Anybody up for a TWA 800 discussion?

[Rick]

I think Skald the Rhymer Nailed our esteemed guest’s attitude over in the Star Trek thread.

How many times must I tell you to stop bothering me with facts! If the facts don’t support my interpretation of the situation, I don’t want to hear about them!

So Jetblast just where can we find some sworn testimony by the bomb technician in St. Louis that it was only 1/2 before departure? Not some I heard from my second cousin, who got it from a guy, who knows a guy, who’s brother runs this website that says it was only 1/2 hour.
Court proceedings, NTSB hearings, that sort of thing.

[CannyDan]

Last time I tried to support Jetblast’s mythology by finding an actual cite myself, my first random search produced one that actually contradicted his own assertions.

So let’s try this again. This time I searched on “Frederick Meyers”. Then I randomly click on a link-- which provides a PDF (warning! PDF!) of his testimony. link-y

**Jetblast **says Meyers is a “VietNam helicopter pilot with a high level of credibility towards recognizing ordnance explosions” but in the transcript Meyers is wishy-washy about his experience with ordinance, and explains that he flew rescue rather than attack, so his experience in that regard was quite limited.

Once again, so much for the “high credibility” of the witness.

He then goes on to state that he and his two crewmen who were also eye witnesses observed the giant fireball to fall into the sea in less than 10 seconds. They all agreed to that. But (this interview having been conducted six months after the event) he goes on to say he knows this must be incorrect, since Flight 800 was actually at an altitude from which “fall time” would be much longer than 10 seconds. Then Meyers says (page 11) “But, I mean, our – our – memories were distorted.”

Here we have the classic eye witness memory-correction occurring. Actual memory of the event, after the passage of some time, no longer squares with later knowledge of the event. So memory itself undergoes change. Rarely though does the eye witness actually recognize this happening for himself.

So the moral of this little story boys and girls (there is *always *a moral to the story, boys and girls!) may be:

'Tis far, far better to provide your own cites to support your thesis. Forcing others to do your work for you appears to be counter-productive to your argument.

[CurtC]

… and Jetblast’s credibility self-destructs yet again.

It already had suffered an internal explosion, now its front section has broken off and is falling to the ocean. Let’s watch to see what happens to the main section now. Will it temporarily rise in another flaming bluster? Or will it just break apart and explode on its way down?

[Jetblast]

The way evidence works is that evidence which trumps all other evidence is the evidence that guides and controls. If the bomb sniffing agent couldn’t possibly have done the test on the TWA 800 aircraft then government has no explanation for the explosives residue it found in many places on the plane. And, as it turns out, in the cargo compartment as well where the St Louis bomb test agent, Herman Burnett couldn’t have gone.

   Upon further research the TWA 800 aircraft departed for Hawaii at 12:25pm that afternoon. Burnett recorded his finish time for the test at 12:15pm. What some are contending is the Flight 800 747 was catered, prepped by the Flight Attendants and Flight Crew, and boarded all in 15 minutes. These times have all been investigated and are all verifiable on record by any source that checks them. This is the operative point here that character defamation and political accusations can't possibly undo. In fact the more you get people to attack you on this basis without answering the basic simple point the more they prove your case for you. 

      
         From Jack Cashill:

Hall admits that residue was discovered in the cargo hold, an area the dog test never covered.

Moreover, Cashill and Sanders believe they can prove that the training exercise never took place on the plane that would become TWA Flight 800.

According to the FBI, airport management told Burnett that a “wide body” was available for training at Gate 50 that day. The officer “made no notations regarding the tail number of the aircraft, as it was not his policy to do so.”

Also, Burnett told Cashill and Sanders that he made no notation of the gate either. But significantly, he did list specific start and stop times on the training form.

The officer told both the authors and the FBI that he saw no TWA crew, cleaners, caterers or passengers from the time he first boarded the 747 at 10:45 a.m. until he finished, about one and a half hours later.

According to the FBI account, Burnett concealed the training aids throughout the passenger cabin in a “zigzag” pattern then returned to his car to retrieve the dog and reentered the plane with the dog at 11:45 a.m. The FBI said the exercise of locating the explosives lasted about 15 minutes and Burnett took another 15 minutes to secure the dog in his car and go back to the plane to retrieve the training aids.

Based on the scenario developed by the FBI, the officer could not have left the plane earlier than 12:15 p.m. Given the time spent climbing up and down the jetway, a 12:20 p.m. or 12:25 p.m. exit is more likely, Cashill believes.

However, records show that the plane that would become Flight 800 – TWA No. 17119 – flew out of St. Louis for Honolulu at 12:35 p.m.

No crew can clean the plane, stock it, check out the mechanics and board several hundred passengers within the 15-minute window the FBI’s own timetable presents, notes Cashill. TWA regulations in effect in 1996 mandated that the crew of a wide-body report for briefing 90 minutes before scheduled takeoff. The flight’s captain, Vance Weir, told the Riverside, Calif., Press-Enterprise newspaper that he and his crew saw no dog or officer on the plane that day and, in fact, never had in their 20-plus years of commercial flying.

FAA records show that TWA # 17119 was parked at Gate 50 from shortly before 7 a.m. until approximately 12:30 p.m. on that date. Parked at Gate 51 was another 747, Number 17116. This second plane – bound for JFK International in New York – did not leave the gate until 2 p.m.

Obviously, said Cashill, this later departure would have allowed TWA staff ample time to load and board the plane after the officer finished the training exercise at about 12:15 or slightly later.

Burnett told Cashill he believes he boarded the 747 parked at Gate 51, not the plane at Gate 50 that would become Flight 800.

All evidence suggests he’s right, said Cashill, who noted that FBI agents chose not to interview Capt. Weir or First Officer Thomas D. Sheary.

“They couldn’t,” Cashill and Sanders write in their book. “They did not want to hear any truth that would undermine the story they were ordered to create.”

Cashill told WND that recently he has offered his evidence to major media outlets, including well-known reporters. But in at least one case, the reporter insisted that the dog-training story proved that the missile or bomb theory had no legs.

“I said, we’ll put all of our evidence on the table and let you decide what is true,” he said.

Cashill makes the pitch that “there are only two possibilities here, either we’re handing you the greatest untold story of our time … or we’re a pair of charlatans who are trafficking in human misery and libeling otherwise decent government officials.”

“You would think that given that possibility, they would jump at it, but it’s not the case,” he said.

Cashill maintains that to break open this story, “all it’s going to take is the effort by one person in the major media to demand the truth.”

“It has to be someone significant,” he said. “But if the New York Times decides to follow this, they could break it open in a week.”

[Rick]

I’ll repeat myself here.

@Rick

So Jetblast just where can we find some sworn testimony by the bomb technician in St. Louis that it was only 1/2 before departure? Not some I heard from my second cousin, who got it from a guy, who knows a guy, who’s brother runs this website that says it was only 1/2 hour.
Court proceedings, NTSB hearings, that sort of thing.

As I said some sworn testimony. Not some nutter website.

[Rick]

@CurtC

… and Jetblast’s credibility self-destructs yet again.

It already had suffered an internal explosion, now its front section has broken off and is falling to the ocean. Let’s watch to see what happens to the main section now. Will it temporarily rise in another flaming bluster? Or will it just break apart and explode on its way down?

No Jetblast’s center wing tank didn’t explode, that is impossible I think it was a missile which traveled at 30 mph that make his front end fall off.

[CannyDan]

And why exactly should we believe Mr Cashill?

Let’s visit his own web site, here.

Seems the good gentleman is involved in a multitude of rather strange theories, including the rather spectacular accusation that William Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father.

His long ongoing litany of accusations against the Clintons ranges from the incongruous to the bizarre, and includes their complicity in misdeeds stopping just short of Original Sin and causing the leak in my sink drain.

He is an unabashed self promoter who sells his opinions in books, personal appearances, DVDs and any other way possible. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with selling your opinions. But when those opinions seem designed more to inflame public attention than to advance discourse, well-- if Cashill was posting here, we’d call him a troll.

As for the scientific veracity of his propounded arguments, to me, this is all I need to discount him as having any serious scientific credentials at all.

C’mon Jetblast, give us something for citations! Please don’t make me look for more myself.

Your suggestion regarding evidence which “trumps” is inaccurate, and shows that you are metaphorically playing the wrong game. This isn’t cards, it’s a table game with dice. And you, my friend, have crapped out.

[GIGObuster]

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw105-33.000/hpw105-33_0f.htm

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JULY 10, 1997

…

And I have one last question for Mr. Kallstrom. Isn’t it a fact that where that dog was to have visited those aircraft, that is not the part of this plane where the precursors of Semtex were found?

Mr. KALLSTROM. That's not true. And if I could just add, for your information, it's very important where the packages were put, Congressman. And the test packages that we looked at, and that were in very bad condition, that unfortunately were dripping those chemicals, were placed exactly above the location in the airplane where we found the chemicals on the floor.

Now, that isn't 100 percent that that's where they came from, but that's exactly where it was.

Mr. TRAFICANT. One last question. From the visit from this canine, would the residue of these chemicals still remain, having been underwater for several weeks, in a saltwater environment, they would still have remained, and they would have enough potency as placed from that dog to have withstood the rigors of that environment that would break down such chemicals?

Mr. KALLSTROM. We think so. The place we found the chemicals are on the two-sided tape that actually holds the floor panel, the carpet panels in the plane. And the scientists tell me, NTSB scientists would agree, and of course, understand we found very, very minute traces, the scientists tell me that would be the only place on the plane, the absorbent, sticky material, where those types of chemicals could survive. And the other comment I would make is that an incredible amount of this chemical leaking out of these packages fell into that spot. 

http://ntsb.gov/Events/twa800/Transcript_8_22.htm

The FBI did find trace amounts of explosive residue on three pieces of the wreckage. However, these three pieces contain no evidence of pitting, cratering, hot gas washing, or petaling, which would have been there had these trace amounts resulted from a bomb or missile. Further, these trace amounts could have been transferred to these pieces in various ways. For example, in connecting with ferrying troops during the Gulf War or during dog-training explosive detection exercises that were conducted on the accident airplane about one month before the accident. There is also the possibility that the explosive residues could have been deposited on the wreckage during or after the recovery operations as a result of contact with the military personnel, ships, and vehicles used during those operations. We don’t know exactly how the explosive residues got there - but we do know from the physical evidence I’ve just discussed that the residues were not the result of the detonation of a bomb.

The reality is that the conspiracy theorists are forgetting that the trace amounts were located in parts that were not next to the original blast. The presence of those trace amounts were no evidence of a missile or bomb because of a very significant detail: the trace amounts were not part or next to the components involved in the blast.

Any theory that supposes that a missile was there has to explain why the location of the explosive traces was a virtual match of the dog test locations,** why the trace materials where separated in the explosion of the rocket**, and what was the specific type of rocket with those components, but I think that last bit is not clearly specified by the conspiracy theorists because once the type of rocket is identified the expected behavior of those rocket bits would be found somewhere in the plane. And it would be easier to point at the most likely source of the rocket.

As there is no physical evidence of the rocket or bits of it and the trace amounts were not even connected to the original breakup, I have to conclude that there was no rocket or even a bomb.

And speaking of the central fuel tank, the one that Jetblast does not want to understand why it was virtually empty, we have this from the last quote:

To address the first issue, the Safety Board conducted flight tests at JFK in July 1997 using a 747 leased from Evergreen Airlines. Several test flights were conducted under conditions similar to those experienced by Flight 800. The fuel/air vapor inside the center wing tank was measured at various locations during the flights. The temperatures inside the center wing tank at the altitude at which the accident occurred (approximately 13,800 feet) ranged between 101 and 127 degrees Fahrenheit.

Extensive work done by scientists at the California Institute of Technology showed that Jet A fuel under the conditions experienced by Flight 800 would be flammable at these temperatures. In fact, their work demonstrated that fuel vapors under those conditions may have been flammable at temperatures as low as 96 degrees. Dr. Joseph Kolly will be talking more about this research later today.

The second issue - whether an explosion of Jet A fuel could generate sufficient pressure to break apart the fuel tank and destroy the airplane - was also put to rest in the investigation. Laboratory tests and quarter-scale tests under the direction of scientists at the California Institute of Technology demonstrated that pressures exceeding the structural limitations of the forward portion of the center wing tank were produced from the combustion of a Jet A fuel/air mixture similar to the one that existed in the center wing tank of TWA Flight 800.

Further, computer modeling of combustion in a full-scale tank confirmed that a localized ignition could generate pressure levels that would cause the damage we saw in the wreckage of the center wing tank from Flight 800. Finally, previous fuel/air explosions in the center wing tanks of commercial airliners that contained Jet A fuel have confirmed that a center wing tank explosion involving Jet A fuel can result in the destruction of an airplane. Specifically, I am referring to the November 1989 accident involving a Boeing 727 operated by the Colombian airline Avianca that occurred during the climb after takeoff, and the May 1990 accident involving a Boeing 737 operated by Philippine Air Lines that occurred on the ground at the airport.

The bottom line is that our investigation confirmed that the fuel/air vapor in the center wing tank was flammable at the time of the accident and that a fuel/air explosion with Jet A fuel was more than capable of generating the pressure needed to break apart the center wing tank and destroy the airplane. Together with the other physical evidence I have already mentioned, this leads to the inescapable conclusion that the cause of the in-flight break-up of TWA Flight 800 was a fuel/air explosion inside the center wing tank.

And, add the University of Nevada to the conspiracy.

A third, independent analysis of flammability was provided by the experts at the University of Nevada at Reno’s Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering. They performed research to determine the chemical composition of many different sources of liquid Jet A fuel and its vapor. This provided us with a method to predict the flammability of Jet A fuel at a variety of simulated flight conditions. The results of this analysis independently confirmed that the fuel air vapor inside the center wing tank of Flight 800 was flammable.

[RickJay]

@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.

You just perfectly described the TWA 800 conspiracy theory. And you weren’t even trying.

[Rick]

@CannyDan

He then goes on to state that he and his two crewmen who were also eye witnesses observed the giant fireball to fall into the sea in less than 10 seconds. They all agreed to that. But (this interview having been conducted six months after the event) he goes on to say he knows this must be incorrect, since Flight 800 was actually at an altitude from which “fall time” would be much longer than 10 seconds. Then Meyers says (page 11) “But, I mean, our – our – memories were distorted.”

I would just like to point out that covering 13,000 feet in less than 10 seconds put the vertical speed of the airplane at just under 900MPH. Well above Mach 1 something a 747 is not capable of. Even in a full power vertical dive there is no way a 747 could go from 13,000 to sea level in less than 10 seconds.
If he was wrong about the time to impact, what else was he wrong about?
Meyers makes a lousy witness.

[dropzone]

(checking in, noting that Jetblast has yet to supply the radar data requested MANY times, and leaving)

[CurtC]

Actually, a witness who understands the limitations and distortions that happen in humans, makes for a pretty good witness. He tells you what he recalls, but puts caveats where needed.

Unfortunately, it’s easy for dishonest people to quote-mine snippets that make it seem like he’s saying what he’s not.

[dropzone]

@Rick

If he was wrong about the time to impact, what else was he wrong about?
Meyers makes a lousy witness.

PEOPLE make lousy witnesses, as has been shown many times. And while time is just one damned second after another, those same people misinterpret its passage, even if they are counting Mississippies.

[dropzone]

Simulpost! The caveats, like you say, are left out by CTers and played up by lawyers. They should be trumped by physical evidence.

[CurtC]

I think Jetblast is dredging his credibility out of the water and attempting to reassemble it in a warehouse somewhere.

Have we heard the last from him?

[Rick]

@CurtC

I think Jetblast is dredging his credibility out of the water and attempting to reassemble it in a warehouse somewhere.

Have we heard the last from him?

The problem is the FBI stole some of the pieces of his credibility and thus made it look like a missile wasn’t fired at his credibility, but rather his credibility’s center wing tank exploded.

[Jetblast]

@Rick

From the Wiki page on TWA 800Bolded 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.

       Wiki contains no information backing the missile evidence so it is therefore unreliable.

    I've found a link that has the late Commander Donaldson (Navy) discussing data found on the data recorder indicating a blast. Donaldson is careful to calculate what a fuel tank blast would be on the recorder and even gives a ten times margin to differentiate between a high explosives blast and fuel blast. The data caught on the recorder points towards a missile blast:
           http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/OVERPRESSURE/overpress.html

[Telemark]

@Jetblast

Wiki contains no information backing the missile evidence so it is therefore unreliable.

We’re through the looking glass, here, people.

[Jetblast]

@CannyDan

**Jetblast **says Meyers is a “VietNam helicopter pilot with a high level of credibility towards recognizing ordnance explosions” but in the transcript Meyers is wishy-washy about his experience with ordinance, and explains that he flew rescue rather than attack, so his experience in that regard was quite limited.

      There's no doubt that there's a classic 'legal' type attempt by official story defenders to destroy the credibility of every single one of the missile witnesses. So, in effect, these people back the missile theory in their methods because any intelligent person would realize it is impossible for ALL witnesses, including many otherwise generally credible witness types like Meyer, to ALL be un-credible. This is very weak and obvious on its surface. Just like Kerry, all of a sudden these VietNam vets suddenly become "wishy-washy" or spurred by dubious motives. However nowhere does CannyDan explain what exact level of credibility it takes to describe the quality of an explosion flash, nor does he explain what exact type of duty it takes to be able to see anti-aircraft ordnance flashes that were aimed towards all American aircraft in VietNam? CannyDan suggests rescue aircraft experienced different anti-aircraft flashes than attack. The point is ridiculous. Meyer gives his number of helicopter missions in VietNam. I assure you they are not "quite limited". I'd love to see CannyDan say that to Meyer's face.

@CannyDan

He then goes on to state that he and his two crewmen who were also eye witnesses observed the giant fireball to fall into the sea in less than 10 seconds. They all agreed to that. But (this interview having been conducted six months after the event) he goes on to say he knows this must be incorrect, since Flight 800 was actually at an altitude from which “fall time” would be much longer than 10 seconds. Then Meyers says (page 11) “But, I mean, our – our – memories were distorted.”

        Another selected, out of context quote from a period where inside pressures were obviously well-applied to people whose military status and pensions were vulnerable. The true record of Meyer's input is that he went right away to report the incident on the night it happened. If you look closer, CannyDan's thoroughly dishonest rendering of what Meyer said is obvious in its lack of accounting for any 3000 foot zoom-climb. As usual the relevant forensic information is left out with conspicuous effort. The best view of Meyer and what he saw are his recollections in the U-Tube "TWA 800 Shot Down". 

    What we have here is official story backers not being afraid to correct credible eyewitnesses who were there while using clearly dishonest tactics. Nowhere has CannyDan shown where Mayer is un-credible.

[CurtC]

@Jetblast

Wiki contains no information backing the missile evidence so it is therefore unreliable.

For that little syllogism to be valid, your major unstated premise is that there is reliable information backing the missile idea. If you would be so kind to produce it (right after the radar data would be great)…

I’ve found a link that has the late Commander Donaldson (Navy) discussing data found on the data recorder indicating a blast. Donaldson is careful to calculate what a fuel tank blast would be on the recorder and even gives a ten times margin to differentiate between a high explosives blast and fuel blast. The data caught on the recorder points towards a missile blast:
TWA Flight 800: THE FDR EVIDENCE OF OVER PRESSURE

So they take the altitude and airspeed numbers as gospel-accurate measurements, and figure they imply overpressure from a blast. But what to do with the number that showed the plane rolled 144 degrees, and yawed 81 degrees in that one second interval?Here’s what one guy said on your linked page:

“So why are heading and roll so haywire? I would be inclined to circular file these numbers, but there is just enough consistency here to suggest that the system was still functioning – partially, at least.”

IOW, let’s ignore some of the numbers that are bizarre, but take some of them and try to fit them into the missile scenario. The truth is, Jetblast, if you can’t trust some of those numbers from the last FDR reading, you can’t trust any of them. Especially when they’re all out of whack.

Another selected, out of context quote from a period where inside pressures were obviously well-applied to people whose military status and pensions were vulnerable.

And we have yet another military person willing to assist in the coverup of treason in order to protect his pension. My god, those military guys sell out often.