supporting the official central tank explosion as the most likely answer. Also a bunch of researchers in England: > **[CNN - NTSB begins fuel tank blasts as part of TWA 800 probe - July 28, 1997](https://www.cnn.com/US/9707/28/briefs.pm/twa.ntsb.tests/index.html)** > [@](#): > > The NTSB is working with the FBI, FAA and British aviation authorities. It is using the same retired Air France jumbo jet that the FAA used in May to conduct explosive tests on re-enforced baggage containers and cargo holds. The FAA was studying hardening techniques to better protect planes from bombs. > **[Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source](https://www.newsday.com)** > > Breaking News, data & opinions in business, sports, entertainment, travel, lifestyle, plus much more. Newsday.com is the leading news source for Long Island & NYC. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, an NTSB acoustics expert working with the Federal Aviation Administration and British authorities is listening to the sounds created by explosions inside a grounded Boeing 747 in England. The safety board, which has declined to specify the location, hopes that by comparing data picked up by the grounded plane’s cockpit voice recorder to the information on Flight 800’s black boxes, it can home in on the nature of the explosion that downed the TWA plane. As for the radar evidence, I think it is safe to say that it is likely that the conspiracy theorists also obtained the tapes by shady methods or that they are of dubious origin: > [@](#): > > As National Transportation Safety Board staff in Washington, D.C., huddled behind closed doors and investigators continued to refine technical reports on the crash, more than a dozen reporters and cameramen waited in vain yesterday outside the federal district courthouse in Brooklyn for a retired airline pilot to show up and testify about a radar tape he claims shows a missile striking TWA Flight 800. But having already turned the tape over to law enforcement authorities, who said they believed it was a forgery, Richard Russell of Daytona Beach did not show up for a grand jury session. So we have to add the courts in Florida to the conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/231 "2009-05-16T20:34:35Z")
Jetblast, do you concede the radar point? We’ve repeatedly asked for what your evidence is, you have steadfastly avoided answering. I’m willing to move on, but I need your answer. ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/232 "2009-05-17T17:11:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You said that we are saying that the whole plane was empty, unless you were attempting to mislead by omitting the whole point. > > The wing tanks had fuel, enough to get to the destination. > > You just can not accept that you are clueless regarding what was the procedure and the actual state of the fuel tanks. And that is because you do know that accepting that the center tank was empty is deadly to your conspiracy theories. ``` OK. Since you insist on making incoherent responses to what has been clearly spelled out, I'll assume you are trying to sabotage any attempt at reasoned debate and are therefore not attempting to answer, in any truthful way, what I wrote. The intention is clearly to drive people away from the discussion by undermining its credibility. If there are any lurkers notice there is no protest from anyone, allegedly seriously discussing this, over this tactic. No protest over integrity of debate or site rules. The very specific bomb test timing question was answered with deliberately incoherent information so therefore the point, and, as I far I consider, the debate, is forfeited by GiGo. Point stands GiGo cannot and will not attempt to answer how exactly the St Louis bomb test plane was empty a half hour before departure because he knows it destroys the government's case he defends. US government also shares his position. In my mind GiGo knows Flight 800 was shot down by missiles but puts himself above discussing the truth about it. People who defend the official story put themselves above the truth and law, and even rational debate. The reply above is basically a tacit (and wholly dishonorable) admission Flight 800 was shot down by missiles. I'm perfectly content getting people to destroy their own arguments with or without admission. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/233 "2009-05-17T17:39:14Z")
Where is the missing 4 seconds of CVR tape? ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/234 "2009-05-17T18:07:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Frederic Meyer described the streak of light as a “gradually descending ark”, Not quite what you expect from a missile. > BTW Jack Cashill has his own ax to grind against Clinton, as it is WorldNet Daily and Accuracy in the Media. Their efforts can be understood better on the light of trying to smear the Clinton administration on top of attempting to discredit the results of the tests. ``` I don't think most honest reasonable people would take what is basically a malevolent propaganda campaign that uses obvious defamation tactics and total evasion of provable facts in favor of the official story seriously. Official story propagandists basically use an overly-general smear tactic similar to that used in authoritarian countries against their dissents and truth tellers. Most smart people would see that the conspicuous avoidance of ALL the operative facts and information in order to reference overly-general government story lines as the cheap evasion tactic that it is. The intention is to draw a factual argument based on evidence into an argument of general opinions as is done in corrupt countries against people who challenge their wrongdoings. What Meyers actually said was he was a VietNam helicopter pilot with a high level of credibility towards recognizing ordnance explosions. He said the bright starlight-type flash he saw come from Flight 800 was very definitely a high explosive ordnance flash and that he was very familiar with them from Vietnam. A fuel explosion is incapable of making such a quality flash, which is why the investigation omitted Meyer's expert input from its cover-up. GiGo knows he said this, but he prefers to omit it because he isn't objectively arguing Meyer's input. Additionally, the downward arc is completely in line with the homing action of a ground to air missile that was witnessed by many. As usual, in a case where he says it *doesn't* show missile evidence it actually *does.* GiGo couldn't answer Cashill's information point for point, which is why he renders what can't be answered by such a general political dismissal that way. Again, no protest from those allegedly participating. The residue test points were very specific and backed by credible people. GiGo avoids every single one of them. FBI confiscation and destruction of evidence is clearly the deceptive act it is. Something that most rational people would not attempt to dismiss with specious political accusations. The reason the investigation confiscated all samples and violated United States law by reupholstering the stained seats is because they contained rocket propellant residue as James Sanders proved and was arrested for (Welcome to the Soviet Union folks). And, by the way, Meyer's is a good example of a military member coming forward. I think it's kind of obvious here that we have people who are arguing the government case in order to enforce their concept of authority control and what they consider valid government conduct. But anyone with any sense would see that there is no real level of Constitutional democracy in America that enforces any real form of rule of law imposed equally on government and people. That's why Flight 800 is so important. It's basically created a huge hole in the previous interpretation of the Constitution where the government can freely disconnect itself at will from vital contracts of government when it feels like it. In effect enforcing the authority of a Constitution it is in contempt of itself and doesn't actually practice. Even worse threatening legal punishment and character defamation against those who do. You can understand why these people are so willing to "move on" as they say. The serious self-destructive consequences of reprehensible illegal actions by government can't be used as an excuse to not tell the truth, for it is always the case that the sum of that equation is always worse if the truth is denied. But this was already understood by, and was the design of, the Constitution in the first place. The same Constitution that has now been subverted by those forcing the TWA 800 cover-up on the American public. ``` ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/235 "2009-05-17T18:15:00Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > OK. Since you insist on making incoherent responses to what has been clearly spelled out, I’ll assume you are trying to sabotage any attempt at reasoned debate and are therefore not attempting to answer, in any truthful way, what I wrote. The intention is clearly to drive people away from the discussion by undermining its credibility. The fact remains that you demonstrated not knowing why the central tank was the issue, first by attempting to ignore it with a hand wave and then by acting (I still wonder if it was an act) like if you do not know \*\*why \*\*the central tank was empty. > [@](#): > > If there are any lurkers notice there is no protest from anyone, allegedly seriously discussing this, over this tactic. No protest over integrity of debate or site rules. Because I base my say so’s with evidence? Now why could that be unfair? 🙂 > [@](#): > > The very specific bomb test timing question was answered with deliberately incoherent information so therefore the point, and, as I far I consider, the debate, is forfeited by GiGo. He don’t know me very well, do he? (or the SDMB) 🙂 > [@](#): > > Point stands GiGo cannot and will not attempt to answer how exactly the St Louis bomb test plane was empty a half hour before departure because he knows it destroys the government’s case he defends. You will have to explain why it is that a test that replicates the conditions has to be flawed. > [@](#): > > US government also shares his position. In my mind GiGo knows Flight 800 was shot down by missiles but puts himself above discussing the truth about it. People who defend the official story put themselves above the truth and law, and even rational debate. Sure, I guess you have the evidence in the plane skin that shows the missile strike evidence. Not holding my breath that you have it. > [@](#): > > The reply above is basically a tacit (and wholly dishonorable) admission Flight 800 was shot down by missiles. Nope, together with your reply here it shows that I was correct in assuming you are incapable of accepting you were wrong in rejecting the evidence that the heat in the central tank was a problem. > [@](#): > > I’m perfectly content getting people to destroy their own arguments with or without admission. Sure, you have noticed the huge amount of posters that have come to your defense uh? 🙂 In any case, finding out that you are basing your say so’s in incomplete or tainted or \*\*obsolete \*\*evidence (It is clear most testimonies from the witnesses were tainted by the heavy hand of the FBI) from discredited conspiracy theorists is a conclusion that everyone can reach with not much help from me. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/236 "2009-05-17T18:15:50Z")
… and now **GIGObuster** is in on the conspiracy. Where will it end?!? Jetblast, if you would cut out the bluster, and get back to address the radar questions, it would help your plummeting credibility. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/237 "2009-05-17T18:19:56Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > I don’t think most honest reasonable people would take what is basically a malevolent propaganda campaign that uses obvious defamation tactics and total evasion of provable facts in favor of the official story seriously. The courts have already rendered decisions that show the quality of the “evidence” by the conspiracy theorists. That is why I pointed that you are basing most of your positions here on obsolete or discredited evidence. Your claims that we are now the “soviet union” because of the “silencing” of your “champions” have no merit and worse, the evidence so far is that those conspiracy researchers can not be trusted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/238 "2009-05-17T18:33:23Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > … and now **GIGObuster** is in on the conspiracy. Where will it end?!? [Old crusty guy] Back in the day sonny, there was a great conspiracy poster, his name was seethrout, seeartdecco, seethru… uh, the moon hoaxer. He decided it was going to be a great tactic to just attack the poster and not the ideas or cites I had posted… … after the 20th or so page in the thread. Jetblast resorted to that tactic in just 5. What a disappointment. [/old crusty guy] 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/239 "2009-05-17T22:17:09Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > I think it’s kind of obvious here that we have people who are arguing the government case in order to enforce their concept of authority control and what they consider valid government conduct. Alternatively, it is obvious to others that what we have here is a typical Conspiarcy Therory in which individual facts are selected , (while ignoring the overall evidence), and highlighted as having more importance than they could legitimately provide because, as EVERYONE KNOWS, the gub’mint cain’t be trustid. If you want to argue your points, go ahead. Once you begin attacking all of your opponents with pop-psychology and sinister imputations of motives, you destroy your own credibility. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/240 "2009-05-17T22:21:04Z")
BTW, **Jetblast** , one of your opponent’s usernames is **GIGObuster**. You have not quite been around long enough to establish your friendship with said poster and your insistence on shortening the name to GiGo suggests that you just might be mocking him via the altered username, so I would suggest that you refrain from doing that in the future. [/Modding] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944.md?page=13)