Anybody up for a TWA 800 discussion?

Great Debates
341

Then we are agreed that all he actually reported seeing was a streak of light, an explosion, and a fuel explosion, right?

Yep. A number of witnesses, following Meyer’s TV interview, “remembered” seeing a glowing streak. I have no problem with that.

It is not false until you demonstrate glowing missile exhaust. You are arguing backwards from your own belief that the “exhaust” of a “missile” was seen glowing, but that hardly proves that missile exhaust glows–it simply means that you are placing various odd remarks into a straitjacket to claim a phenomenon that has not been established.

I already told you: the sun reflecting off the fuselage or wings of Flight 800, caught out of the eye of Meyers who only “determined” what it was days after the event, but whose remark about seeing the glowing trail then influenced others to “remember” the same thing–albeit quite differently from one witness to another.

Really? Has there ever been another incident in which someone described a SAM as looking like a shooting star? And why was it only visible for a second or two before Flight 800’s explosion (disappearing before the explosion), rather than being seen, off and on, for the entire duration of its flight or showing up on radar?

Not really. We have a few people with varying stories that have been compiled as “homing jerks,” but we have no “accurately described” event where multiple people describe the same event at the same time, (Meyer’s after-the-fact reconstruction notwithstanding).

To place a lot of belief in faulty reconstructions is simply to give credence to troothers and woo.

No. Sticking his face up against the windscreen gives him a broader field of vision to search for the Cessna. It does nothing to establish marking points to identify movement, speed, and direction.

No one is claiming he was disoriented. I simply note that when one sees an unexpected image at a time when familar references have been removed, then the brain will set its own explanations for the image, such as perceiving a flash of light to follow an arc when it is really the observer’s head that is moving.

You can believe what you wish–you already do.
A few years ago a couple of scientists, (don’t recall the discipline), worked out, using head mounted video cameras and calculus, how baseball outfielders managed to run to the correct location to catch fly balls even though the balls and the players were both in motion and the players could not know the actual speed or destination of the balls. All the baseball players vehemently denied the explanation at which the scientists arrived because the players did not sense themselves making the foot-eye adjustments that the scientists had documented. (Plus, Meyer would not accept my explanation because he has too much invested in the CT.)

Bzzzzt!! Both Meyer’s head and his helicopter were in motion while he looked at an image that was up in the featureless sky, so that his memory of where he saw the streak of light relative to the windscreen from which he had moved his head and relative to his copter, which was, itself, in flight, is irrelevant. He says he watched the streak for some period; I accept that. He said that it described a shallow arc; I accept that as his memory. I simply decline to accept his interpretation, since his own testimony contradicts his conclusion.

Please provide comparative images of a fuel-air explosion and a warhead ordnance explosion to prove that they cannot possibly look the same from a distance of ten miles. Otherwise, you are just inventing stuff to cover your belief. Declaring that the empty fuel tank explosion could not look like a flash has no basis in fact if you do not demonstrate such an explosion displaying a different appearance.

I did not mischaracterize Meyer. He claimed to have seen an explosion–which he interpeted as ordnance–and later the fuel erupting. His claim is that “ordnance” was the first explosion because he needs to perceive “ordnance,” but there is no reason why his first reported explosion could not have been the center wing tank instead of his SAM.

You and I are saying the same thing, except that you keep insisting, with no evidence, that the center tank could not look like ordnance from ten miles away.
You fail to persuade.

Bully for you. I doubt that you are actually capable of your boast, but I see no reason to ascribe your miraculous talents to Meyer. A setting sun (through the NYC metropolitan haze) reflecting off a roughly cylindrical object in motion at a distance of ten miles is hardly the same thing as seeing noon sunlight reflecting off a car windshield where you expect to see such flashes. You may need to feel that you can immediately identify every possible ray of sunshine in the world, but I have seen enough odd variants to know that such a boast is unlikely to be supportable.

It is fun watching you make up stuff–what can or cannot posibly be true–as you go along.

So, you are calling Meyer a liar? That takes chutzpah to defame the witness on whom you are building so much of your case. He explicitly says that he saw the explosion “right there” where the orange streak disappeared. Now you are claiming that the streak he saw was somewhere other than where Flight 800 could have been?
Odd bit of evidence you have there.

(I will note, at this point, that I retract my speculation about retinal after-image. I had misremembered his narrative about watching it. On the other hand, his red-orange glow is much more likely to be setting sunlight reflected off a large plane than the tiny trail of exhaust from a SAM at ten miles distance when the SAM is coming toawrd the viewer with its tail pointing away from the viewer in a bright, daylit sky, so I figure my re-creation is still much stronger than your wishful thinking.)

Getting feisty, now? We have no knowledge of how fast the streak of light was moving. We have the shaped memory of a man whose head was moving relative to any visual reference points.

If you think that attacking me makes sense, (since you have no clue what my experience might actually be), go ahead, but you are merely amusing me.

Note that while you can sit back and huff that you are going to continue to believe various people over my reconstruction, your goal here is to persuade me (among others) that the troothers have a valid point in challenging the NTSB report. Your remarks will fail to persuade me (or most folks), so you are failing. I, on the other hand, recognize that troothers cannot be swayed, so failing to persuade you to let go of your conspiracy is not issue for me.

342

I cannot recall a poster this effectively slapped down by Tom who got a chance to present his responses. Jetblast, you should feel honored. The rest of us are NOT moderators, and are not required to play as nice as he. So I am going beyond the MANY previous, polite requests for:

Still waiting for radar data.

Still waiting for a missile part.

Still waiting for someone with knowledge of a conspiracy.

And, without them, I am willing to place my membership on the line by calling you, here in Great Debates, a liar. You don’t talk a good game, and your claims are not real. Again, you are lying.

Prove me wrong and I will gladly resign from the SDMB.

343

dropzone, I do not want you violating the rules of this forum, (that exist for a reason), but no one gets banned for a single violation.

Beyond that, there is no reason to call anyone a liar. Troothers are more likely to be True Believers than liars and there is no reason for anyone to think that Jetblast is making up anything. Being lured into the tangled webs of CT might be a failure of logic, but it is not a failure of ethics.

So drop the name-calling and also drop the melodrama.

344

We’re still waiting for the radar data, the missile parts, anyone with knowledge of a conspiracy, or any evidence of “shrapnel”, among other things. We’re running out of alternate explanations.

More accurately, to be fair, it appears to be that *other *people who are making it up, and that Jetblast merely swallows it unquestioningly.

345

This would be my guess. And if his sources are text, especially printed text instead of electronic text, he would be unable to provide the requested citations.

Having a deep-seated emotional investment in opposing The Man does not necessarily give one the wherewithal to actually pursue that opposition beyond repeating bad arguments in one’s own words.

346 
       You don't have the luxury to speculate. I've been very clear that the Flight Data Recorder can be analyzed to show what exactly Donaldson's data line is. The data is one of three things: It is either data from the last flight; data from Flight 800; or freak data from equipment malfunction. I've already discussed that the probability of equipment freaks is low simply because the data shows the exact pattern of a shockwave pass. We could put this to probability science to see what exactly the chances were that a freak reading would record the exact pattern of a shockwave pass. I think there is a technical chance that a freak reading would record the same pattern, just like there's a technical chance I'll go buy a 10 million dollar winning lottery ticket today. It's very obvious the angle of attack vane is working and recording properly simply by what it records. And I don't think evasive, excuse-seeking arguments have the same merit as investigatory ones. Recording of a missile shockwave by still-functioning equipment also happens, and I think your argument helps my case more than anything.

         Not a valid analogy. We have a case here where credible witesses saw missiles and a high explosives blast. We also have multiple cases of government covering-up evidence. I think most observers would see these speculative arguments exist only by means of ignoring the numerous cases of evidence we have for missiles. One form of argument moves towards the evidence and discusses it, the other moves away from the evidence into general speculation.

      This is a pointless argument. We need to see the measurement range of a 747 angle of attack vane. I think you're making a made-up argument here in order to discount evidence we've shown. The pertinent information here is, does a Boeing angle of attack vane swivel up to 106 degrees and measure accurately when it does? I doubt you'll see the government looking into this to find out. I think you'll find that the vane records whatever angle it needs to record to help control the aircraft. Are we really observing objective evidence here or looking for excuses to dismiss it?

         Nice try, but I asked first. You haven't touched Donaldson's science showing the psi a center tank blast would make on the pressure pitot vs a warhead shockwave. Since we have BOTH the pressure pitot and angle of attack vane recording a blast pattern your argument for freak readings goes WAY down since it is repeated by a second instrument. Face it, the pitot and angle of attack vane are showing more proof of functioning than anything else and your contrivance that they were recording freak readings becomes almost statistically impossible when a *second* instrument detects a blast indication in conformance to what it would have read from such an event. The chances of *two* instruments coincidentally recording freak readings that just so happened to match those of blast shockwaves is so remote as to be non-enterable.
         By the way, how exactly did a fuel tank blast put blast shrapnel gouges in the metal of the nose gear wheel rim? An object that was shielded by the aircraft and cargo containers from any fuel tank blast. In short, the evidence shows more than enough proof for those who are looking for it.
347 
       I think most people would see cat and mouse ad hominem discussion of a poster instead of directly discussing the points themselves as the tacit admission of missile evidence that it is (and the inability of those challenging it to discuss it).
      I'm sure a veteran helicopter pilot knows the difference between reflected sunlight and a missile. I know I myself, when I see a sun glare reflection, know right away what it was. Just like Meyer, with top experience in ordnance flashes, knew an anti-aircraft high explosives flash when he saw one. I see CannyDan backed down after reading Meyer was in the Mekong Delta "Iron Triangle". A place with the most concentrated anti-aircraft ordnance in VietNam.

  Besides, you violate your own assertion that Meyer did not see Flight 800 when you say he saw sunlight reflecting off the body or wing...
348

You still don’t get the part about arguing backward from a desired conclusion, do you? Or the need to provide an actual cite, even if it’s only printed matter as tomndebb suggests it might be, of what the “exact pattern of a shockwave pass” looks like when produced by a missile. As it is, what you’re telling us is the “exact” and 'very obvious" trooth is indistinguishable from making it up.

The evidence that the blast was not from fuel being, well, what? Your own “credible witness” says otherwise. So why do you hold onto a contrary interpretation so desperately?

And the latter, by means of religously-fanatic filtering of fact, is yours.

And with good reason. Enough time and effort was wasted on running down this missile shit already.

“We?”

And you haven’t backed it up any more than that other crank has.

When did that get established?

You take it as an article of faith that those numbers were real, and not the artifacts of the system failing, with all channels crapping out at the same time. If they could not be twisted into fitting your desperately-desired interpretation, you certainly would have dismissed them as well, wouldn’t you?

Is that yet another item of information that you cannot support? May we take that as, as you put it yourself, tacit admission that your argument fails? :dubious:

Still waiting etc. …

349

Accident analysis doesn’t work that way. You don’t get to pick a theory, and then judget the credibility of the evidence by how well it fits. The heading and roll data don’t suggest a missile, so they’re dismissed; the angle-of-attack sensor says there might be, so it’s gospel. No. The evidence comes first.

And after we do all that hard work, after we find out how all these machines work in the real world, then we look for a theory that explains the evidence.

I’m looking for reasons to dismiss it.

You have come here making an extraordinary claim; you should be prepared to defend it. You, or some other proponent of the missile theory, should do some homework. Talk to Boeing. Look at the sensor on a similar aircraft. Find out what actual conditions can cause the number “106°” to show up on the flight data recorder.

If you really believed that a missile brought down this plane, you would welcome these questions. Every one of them that you answer makes your theory stronger.

And I answered. Now you.
Still waiting, yada, yada, yada…

350

No, the discussion of a poster who has repeatedly failed to present actual citations to purported evidence for many days while insisting that it is “obvious” is pretty much par for the course for threads where one side makes big claims they fail to support.

I have no idea why you are inventing a claim that I have ever said Meyer did not see Flight 800, but that simply adds to the things we can discount from your testimony.

As to the explosions, you have still failed to present any evidence that one can distinuguish the actual source of an explosion from a distance of ten miles. Distinguishing between a “fast” detonation and a “slow” fuel burn is quite believable. Distinguishing a fuel-air explosion from an ordnance explosion–when both will appear as a single, rapid burst of light from any great distance–is only your assertion for which you have provided no evidence.

Here is a bit of evidence. The following link is an aerial photo of JFK Int’nat’l Airport from Google Maps. By comparing the photo to the same photo on Google Earth, I would estimate that the current altitude of the camera is about 9 miles or lower. There are at least 6 B-747s in the picture, (along with numerous other planes, of course). Without zooming in, identify them. Now, remember that these planes are photographed at their greatest possible vantage, straight down at their extended wings and fuselages. Viewing Flight 800 from Long Island would have presented a slightly foreshortened view of its length and a greatly forshortened view of its wingspan. I submit that the only possible things that could have been identified at that distance would have been either reflected light or an actual explosion. No tiny missile engine flame, being shot out away from the observer, is going to be visible against a bright blue sky and there is no way that an explosion will be identifiable as to proximate cause from that distance.

As to your claim about “recognizing” reflected sunlight, you are simply making that up. You have no idea whether the setting sun was bright or dim, based on the amount of polluted atmosphere it passed through, or what color it was as it refected off the painted and unpainted surfaces of the aircraft. You repeating your baseless assertion does not magically make it come true.

351

And it was. Here (pdf) is an in depth analysis of the last line of data. This should be read in its entirety by anyone wishing to discuss the validity of that last line of data.

The report basically says that the last line of data is the product of a partial data block from flight 800 recorded as the power was lost, and a partially erased data block from twa803 from the day before. The combination of the two out of phase data blocks produced the garbage line.

If anyone wants to continue to insist that the last line of data is valid, I would like them to find the fault in the attached analysis.

352

Hi,
I’m one of them lurkers **Jetblast **often address in this thread, and I’ve spent perhaps six or eight hours this day to read every post, most of its links, and a few YouTube vids. All with an open mind, because I tend to get carried away by conspiracy theories, and then with burning interest I always study the subject – just to realise there was no conspiracy at all (JFK, WTC, etc).

This thread started out great, but now, at the end of the day (it is past midnight in Scandinavia right now), I’m sorry Jetblast but you lost. I know you think you do, but you have nothing; you have shown nothing other than “this guy said”.

That aside, I was a radar operator (or what ever you call those guys staring at radar screens in English) in the Swedish Air Force during the nineties, and in post 118 Magiver is questioning the authenticity of a radar screen shot, saying that it looks altered for several different reasons, comparing it with another radar screen shot. I would like to point out that the first is - translating from Swedish teminology - a “raw radar” screen, and the second is what a “syntetic radar” screen looks like, and as far as one can see there’s nothing wrong with either of them; the first looks totally authentic, judging from the image itself.
A “raw radar screeen” is like a photograph of a piece of land, and the syntetic is like a map we draw, an interpretation of the reality. The syntetic uses middleware for interpretation of the raw data, and for input and such. - You still use both, because they have some pros and cons.

In post 152 Jetblast is sarcastic about radar ghosts - all perfectly normal, he says, in his now very tiresome questioning of details instead putting forward any evidence supporting his standpoint. But “radar ghosts”, or “ghost blips” are perfectly normal. On any screen at any point, you may have ghost blips, that is uninteresting, temporary echoes, most often birds or flock of birds. Such echoes come and go all the time.

You can’t throw out a snapshot of a radar screen and prove anything with it, really. You must have a recording over time, that lets you track and interpret an echo. Because if it’s there and then it’s not, obviously it can support your interpretation, or another interpretation, but in itself, it’s not much to draw any conclusion from – due to these “ghost blips”.

The problems with missiles, by the way, is that they are small and going fast. Most radars do not register an echo from missiles, because if you did, you might end up getting echos or blips from any bird in the sky too, which would make the screen full of little blips. - Also, since they are fast flying too, it’s difficult to interpret it as one object, and not two unconnected ghost blips. This is a problem because radar stations are neutralized by missiles. :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyhow, Jetblast, with this background, you understand that I too wait for the “radar data” you referred to earlier, and is reminded of every now and again. Perhaps I can be of any assistance interpreting the data.

353

Welcome to the SDMB Wakinyan, somehow I have the feeling that it will be less likely now that **Jetblast **will produce the cites with the evidence, so like you I’m:

Still waiting for radar data.

And:

Still waiting for a missile part.

And for someone with knowledge of a conspiracy.

And I would request a very important cite: what were the type of missiles used then if “we” have so much evidence?

The reason of that question is that it is becoming clear that the 800-oids know that identifying the missile would point at the composition of the rocket and they know that the composition of the most likely ones do not match all the reported separated trace elements and the stuff in the red residue.

354

I haven’t “backed down” at all. I’ve been watching you squirm as others impaled you. Your continuing inability to produce evidence becomes funnier as we find more and more things you fail to support. Now it includes the previous yadda, yadda, yadda, plus shrapnel-ridden bodies, a bent wheel, and the outright theft BY THE FBI of what must have been the only missile parts in the entire reconstruction. Really. You are so droll.

Oh, by the way-- it is true that any moron with a keyboard can be on the internet. But it does not follow that everyone on the internet is necessarily a moron-- or a coward. Therefore I take exception to your repeated references to Viet Nam as some kind of super-support for all things Meyer. Being a USA born male who turned 19 years old in 1969, I hardly need you to tell me much about Viet Nam. Please go back to your non-defense, currently underway.

355 
         Then you violate what you wrote in your first paragraph. 

   You didn't answer my points. You made baseless suggestions that because the normal flight envelope is mostly concerned with the 15-17 degree angle range that a 106 degree reading is somehow errant. But that's ridiculous simply because the angle of attack sensor captured a 106 degree reading, so therefore it was able to do so. I doubt Donaldson, a Navy pilot, would have been so stupid as to enter a non-possible angle of attack vane reading. So your offhand doubts have very little merit. I'm sure an investigation would show the vane as being capable of making such a reading and I'm even more sure you would ignore what that proves.

           The purpose of this 'debate' is obviously to drive people away from it. I think my case has survived these frivolous doubts fairly intact. It is you who hasn't proven your assertions. 

    The "can an angle of attack vane record a 106 degree reading" argument has no merit. It is only designed to answer to a lesser level of debate designed to draw attention away from the obvious evidence. The arguer has failed to show why the angle of attack sensor *couldn't* record this?
356

Din’t read RedSwinglineOne’s link did you?
:rolleyes:

Still waiting yada, yada, yada.

357 
           Then you should have no problem answering a simple question:
       How did blast scar striations occur in the high strength aluminum metal alloy wheel rim of the front nose gear? This gear was protected in the enclosed wheel well well forward off the alleged center tank blast. According to the dynamics of what happened any shrapnel from a center tank blast would have to penetrate a large buffer of cargo containers in the long 747 forward bay. A fuel tank blast isn't capable of doing this. A proximity detonation of a missile warhead or nearby blast from a suicide aircraft out and under the nose *would* explain this forensic pattern however.

        Could you answer this directly without denying this specific case that was not only recorded by the hangar investigators themselves, but also conspicuously ignored by NTSB? I'm guessing you'll deny this (or dodge it like the others). 
         Anyone with any common sense would realize any "lurker" seeking to debunk my entries would have to debunk ALL of them, A fraudulent investigation is like being pregnant. You can't be only partially so. So I doubt we'll see 'Wakinyan' discuss the St Louis bomb test.
358

Still haven’t read RedSwinglineOne’s link have you?

359

[snipped the total lack of dealing with the request of the poster]

You can not get more discredited, please post the radar evidence that **Wakinyan **requested.

You already know his experience, talking then about other evidence beyond his expertise just shows that you are fearful of what he could tell you after checking the radar evidence.

360 
        Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the material a little more? In his Lahr lawsuit deposition Meyer specifically says he never saw Flight 800's airframe. My point is that you destroy your entire argument by referring to sunlight glaring off the airframe. If sunlight was glinting off the airframe Meyer would have seen it. 

            Once again, you show a failure to comprehend the argument. A fuel blast is incapable of making the "flashbulb" light quality Meyer very specifically emphasized was a different event from the fuel fire he also witnessed. It doesn't take a genius to realize more distance would only make the flash duller. The fact he experienced a bright "flashbulb" flash at 10 miles only reinforces the point - as do your replies.

   I'll take Meyer's word, as a credible witness who had top credibility in the Iron Triangle, over people obviously making up any excuse they can think of. The thrust here is obviously people trying to prove why Meyer was wrong. An objective investigation would try to interpret what he saw.