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.
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.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36103
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:
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.
Regarding the Eastwood pilots.
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.
http://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.
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.
You are correct, more on this later.
From the Wiki page on TWA 800
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.
Regarding the Red residue issue, it is most unwise to rely on people that were actually involved a real conspiracy:
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.
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:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/28/briefs.pm/twa.ntsb.tests/index.html
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:
So we have to add the courts in Florida to the conspiracy.
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.
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.Where is the missing 4 seconds of CVR tape?
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.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.
Because I base my say so’s with evidence? Now why could that be unfair? 
He don’t know me very well, do he? (or the SDMB)
You will have to explain why it is that a test that replicates the conditions has to be flawed.
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.
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.
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.
… 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.
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.
[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]
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.
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 ]