Anybody up for a TWA 800 discussion?

Great Debates
261

You can’t just hand wave away everything that fails to back your premise. If it is indeed “unreliable” you need to show how it is so.

Regrettably your Commander Donaldson leaves a lot to be desired in that area. Your cite says he shows a video of himself extinguishing burning matches in liquid jet fuel, a fine bit of showmanship but demonstrating exactly zero about the situation aboard Flight 800. He claims that it would not be vaporized except by “the shock wave from the outside explosion” which was then ignited by “a fragment from the missile exploding”.

Sadly for your case, a number of previous cites have thoroughly documented vaporization of the fuel in a center wing tank to and beyond flash point by temperature and altitude alone. *Least hypothesis *suggests this to be more likely than the more complex alternative. Unless there is additional evidence to be condidered.

If a missile caused this vaporization by shock wave and its later ignition by a “fragment” then the recovered airframe should show damage, including shrapnel damage, from the missile. None has been documented by anybody, even though almost the entire airplane was recovered.

Donaldson’s “calculations” (I use irony quotes deliberately) are pure speculation and are based upon unsupported assumptions including the data used.

Glad you’ve at last brought your own cite! It just doesn’t prove what you want it to prove. Thanks for trying though.

262

Just a point of debate here.
I’ve pretty much proven that the St Louis bomb test could not have happened according to the official story. All those who seem to go to lengths to demand a high level of evidentiary accuracy totally avoided this.

 I suggest we demand that a (credible) answer be given to this or those taking the official story side concede the debate.

 Any debate that dodges clearly provable critical points in order to conduct a parallel overture of official story contrivances or irrelevant side tracks of obfuscatory science is clearly not a legitimate debate seeking to acknowledge true information or the truth. In a (non-corrupt) courtroom a judge would never let you get away with that.
263

I missed that part earlier. So he thinks a missile exploded outside the plane, but close enough and big enough that it instantly vaporized the puddled fuel in the CWT? And then that vaporized fuel exploded when a fragment of the missile punctured the frame/tank?

Wow-ee-wow-wow, that guy is nuts.

I guess this is how he’s trying to fit his missile idea along with all the evidence that showed a missile didn’t actually hit the plane.

Jetblast, do you see the problem here? Even Donaldson would agree that all the physical evidence indicates the plane was destroyed by the CWT fuel explosion, and he just is proposing that a missile outside the plane triggered it. But if all the evidence points to a CWT explosion, why bother with a missile? It’s just because of the people who saw what they thought was a missile. It’s again down to hard physical evidence contradicting what people thought they saw.

But people are demonstrably terrible at identifying things far away in the sky. We know that already.

264 
  Sure, I'd be glad to. Let's take your suggestion that Brumley's testimony wasn't necessarily specific about missile evidence. Let's see if that's a "reliable" portrayal of what Brumley said - From Cashill:
265

So I ask where the missing 4 seconds is from the CVR and I get this for an answer.

But don’t forget that upthread our esteemed guest said:

Somebody look up the word irony in the dictionary.
Now Jetblast I hope this doesn’t make your head assplode, but I got to ask. If TWA 800 was brought down by a missile why would there be 4 seconds of CVR tape removed? For what purpose? The plane shattering kaboom was recorded so what would have been on the last 4 seconds that would require a plan such as never been seen before (sneak into the search area, steal the CVR doctor it, and return it to be found later)
don’t forget the CVR and FDR are in the tail of the plane, and as soon as the nose rips off the aircraft all recording will stop at that point. So I guess what I am also asking is are you saying that there was more than 4 seconds between the blast and when the plane tore apart? If so cite?

266

Jetblast, do try to keep up.

It is not I who underscores Meyer’s un-credibility. It is MEYER. He himself describes the limitation of his Vietnam service flights as “rescue rather than attack”. And he himself who understands that the falling time he and two buddies agreed upon did not square with a fall from Flight 800’s altitude. And he himself who says “I mean, our – our memories were distorted”.

Where does he claim that he was unduly influenced, let along threatened to change his story, by “official” investigators?

Don’t you read these cites?

267

Please. We’ve already seen Cashill for what he is, and “reliable” would not be any part of the description.

If he was able to elicit such a statement from Brumley, it still proves nothing. And wasn’t Brumley the one who declared that a missile conspiracy would be impossible to maintain (except among a few chosen SEALs, of course)? If I were you, I think I’d stop using him to carry that particular baton.

268 
               I think even a high school level person would understand the pressure pitot and angle of attack vane, just like the half mile ejecta, detect upper level extremes. In other words, sure, inaccuracies could occur within the range of data itself, but it specifically takes an isolatable force to create an upper range reading. Any force lower than that would fail to push the perfectly functioning equipment to that degree. 

 I'd feel safer if you tried to answer the point Donaldson made that the sensor wires travel right under the center tank on their way to the recorder. If indeed a center tank explosion occurred as the initiating event the recorder would have trouble recording this extra second of data.  

   I also think even a high school person would see cheap attempts to disqualify ALL data and information. The system HAS to be functioning simply because it was able to record data from the sensors. Only an extreme stretch of semantics would suggest otherwise.
269 
          Get back to me when you can specifically answer where what you wrote disqualifies Meyer from identifying ordnance flashes? The suggestion that rescue missions had a different ordnance experience than attack is ridiculous. 

      You're clearly dodging the point. What is most important about Meyer is he never saw any 3000 foot zoom-climb. And his 10 second estimation of the drop reinforces a ballistic drop more than anything else.

         Your attempt to destroy his credibility is what isn't credible here.

  By the way, how do you feel about the government's credibility when it was caught tampering with or removing evidence along with many other investigation offenses? Apparently you don't apply the same 'scrutiny' to them. Can we get to a real discussion of evidence here?
270

Nope, you have not proven a thing, Jack Cashill is a demonstrated nutter, but that is not the main problem, the issue is that the cites you gave us so far only deal with his say so’s and not the papers or sworn testimony that confirms what he is saying.

However the worst is that the quote without a link is full of weasel words like “Cashill and Sanders **believe **they can prove”. Now that is indeed no proof at all. The records so far show that they really did not prove a thing, they did not bother to show their evidence on the latest hearings or trials.

271

From http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/OVERPRESSURE/overpress.html

Bolding mine.

So Donaldson recognizes that the data recorder records over previous flights. A line of data is blocked out and labeled as not being part of flight 800. He decides that it is valid data even though every single aspect of the data does not match flight 800. The plane is much lower, much slower, the control surfaces are at different positions. In an instant, every reading is different.

He decides some of this data is so trustworthy, that he can use readings from these instruments in a way they were not designed for, to analyze a supposed shock wave. He hasn’t done any tests to see what these instruments would read during any kind of explosion, he just knows.

From the analysis on the same link.

Bolding mine.

So some of this data is ‘the smoking gun’, the rest should be shit canned?

It is also worth noting that we now have a conspiricy involving thousands of people, and the media. Yet this ‘smoking gun’, was freely handed out to reporters with the most damning evidence only partially blocked out?

272

Well, to me is the fact that whatever he saw was not a missile.

Just another bit that demonstrates that witness testimony is not reliable.

The problem here is that I still have to see good evidence of that tampering or that it actually took place, or that it involved crucial evidence.

The real discussion of the evidence has been avoided by you, examples include the heat in the **empty **central tank, no evidence of missile remains or hits in the plane pieces, differentiated trace remains in locations that were not involved in the explosion. etc.

273

Are you saying that the data recorded was accurate, simply because it was recorded?

Do you think that the frame rolled over to be inverted, and the fuselage pointed sideways, all in that one-second window? According to you, that’s the data that was recorded, therefore it happened that way.

Reasonable people would see that the data was all wacky on that last reading, including at least some of it that had to be mistaken, and then be dubious about the other data. You like the other data because someone who was on Art Bell’s radio show explained that it that particular data could be consistent with an external explosion. Never mind that an external explosion like that would leave distinctive evidence, and there was none.

You’re just cherry picking fragments that you think support your missile idea, while ignoring the vast mountain of evidence against it.

I objected earlier to your statement that I was debating you. I wanted to listen to what you have to say. But you’ve shown again and again that you have nothing. I’m still not debating, but my mind isn’t as open as it was. I’m now simply challenging you to come up with something, anything, that supports your view.

274

I don’t think the last line is a valid reading from a previous flight. Not all of it, anyway. Altitude 10,000 feet, speed 100 kts, roll 144 deg (inverted!) and rudder of 77 degrees. These are bogus numbers.

275

True.

My main point was that even when presented with clearly wonky data that he (Donaldson) recognizes does not make sense, he took it as gospel. Well, except for the part he ignores.

276

Still waiting for radar data.

Still waiting for a missile part.

Still waiting for someone with knowledge of a conspiracy.

Guys, it’s pointless.

277

Then why does Meyer himself bring it up in exactly that context? Really, it would do you good to actually read the cites provided.

What is most important is that Meyers says he never saw the airframe at all! Please, please read the cite. He didn’t see it climb, he didn’t see it fall. He never, ever saw it at all. (Cripes, we really have crossed over, haven’t we? Now I’m channeling Theodore Giselle!)

He saw some flashes (the exact number of which he is unsure), says some looked “hard” and small and the final one looked like a huge fuel explosion. Then he says that the big one hit the water in less than 10 seconds. I don’t know what you think the words “ballistic drop” mean, but 10 seconds is still 10 seconds.

So by Meyer’s testimony, a huge fuel explosion occurred at an altitude from which that fuel could land in the ocean in less than 10 seconds. In other words, well below Flight 800’s altitude. Just like would happen if Flight 800 was ripped apart by an exploding center wing tank, various bits continued on for some seconds due to inertia and specific aerodynamic characteristics, then proceeded to fall toward the ocean, wherein at some point less than 10 seconds high the fuel ejected from the aircraft’s tanks caught fire and went whoosh.

I am NOT trying to destroy Meyer’s credibility. In fact, his observations seem perfectly compatible with the “official” version. Except, of course, for the imposition of an imaginary missile into the account. This destroys YOUR credibility, not his.

Sure! Just show us some evidence (not an assertion - can you discern the difference?) that some evidence was tampered with or removed, and that it was in any way significant.

Not your speculation that so and so thought he saw somebody fiddling with part whatever. Even if there was a so and so who stole some part as a souvenir, or banged it with a hammer to turn an “in-y” into an “out-y”, it seems bloody unlikely that it was the ONLY part that could confirm a missile strike.

**RickJay **offers a nice list. Provide evidence for any part of it, please. (Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath.)

278

TWO missiles, AND an Al Qaeda suicide plane too.

I know it’ s hard, but please try to keep up. :wink:

279

That’s Theodor Geisel, if you please. Just doing my bit to fight ignorance. :slight_smile:

280 
          Not so fast. Cashill simply collects and interprets information from legitimate sources like FBI itself as well as independent investigators with good credibility. So far your handling of Cashill has been to call him a person with an axe to grind against Clinton and a "nutter". I think most people would see that as the dodge of his information that it is. Most people would understand Cashill is so credible and convincing that you are unable to directly answer his information.

    Your being unable to answer the St Louis bomb test information is proof enough for most reasonable people. It's rather childish to deny the obvious and people can see the vast disparity between alleged site rules and people being allowed to do shameless denials.