Anybody up for a TWA 800 discussion?

Great Debates
321

I think we’ve pretty much proven that the “zoom-climb” didn’t happen. Aviation engineer and 747 Captain Ray Lahr’s lawsuit against CIA should prove that.

    I think the fact official story proponents ignore the facts showing the St Louis bomb test didn't happen is proof enough that story is disproven. 

      Since these two cases are two of the main legs upon which the official story stands I can assume the official story has been disproven. So we don't have any explanation for the streak seen by hundreds of witnesses or the explosives residue. The sword cuts both ways. If official story supporters can't answer these points they surrender their arguments. The way evidence works is you have to honor that which counts the most. It is the government's case that is damaged most by its flawed parts, not the missile witnesses'. 

    I think I've made a good case for the Flight Data Recorder capturing accurate readings from the angle of attack vane. I'm waiting for CurtC's response (or anyone else's). The angle of attack vane captured a 1/4 second increment movement from 3 degrees to 106 degrees to 30 degrees and back to 3 degrees. This shows the instrument was receiving accurate data since it conforms exactly to a pressure shockwave passing over the instrument and then returning to forward flight as would have happened with the nose section. This also makes it more likely the pressure pitot recorded accurate data.

           I think I've proven my points. The ball is clearly in the other court. I'd like a direct answer please.
322

Still waiting for radar data.

Still waiting for a missile part.

Still waiting for someone with knowledge of a conspiracy.

323

Now that is really grasping at straws, After checking the evidence the reality is that the zoom climb is not needed as the zoom climb was added to adjust to the witness testimony. As I noticed, most testimony was tainted by the way the FBI interviewed the witnesses, therefore the zoom climb is not needed or it took place for very few seconds.

As there is less physical evidence for it, I’m willing to consider that the zoom climb did not take place, but here is the silliness, this does not demonstrate that a missile or missiles were involved. The explosion of the central tank does not depend on the zoom climb.

Only in your opinion, because even congress critters that were sympathetic changed their tunes after seeing the “evidence” of people like Donaldson. The reality is that even more people that checked the evidence believe that the official story is the correct one.

As people accused for crimes that they did not commit can tell you, witness testimony is the most unreliable thing compared to physical evidence.

As it was demonstrated you are not willing or able to produce the evidence requested several times:

"Still waiting for radar data.

Still waiting for a missile part.

Still waiting for someone with knowledge of a conspiracy."

No, there are many examples already mentioned that explain why the readings should not be trusted, there is also the fact that if you insist that the readings could only be possible if an explosion took place next to the plane, that then evidence must exist in the remains of the plane that show that the damage came from the missiles.

That evidence has not been produced by you still.

The direct answer remains, there are good reasons already mentioned on why the data is not considered reliable, so you still have not proven your points.

The Shockwave of Donaldson (not demonstrated by serious researchers) must = Missile evidence in the remains of the plane.

You need to produce direct evidence of the missile(s) then or else you just admitted that you never had it in the first place.

324

Nope. You are taking Meyer’s interpretation at his word. I am looking at what he actually reported.

He claims–after reflection–that he saw misslie exhaust in a curving pattern. Yet missile exhaust does not look like a shooting star. It does not glow.

At the point where he believes he saw the “shooti8ng star” he was looking for an errant Cessna that had the potential to interfere with his landing approach. He was so concerned about the whereabouts of the Cessna, that he actually shifted out of position to place his head against the windscreen. So, he is now moving his head away from its normal position (so that he no longer has a set of fixed references in his cockpit against wqhich to compare any outside movement) and he sees the movement of light, (not exhaust) that he perceives as moving in an arc. Yet his head is probably moving and he has to look up after it catches his attention, (moving his head, again), at which point it disappears.
That is the reflection of the sun in the Northwest bouncing off the curves fuselage or wing of Flight 800 for the brief period when the angles were exactly right to cause the reflection to strike his cockpit.

Then he says he saw an explosion–actually two quick explosive lights–that he later interprets as “ordnance.” However, in his reconstruction, he is clearly indicating that he contrasts those against the “slower” fuel explosion with which he is familiar from his combat service. That is fine as far as it goes, but given a fuel-empty/vapor-filled center wing fuel tank, we are not going to get a “slow burn” of jet fuel, but a sharp explosion, just as posited by the NTSB and quite consistent with his “ordnance” interpretation.

Following that, he identifies a “slower” fuel explosion, which is consistent with the actual fuel tanks erupting.

In daylight, one rarely, (perhaps never) sees a glow from the engines of a rocket coming toward one. If he saw exhaust, it would hang in the air, disipating slowly like a contrail. On the other hand, a brief flash of reflected sunlight–leaving a slight after image because of its brightness–directed to a person who did not expect to see it and who was looking for something else entirely while moving his head around, away from its normal position, would seem like a “shooting star.”

Meyer’s testimony is fine–it demonstrates that the NTSB got it right. His later interpretations are far less persuasive.

325

For the life of me, I can’t think why an angle-of-attack sensor would be built and calibrated to measure at 106 degrees. I don’t know the AOA limit of a 747, but anything beyond the low double digits would surprise me.

Alas, my google fu is weak. Does anyone have any inside info on these sensors? Up to what angle can the readings be trusted, and at what angle be they whack?

326

Actually, 106° should probably display as 74° since there is nothing higher than 90° from the horizontal, so just what instrument was designed to show a reading that indicated the plane was starting an inside loop? (I realize that a plane executing a Cobra maneuver actually passes through an angle of attack that exceeds 90°, but that is sufficiently difficult in a MiG or an F-15 without bothering to put a device to measure it on a 747.)

327

No, 106° is a perfectly valid number. Angle of attack is measured with 0° meaning the relative airflow is hitting the leading edge exactly parallel with the reference line of the airfoil. If the airflow is hitting the trailing edge first, as in a tailslide, there ought to be a way to define that. I suspect valid values are from +180° to -179°.

But the vane that measures and transmits to the Flight Data Recorder has to be a physical instrument of some kind. And physical instruments have physical limits. If your 747 is in a tailslide, you have a lot more important things to worry about than the precise angle of attack. I doubt the engineers would go to the bother of creating a sensor to make accurate readings so far outside the operating range of the aircraft.

Jetblast, do any of your sources for the AOA numbers confirm that the sensor can read accurately at those angles?

And still waiting for radar data.

328

[quote=“tomndebb, post:324, topic:490944”]

Nope. You are taking Meyer’s interpretation at his word. I am looking at what he actually reported.

He claims–after reflection–that he saw misslie exhaust in a curving pattern. Yet missile exhaust does not look like a shooting star. It does not glow.

 Focusing on the semantic value of "interpretation" and "reflection" does nothing to change what Meyer saw and said. What is more meaningful is looking at what Meyer said immediately that evening and compelled him to report the incident upon arrival at base. The main sightings of a streaking object, ordnance flash, and fuel explosion (emphatically described as being different from the very specifically described ordnance flash) haven't changed one iota from the original sighting that evening nor does any strained misinterpretation change this. 

        The streaking object was described by many separate witnesses as having a "glowing" appearance. One witness even described the reddish/pink halo around the hot white missile exhaust plume. So the statement "missile exhaust doesn't glow" is false. In fact, I think some scientifically knowledgeable persons could describe to us the specific chemical reactions in missile exhaust that create the halo seen by the witnesses. I think we should ask the witness who was there if it looked like a shooting star or not? And if it wasn't a missile, what was it? I don't think these arguments have much credibility against what we know and what Meyer said. The speed of a streaking anti-aircraft missile looks very much like a shooting star as Meyer (who was there) testified. The missile's homing jerks were also accurately described by the witnesses. To ignore this is to just plain deny what was seen. And since we no longer have the "zoom-climb" the official story has no explanation for this streaking object witnessed by hundreds.

     I'm sure. His sticking his face forward only gives him a better view of what is in front of him, which is why he did it. I doubt an experienced helicopter pilot with as many hours as he had would become disoriented or lose fix points by simply leaning forward. I believe if we vetted this assertion it with credible people, including Meyer, it wouldn't get very much support. It sounds like made-up excuses. And it also has no meaning considering Meyer has all the fixed points of the horizon and landscape in front of him that don't change. All he has to do is lean back again and the exact perspective is put into orientation. No, what you wrote has no meaning. If you'll forgive me, I'll take Meyer's word if it's OK with you.  

        You completely confuse and mis-render what Meyer is referring to. Meyer is not referring to the center tank explosion when he speaks of the fuel fire. He is speaking of the waterfall of fire after the fuel-laden wing tanks ruptured and caught fire. Therefore your input has no meaning. Plus, what you wrote is automatically dismissible simply because even if Meyer saw the tank blast the fuel that created it is incapable of making the "flashbulb" light quality Meyer witnessed. Your assertion is inherently wrong by its own internal terms.

          You are not accurately quoting Meyer. If you reference Meyer's Lahr lawsuit deposition he very specifically (spelled out several times) states that what he knows were ordnance flashes were followed a second and a half to two seconds later by a large eruption of fuel. This can only be the wing tank rupture, which means the ordnance flashes can only be the center tank explosion - which was incapable of making a high explosives flash. Meyer was capable of knowing a sunlight flash if he saw one. When I see a sunlight flash, I know it right away. 

         That's a completely preposterous rendering of what Meyer saw. First, I'd like to see you say that to Meyer's face and hear his reaction to this ridiculous version. Second, I doubt this reflected sunlight version would get very far with a credible vetting group. Clearly Meyer saw a streaking object that couldn't possibly be sunlight because of its behavior and location. Saying he was moving his head and had sun images burned into his retina is so preposterous it's laughable. Besides, simple ophthalmological science would show that it takes a longer period to 'burn' a sun image into the retina. The argument is bogus by its own inherent terms.

        Your argument is silly because it is easily destroyed by considering that Meyer located the streaking shooting star in both a position and direction far from where Flight 800 could have been. But it's easily disproven just by the fact alone that Flight 800 couldn't have been moving that fast. I think it takes real nerve for someone whose main qualification is keyboard access to correct a credible, experienced eyewitness like Meyer and I consider this as nothing other than deliberate filibustering of specious input in order to defeat a real discussion of truthful facts.
329

I think you’re forgetting something, Jetblast.

330

[quote=“GIGObuster, post:323, topic:490944”]

this does not demonstrate that a missile or missiles were involved. The explosion of the central tank does not depend on the zoom climb.

       Anyone who honestly researches the crash could come away with no other opinion than the government very strictly and overtly depends on the "zoom-climb" to explain the missiles seen by hundreds. To deny this is dishonest. Besides, anyone with any common sense would realize if the government didn't need the zoom-climb to explain the witnessed events it wouldn't have invented it. I'd like to see 'GiGobuster' explain, then, what the hundreds of missile witnesses saw? No serious person would try to dismiss outright the hundreds of well-described statements of climbing streaking objects (all sunlight I suppose?). To do so would be a self-destruction of one's own credibility. What is most important here is even official story backers admit the government produced wrong information in their investigation. 

      The assertion that the center tank theory doesn't depend on the zoom-climb is false, nor has GiGobuster shown why it would be. The center wing tank theory is clearly wholly and directly dependent on the zoom-climb. To deny it is silly and an exercise in outright mendacity.

       I think more people would tell you governments never admit cover-ups. And you're making the mistake of assuming the evidence was fairly considered considering the long list of examples of government not doing so and being protested over by even insiders in the investigation. What was the FBI removing from the hangar as witnessed by the Long Island police? Why did they re-upholster the residue-covered seats? I think when we discuss the actual facts instead of armchair excuses the case takes on its true appearance. Surely those flagrantly ignoring real evidence of a cover-up can't be considered for their opinions.

        I think most smart honest people can see you can't directly answer the argument about the angle of attack vane. Nor has CurtC. I consider that a concession of the point.

        There has never been an NTSB investigation where the witnesses took out a full page ad saying they were being ignored by the government. 

        Your flagrant ignoring of the St Louis bomb test is a concession of the point and therefore forfeiture of the debate.

       The angle of attack vane shows the pattern of a shockwave and working instrument. None of your overly-general deflections have done anything to disprove or even address this.

       I asked you to specifically answer the listed points and you couldn't.
331

Piffle, anyone with money can do that with discredited notions like the ones global warming deniers have.

Repeating this does not make so, and your say so is even less impressive coming from someone that by not furnishing evidence for the items requested many, many times before demonstrates that he has no evidence.

Nope, the shock wave described means that there is physical evidence for a missile and this has been ignored, when there is no followup to a conclusion (that the shock wave was external and caused by a missile) then we have to assume the original conclusion was false, because you can’t provide any physical evidence.

Tap dancing, produce your evidence that has to follow that false conclusion or you just once again admitted by omission that you had no evidence to begin with.

332

:rolleyes:

When the physical evidence says otherwise (no physical evidence for a missile evidence has been produced) yes, serious persons have already decided that witness are wrong when DNA has shown on dozens of occasions who was really the guilty party.

The assertion that no serious person can not dismiss witnesses is mendacity itself.

No, the zoom climb depends on the witness testimony and some models. That the central tank exploded depends on all the physical evidence found and the research by several universities and labs.

Cite for all this, or do you will admit once again (by not showing the actual evidence your discredited sources are using) of not having any evidence?

333 
          You're dodging a basic point here that I'd like answered directly. If the reading was not from Flight 800 then what was it from? The only thing it could be is a data line from the previous flight. If it happened during the previous flight when the autopilot was engaged it would have created an incident during that flight as the autopilot adjusted the aircraft to return to normal flight according to its readings off the angle of attack sensor. We could find where it happened in the previous flight simply by analyzing the data recorder. The information on that recorder would tell where in the flight it came from and how it related to it. 

        If you concede the data came from Flight 800 then we have to assume it was valid data because it records what should be an accurate reading for a blast shockwave passing over it. I'm not sure what you mean by "tailslide" because even the official story says in the first second of the incident the aircraft was in forward flight at 385 knots. 

     Donaldson used a Flight Recorder data expert to analyze the recorder data. 

  I don't think the capabilities of the vane are in question. Nor have you shown why it shouldn't be able to record the simple blast force blown across it as it appears to have accurately done since the recorded pattern conforms exactly to a shockwave pass of the vane.

     Plus, Donaldson did the math to show the influence of a center tank blast on the pressure pitot vs a missile blast. He specifically showed the .43psi 10 times exaggerated value of a tank blast vs the 1.32psi value of a shockwave and its potential input on the pressure pitot. The ability of a tank blast to lower the altitude pressure reading by 3700 feet can easily be shown in tests. Tests the government stays miles away from or tries to suggest the equipment wasn't credible. But we see the angle of attack vane suggesting credibility in its readings. And no one has proven the pressure pitot to not be credible either.
334

Not credible as no missile evidence or evidence of a breakup suggesting a missile strike were found.

And you continue to ignore the repeated requests, we are:

"Still waiting for radar data.

Still waiting for a missile part.

Still waiting for someone with knowledge of a conspiracy. "

335 
         The "DNA" of Flight 800 is the explosives residue found all over the aircraft. Since the St Louis bomb test has now been refuted, and you categorically refuse to address it, I think we can safely assume you have no credibility on this topic.  Nor am I interested in run-around sophistry.

       There was missile evidence in both shrapnel holes found on aircraft parts  that were covered-up, shrapnel found in the bodies, and the reddish residue that was criminally tampered with at threat of legal action.
336

The evidence was three or more different and or differentiated compounds, and none was in a location that was part of the original breakup. Your effort at willful ignorance would work if one could convict a rapist by finding DNA evidence in the hands of a girl but it is missing were it would count.

Reasonable people will assume there were other reasons why the DNA appeared only in her hands. And dismiss accusations of rape based just on witness testimony.

I would bet no one will support you on that opinion. And by refusing to produce the cites with evidence you **demonstrate **that you have no credibility.

Cite for this tampering? Cite for the shrapnel? Cite that the reddish residue was tampered?

[Looks at all the viewers]

Hey! Hope springs eternal, we may get the evidence with cites yet! :slight_smile:

337

Where did the data come from? I don’t know. Voltage spikes happen. Short circuits happen. Random noise on recording devices happens. Incomplete recording happens.

Think of it this way. Suppose you have a car with a speedometer that goes up to 100 mph. If the needle suddenly spun around four times, would you think “cool, I’m going 400 miles per hour”, or would you think “something’s broken”? (To look at it a different way, suppose somehow you actually managed to make your car go 400 mph. Accounting for multiple turns of the needle, do you really think the speedometer would still be accurate?)

A typical airplane wing stalls at about 15°-17°. That’s the range that the pilots care about. That’s the range that the sensor would be designed to measure. If you go very far beyond that, you’re not flying anymore, you’re falling. There’s no point in building a gauge to measure the difference between 42°, 78° and 106°; if any of those things happen to a 747, you’re screwed.

So answer my question directly. Have you, or any of the sources you use for your information, confirmed that a recorded value of 106° corresponds to an actual angle-of-attack measurement or its blast pressure wave equivalent? How?
Still waiting for etc., etc., etc.

338

It’s very late in the discussion to present us with new “information” of such significance. Where, for the sake of entertainment if nothing else, do you get that from?

339

There is no clearer example than this anywhere in your posts. You automatically believe any information that can possibly be twisted, however fancifully, to fit your predetermined conclusion, including additions of absolutes and deletions of qualifiers. You hotly reject any information that cannot fit your desperately-desired predetermined conclusion. But it hasn’t occurred to you yet that the latter category constitutes virtually all the available information, and all of that points to the mundane cause that the conspirators have all concluded. And, we don’t even need to get into your proven inability to support your claims of fact - let’s just call that “fantasizing” on your part and leave it at that, okay?

Your lectures on credibility and intellectual integrity had some comedic value for awhile, but your act does need some new material if you’re going to make it to Vegas.

340

Let’s see some evidence any of this is true, please.

Still waiting for the radar data.

Still waiting for a missile part.

Still waiting for someone with knowledge of a conspiracy.