# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/161 "2009-05-13T19:26:26Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > I’ve just spent several days explaining my reasoning in the preceding posts. Actually, you haven’t. You’ve made assertions where you’ve parroted claims made by others but I haven’t seen you explain any evidence. Your pattern has been to make assertions and then rant about the government. Please skip the ranting, and explain your assertions. > [@](#): > > You’ll understand why, then, I’m less than happy that someone who pretends to be debating me comes back and asks me to explain reasoning that has already been explained at length. First, I’m NOT debating you. I’m wanting to consider what you have to say with an open mind, but you have not been explaining yourself. I went back and re-read most of your posts. You assert that there was debris observed on radar a half-mile away after some short time. OK, where is it? I even read through Stalcup’s PDF, and he also simply asserts this half-mile after eight seconds claim, but provides NO data about it, just a claim that Islip radar recorded it. We’ve also been asking you to explain the Mach 4 claim, and I just found it in Stalcup’s paper. It takes this half-mile claim and then he tries to do physics calculations with it. It’s not very credible to me. But my mind is open - where is the data that supports this half-mile after eight seconds claim? Since this is apparently the centerpiece of your argument, let’s get that resolved. If that turns out OK, we can then move on to speed calculations, then maybe later get to alleged conspiracies. First things first. > [@](#): > > Unstudied offhand comebacks (that I suspect are designed to frustrate me away from the debate)… Puh-leeeaase. Persecution complex much? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/162 "2009-05-13T19:45:58Z")
1/2 mile in 8 seconds is 225 mph. Not Mach 4. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/163 "2009-05-13T20:00:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 1/2 mile in 8 seconds is 225 mph. Not Mach 4. Yeah, that’s the beautiful thing. He takes this data, then figures that it was going 625 kt (almost Mach 1) _with respect to the airplane’s speed_. Then he does some kind of opaque computer modeling taking what was an average of almost Mach 1 over eight seconds, and figures that the initial speed had to be Mach 4. ETA: for your reference, here’s a link to Stalcup’s paper: [Salgsanalyse](http://ntsbwatch.com/ballistics.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/164 "2009-05-13T20:28:15Z")
Wow. :rolleyes: It’s even worse than such a basic arithmetic error. The guy’s calculation of “Mach 4” could only have been based on assuming an extremely high Cd for each of the debris pieces. He didn’t provide what that assumption (not even measurement) was, he just copied the basic drag equation from some high school book. To hide his lack of comprehension of the subject, and even of basic algebra, Stalcup mentioned some “computer program” he made up and did some handwaving about “ballistics analysis.” So this is the kind of “expert” the conspiracy bugs rely on. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/165 "2009-05-13T20:30:44Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > I have to say that your characterization of Brumley as a supporter of the missile theory is distinctly in error. Brumley’s “a witness of high credibility”. Our friend said so himself. ---
**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 13, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/166 "2009-05-13T21:23:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Wow. :rolleyes: It’s even worse than such a basic arithmetic error. The guy’s calculation of “Mach 4” could only have been based on assuming an extremely high Cd for each of the debris pieces. He didn’t provide what that assumption (not even measurement) was, he just copied the basic drag equation from some high school book. To hide his lack of comprehension of the subject, and even of basic algebra, Stalcup mentioned some “computer program” he made up and did some handwaving about “ballistics analysis.” > > So this is the kind of “expert” the conspiracy bugs rely on. Yep, my assessment on the quality of the experts one finds among the conspiracy theorists was correct once again. Logic says that if those experts were so great that then they would had no problems in convincing other experts in their specific fields about their “discoveries”, time once again is deadly for ideas that have shaky evidence. After more than ten years I would expect that the evidence for a missile or bomb to become stronger, instead when I see groups like the National Geographic and others replicating experiments that come up confirming the original results then it is no wonder that very few can take those conspiracy “experts” seriously. The clear attempt at ignoring the evidence that showed that heat was an issue in the 747s central tanks is done precisely because it is one deadly item for the pet theories of the conspiracy theorists. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/167 "2009-05-13T23:24:50Z")
I especially enjoy the part about ignoring everything _the actual wreckage_ indicates happened to it because there are some rumors of somebody sneaking in and altering it somehow. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/168 "2009-05-13T23:52:16Z")
So let me get this straight. The government recovered about 98% of TWA 800. (which if you think about it is pretty amazing seeing how it was under about 100 feet or so of water) However along with that 2% of the plane they did not recover they also did not recover 100% of the Al Qaeda suicide plane or the two missiles that you are claiming were fired at it. What do you suppose the odds of that happening are? Personally I believe the odds are slim and none. And Slim just left town. You keep talking about radar data. I linked to a set of radar pictures and asked you to show me the debris cloud as I sure as hell could not see any debris cloud. I don’t believe you ever answered me. At least one other person has asked for the same data and you have ignored them also. The way it works around here is if you are making an allegation it is up to you to supply support for that allegation. Or in the words of Lance Armstrong; “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” You need to start supplying some proof. don’t just tell us to read some crackpot manifesto that is 100 pages long, link to chapter and verse. To start off with let’s see some radar images with debris on them. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/169 "2009-05-14T00:08:13Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > People claim they couldn’t get vaporized Jet A to explode? Cripes, you can get air full of flour dust to explode! That’s because they are testing it at ground level which will produce less vaporized fuel due to atmospheric pressure. ---
**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 14, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/170 "2009-05-14T00:26:49Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That’s because they are testing it at ground level which will produce less vaporized fuel due to atmospheric pressure. The experiments shown in the National Geographic documentary also replicated the low atmospheric pressure, the test tank exploded confirming the tests made on behalf of the NTSB. [http://tc.engr.wisc.edu/uer/uer00/author2/content.html](http://tc.engr.wisc.edu/uer/uer00/author2/content.html) > [@](#): > > There are several reasons why the temperature in the central fuel tank was so high. First, after arriving from Athens, the plane sat on the ground for about four hours before departing for Paris. Due to the summer heat, the plane’s air conditioners were left running for this period [Tischler, 1998], which is unusually long. Ironically, the air conditioners warm the central fuel tank, as they are located directly below it and do not blow cool air into it (see figure 3). Secondly, since there was so little fuel in the central fuel tank, less energy was required to heat it. The tank would have heated more slowly if it had been full. The NTSB performed tests to compare temperatures in the central fuel tank during flight at 13,800 ft. with 50 gallons of gas (the amount in Flight 800) and with 12,000 gallons (almost full). The results of this test (see figure 4) clearly indicate that the contents of the tank heat more when there is less fuel present. > > In addition to temperature, pressure (or altitude) affects the fuel-air ratio. As altitude increases, more fuel evaporates due to decreasing ambient pressure. Therefore, the fuel-air ratio increases with increasing altitude. A graph representing the relationship between the minimum temperature needed for an ignition of Jet A fuel and altitude is shown in Figure 5. As this chart illustrates, the minimum temperature needed to ignite the fuel decreases as the altitude increases. The minimum flammability temperature at 13,800 ft. is about 26°C (79°F), well below the reported temperature of 46°C (115°F) in the central fuel tank of TWA Flight 800. > > Until recently, a key point that has been neglected is that the minimum ignition energy needed to ignite the fuel also decreases with increasing temperature. Researchers at California Institute of Technology, performing tests for the NTSB, found that by increasing the temperature in a fuel tank from 38°C (100°F) to 60°C (140°F), the ignition energy required is reduced by a factor of 100,000 [Wilkinson, 1997]. This exponential relationship means at higher temperatures, a very weak spark will cause ignition. In other words, the fuel-air ratio, temperature, pressure, and ignition energy combined on Flight 800 to create a unique environment highly conducive to explosion. Should be make the conclusion that we need to add also Caltech to the conspiracy? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/171 "2009-05-14T02:18:32Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That’s because they are testing it at ground level which will produce less vaporized fuel due to atmospheric pressure. Whoa! I’m damned glad I live at 15,000’ because otherwise, if I owned a diesel, I’d never get it started. No, wait–I live at about 700’ above sea level and diesels run just fine down here, so that vaporization problem seems to have been licked. (Diesel fuel and jet fuel are [very similar.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Piston_engine_use)) :rolleyes: ---
**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 14, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/172 "2009-05-14T04:02:34Z")
:smack: Correcting this: We, not be, sorry. Should **we** make the conclusion that we need to add Caltech to the conspiracy too? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/173 "2009-05-14T10:29:28Z")
The U. of Wisconsin too. The “Al Qaeda suicide plane” and the wreckage of their 2 missiles is being hidden at Area 51. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/174 "2009-05-14T12:48:59Z")
Well, yesterday JetBlast started posting around 11 am CDT, so when you come in today, would you please address this question about the debris a half mile away after eight seconds? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/175 "2009-05-14T13:57:05Z")
He has, many times. He just stated it as fact, but hasn’t shown any evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/176 "2009-05-14T15:00:29Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Whoa! I’m damned glad I live at 15,000’ because otherwise, if I owned a diesel, I’d never get it started. No, wait–I live at about 700’ above sea level and diesels run just fine down here, so that vaporization problem seems to have been licked. (Diesel fuel and jet fuel are [very similar.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Piston_engine_use)) :rolleyes: Your diesel relies on a compression ratio of 15 to one and a high pressure spray to vaporize it and raise the temperature.. You can pour it on the ground and throw matches on it all day long and it won’t ignite. You can let it sit and “vaporize” all day long and it won’t ignite. It’s absolutely critical to the event that it occurred at altitude because the fuel would not have vaporized enough to create a significant explosion. ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/177 "2009-05-14T16:32:59Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > . From it I have to say that your characterization of Brumley as a supporter of the missile theory is distinctly in error. Or at least, that was the case when this interview was conducted in 1999. Scroll about 3/4 down the page: > > “…The only way I could see it would > be possible for this to be a naval accident, and > have it continued to be contained would be if > you had, say, a half dozen SEALs out there, > testing something new and it all went wrong. > The SEALs live, eat and breath security. They > wouldn’t talk. But other than that, I can’t see it.” ``` What you post does nothing to disprove or even change anything I wrote about Brumley. When Brumley was interviewed at the time when the evidence was allegedly being determined he specifically said the shooting object he saw came from a right to left direction. Investigators looked at where Brumley's USAir flight was located in comparison to Flight 800 and concluded that Flight 800 had to be moving from left to right from Brumley's perspective. This is rock solid evidence that can't be refuted by quoting an offhand, out-of-context quote from Brumley in 1999 when the full cover-up was well going. We don't know what kind of internal influences affected Brumley at that point. I find the attempt to use what is clearly an invalid reference to Brumley to overturn something that isn't directly answered less than honest. Obviously people are going to lengths to disprove what can only be called condemning evidence in order to back the official story. At the time Brumley said "There is no way that what I saw was trailing burning fuel". If you read what you wrote nowhere does it attempt to address this. Nor does what is basically Brumley's speculation within the various theories after the crash replace this very specific statement. This is just another disingenuous form of the "someone would have talked" canard. Those saying that military personnel have no pressure from within are saying something I think they themselves don't believe. And I don't think anyone really answered what media outlet these whistleblowers would use to expose the scandal? If anyone is really interested in links all you need is TWA800.com ``` ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/178 "2009-05-14T16:46:20Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Wow. :rolleyes: It’s even worse than such a basic arithmetic error. The guy’s calculation of “Mach 4” could only have been based on assuming an extremely high Cd for each of the debris pieces. He didn’t provide what that assumption (not even measurement) was, he just copied the basic drag equation from some high school book. To hide his lack of comprehension of the subject, and even of basic algebra, Stalcup mentioned some “computer program” he made up and did some handwaving about “ballistics analysis.” > > So this is the kind of “expert” the conspiracy bugs rely on. ``` I'd love to see "Elvis Lives" (Level of credibility shown in title) in a debate with Dr Stalcup in person and we would see who depends on high school-level cheap internet slander and defamation and whose science is sound and provable. I think that contemptuous swagger would be cut-down quickly by Dr Stalcup. This is coming from someone who posted the ejecta average speed of 225mph - which only showed his own lack of comprehension (contempt?) for the basic argument. The 225mph average includes the mach 4 fastest speed the formulas required for periods in between the sweeps. Nowhere does anyone answer for why the CIA video doesn't show any ejecta plume? But here we are with the discussion being drawn into a pissing contest where it can be done away with by people not really interested in the truth. ``` ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/179 "2009-05-14T16:46:40Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > I find the attempt to use what is clearly an invalid reference to Brumley to overturn something that isn’t directly answered less than honest. So Brumley’s in on the conspiracy, too. Figures. And it’s dishonest for CannyDan to provide a quote from Brumley which contradicts you, and provide a link to that quote, but it’s OK for you to claim, without cites, that Brumley “saw an aircraft come right at his USAir flight” and then “dove towards the fated TWA 747”? Where did Brumley say this stuff? And an explanation of the half-mile away debris after eight seconds thing, please. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/180 "2009-05-14T17:01:46Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > … and whose science is sound and provable. What science? You haven’t presented any data yet. You’re resorting to appeals to authority with a person that has no standing when someone actually starts discussing the case with facts and details. Anytime someone presents data that contradicts your points you claim the data was falsified with no evidence that anything occurred. This isn’t going well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944.md?page=10)