Anybody up for a TWA 800 discussion?

[GIGObuster]

Meyer did not see a missile, as the evidence shows. (You refused to cite any physical evidence to show that this was not the case)

Now if only you could point to the evidence that shows what kind of missiles we are dealing with, that could help counteract the conclusion that you are only wasting time on questions that were already answered years ago.

http://www.thirtythousandfeet.com/a-d-a.htm

[Magiver]

@Jetblast

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). 

I couldn’t find the words “blast scar striations” in the NTSB report so I’m not sure what document you’re referring too. What I do know is that the plane exploded and the front of it was violent torn off. I suspect at least 50,000 lbs of metal smashed into the water at over 100 mph. Having seen pictures of high speed car accidents I would imagine that a great deal of striated damage occured upon impact.

[tomndebb]

@Jetblast

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.

At ten miles distance, Meyer would not have seen the airframe; I demonstrated that with my link to aircraft on the ground at JFK when viewed from over nine miles up. Meyer and I are in agreement. On the other hand, sunlight will reflect a long way. Signal mirrors are often only 2 inches across, yet they are used to throw light across miles of distance beyond what the human eye could perceive as a 2 inch diameter object. Ask any amateur who tracks satellites. Hunks of aluminum that are too far to see with the naked eye are easily visible near sunrise and sunset because of the sunlight reflected from them. Yet you accused me of erroneously commenting on an aspectof the situation that I never addressed. You are making it up.

@Jetblast

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 have asked for actual evidence that a fuel-air explosion could not make the sort of bright light display that you claim. In point of fact, you have chosen to avoid providing any evidence of your claim. Large quantities of fuel will burn because the flame has to “eat” its way through all the fuel. However, a fuel-air explosion has no such trouble and is quite capable of erupting in a single large flash. Repeating your unsupported claim over and over again does not make it persuasive; it simply indicates that you want to “win” by assertion.
You are making it up again.

Here are some videos of actual fuel-air explosions:

- YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk&feature=related Note the extremely short duration of the blast in real time at 0:47 into the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzIJEY0Oj8Q&feature=related

@Jetblast

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.

And yet, the only reason I bothered posting in this thread was that my attention was drawn by your hyperbolic interpretation of Meyer’s account. When I then read his account, I noticed that his actual description did not match his interpretation of events, so I went back an re-examined his words, again.
I find Meyer and you claiming that he could distinguish the actual source of an explosion from a distance of over ten miles and you making wholly unsubstantiated claims that you have a miraculous ability to distinguish sources of reflected light–an ability that you attribute to Meyer with no evidence or testimony.

From ten miles out, Meyer could not have seen Flight 800’s airframe. He and I agree on that point.
From ten miles out, he very easily could have seen sunlight reflected from a large object that would have appeared and then disappeared as the angle of the sun against the plane changed as the plane moved through the sky. This matches his description of suddenly seeing the “shooting star” and then having it disappear.
He perceived the “shooting star” describe an arc–something that would be quite possible as he moved his head inside the cockpit.
He then claims to have seen an “ordnance” explosion that could easily have been the erupting center fuel tank. From ten miles away, unless he was using binoculars, there is no way he could have identified the exact substance of the explosion. I have now provided three videos of fuel-air explosions, demonstrating that they are both short in duration and bright in appearance. Unless you are going to retroactively put binoculars into his testimony, we have no reason to believe your repeated assertion that he could only have correctly identified ordnance from a distance of over ten miles.

Since you are here trying to persuade me of a massive conspiracy, it behooves you to actually provide evidence of what you claim. So far, I have provided evidence and you have whined about people not simply swallowing Meyer’s beliefs. You make upo the arguments you need, not lying about what you believe, but simply choosing to believe things that you need to have happen in order to support your beliefs.
However, to persuade me, you will need to start providing actual evidence of your claims–something I have done while you have refused to do.

[RickJay]

@Jetblast

Then you should have no problem answering a simple question:

Perhaps you could answer some simple questions.

Where is the radar data?

Where is the evidence of missile pieces?

Where is the evidence of someone with knowledge of a conspiracy?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Jetblast

How did blast scar striations occur in the high strength aluminum metal alloy wheel rim of the front nose gear?

Link? For that matter, what the hell is a “blast scar striation”?:dubious: Just so you know, striations on a fracture surface are associated with fatigue failures (multiple cycles of loading). A “blast” would produce failure by tensile overload. The fracture surfaces look entirely different.

So, though I dislike being repetitive, where the hell are you getting that from?

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.

Oh yeah, could you kindly put all the elements of this hypothetical attack together for us? You’ve already told us about a missile explosion near the center fuel tank, now you tell us of a second missile or an “Al Qaeda suicide plane” that hit under the nose. It’s hard to keep track of your theory if you won’t keep it straight yourself.

Anyone with any common sense would realize any “lurker” seeking to debunk my entries would have to debunk ALL of them

No, only enough to make the pieces fall apart. But, if the pieces were never together in the first place, there’s not even any need to debunk them, capisce? You’ve done that yourself, right from the get-go.

Wakinyan, thanks for your informative efforts here. BTW, your English is just fine, better than that of many native speakers.

So now we can add the Flygvapnet to the list of conspirators …

[ElvisL1ves]

@Jetblast

But that’s ridiculous simply because the angle of attack sensor captured a 106 degree reading, so therefore it was able to do so.

:rolleyes: The tape recorded that. Your assumption that the electrical wiring up to the actual vane remained intact and that the equipment on both ends remained properly functional* during an explosion*, and that the reading therefore represented something both real and significant, combined with your peremptory dismissal of entries on that very same tape which are not consistent with your cherished “theory”, is what is truly “ridiculous”. It could be dismissed as simple ignorance, the fighting of which is this site’s very purpose, had it not been already pointed out multiple times.

The purpose of this ‘debate’ is obviously to drive people away from it. I think my case has survived these frivolous doubts fairly intact.

The purpose of this debate, from the POV of all but one participant, has been to try to patiently explore the myriad factual falsehoods and logical fallacies that underlie a popular conspiracy theory. It has succeeded, unfortunately, only in exposing the unshakable zealotry of the CT’s remaining True Believers.

[Magiver]

@Jetblast

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.

Adding to my earlier post, if there was an explosion that blew shrapnel into the wheel rim it would have been captured in the rubber wheel like a pin cushion.

[Rick]

@GIGObuster

Meyer did not see a missile, as the evidence shows. (You refused to cite any physical evidence to show that this was not the case)

Now if only you could point to the evidence that shows what kind of missiles we are dealing with, that could help counteract the conclusion that you are only wasting time on questions that were already answered years ago.

THIRTYTHOUSANDFEET.COM

Excellent link. From that link

@Paul J. Adam

 Forty witnesses said it came from the sea, ten said it came from 
 land.

 146 gave a direction. 77 said it ascended, 11 said it descended, 47
 said it both ascended and descended, 9 said it flew level.

 Direction of travel... total shotgun approach.

 North: 7
 Northeast: 2
 East: 12
 Southeast: 12
 South: 7
 Southwest: 3
 West: 18
 Northwest: 3

 If you average them out... which is akin to saying that immersing one
 hand in molten lead and the other in liquid nitrogen is, on average,
 comfortable...

 The trouble comes when you try to fit a missile to the statements. 

So ah, just where did those missiles come from? East, West, North, South?
Also

@Dr. George O. Bizzigotti

 Here's an interesting example of why some of us with technical backgrounds are skeptical of some of the eyewitness reports. Lisa Perry was quoted in Dan's Papers, Long Island, 15 May 1998, as follows:  "The plane stopped for an instant, as something would when it had suffered an impact, not just an explosion. Then it began to fracture -as if you had slammed a frozen candy bar down onto a table. You could see the spaces in between the parts of the plane. Then a moment later there was another explosion and the plane broke jaggedly in the sky."

 Paul Adam has made this point before, but I would like to go into detail here so that hopefully everyone can appreciate the arguments. I have  seen estimates that put Ms. Perry's position 15.7 nautical miles (18 statute miles) from the crash site; that's 95,400 feet horizontally.  Because she was on the ground, and TWA 800 was at 13,800 feet, she was 96,400 feet from TWA 800. A Boeing 747 is 232 feet long and 64 feet high, so TWA 800 would have appeared in Ms. Perry's field of view as 8.3 arc-minutes high by 2.3 arc-minutes wide.  Now let us digress into the world of bio optics. Our eyes work because photoreceptor cells on our retinas absorb light. we are only capable of telling whether or not a cell absorbs the light, so each cell corresponds to a pixel in an image. The maximum density of the photoreceptors in the human eye is 160,000 per square millimeter. This      translates to a minimum distance between these receptor cells of 2.8 micrometers. One degree of visual angle is equal to 288 micrometers on the retina, so the minimum distance between receptor cells corresponds to 0.6 arc-minutes. Based on this, the image on Ms. Perry's retina likely covered something like 50 cells out of the 100 million receptor cells in her field of vision.

 In addition, the angular resolution of one's eyesight is limited by Rayleigh scattering of light. With a 2 mm pupil diameter and 500 nm light (near the center of the visible spectrum and the wavelength that maximally excites the receptor cells), the minimum angular separation required to resolve two points is 1.1 arc minutes. Thus, the physical  properties of light dictate that even someone with  absolutely perfect eyesight cannot distinguish between objects less than 31 feet apart at 96,400 feet.

 By either argument, being able to distinguish the fine detail implied in Ms. Perry's statement is unbelievable. Have someone slam a frozen six inch candy bar on a table 208 feet away from you, and see if you can "see the spaces in between the parts." How can fifty pixels  in a 10,000 x 10,000 image be anything more than an indistinct blur, with little recognizable detail? Note that there's nothing ideological in this      argument; Bill Clinton has nothing to do with how retinas work or how light is scattered by an aperture. This is simply what a century of science has shown us about how our eyes and the universe work.  Although the overall height at the tail of a 747 may be 63 ft 8 in, the narrower portion of the cabin has a width of only 20 ft; even someone with  perfect eyesight could barely distinguish the top of the fuselage from the bottom at the 15.7 nm horizontal distance.  As a result of this, assuming good faith on the part of Ms. Perry, we are left with only two possibilities:

 (1) Ms. Perry has eyes that are literally superhuman, or

 (2) Ms. Perry has a fallible memory.

Believing option (1) requires us that Rayleigh scattering of light be temporarily suspended for the first and only time in the history of scientific record keeping. Believing option (2) requires us to believe nothing more than that Ms. Perry is human; the tendency of humans to interpolate sincerely believed details that did not actually occur into our memories is fairly well established. Thus, I would cast my vote for option (2), that Ms. Perry has unconsciously embellished her story, perhaps adding some speculative details that she heard on the TV news to her accounts given days later. That being not unusual among eyewitnesses, scientists and engineers tend to place somewhat less credence in accounts that, e.g., saw aircraft windows from over 10 miles away, than in the physical data that is available. This is why we have stated that physical data trumps eyewitness accounts.

So just what level of detail could Meyer see?

[Robot_Arm]

@Jetblast

Then you violate what you wrote in your first paragraph.

You didn’t answer my points.

I don’t have to answer your points. I am making no claim about the evidence, or about what caused Flight 800 to crash. I am asking questions about your claims.

That’s how this is supposed to work. That’s how all science works. Someone makes a provocative statement, and the people who heard it start asking questions. Einstein had to answer skeptics’ questions about relativity. The more questions he answered, the better refined and accepted the theory became. Later, Einstein was on the other side of the process, questioning the validity of quantum mechanics.

Good theories can withstand skeptical questioning. People who want their theories accepted welcome questions, and answer them.

So please start answering some. Someone with radar expertise comes to this thread asking for the radar data. That’s exactly what you should want. If you can show him that the data confirms the claims you’ve been making, it’s a huge win for you. Your reply was

How did blast scar striations occur in the high strength aluminum metal alloy wheel rim of the front nose gear?

That doesn’t answer the question.

[Rick]

@Jetblast

Then you should have no problem answering a simple question:…
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.

I agree you can’t be just a little bit pregnant. So with that in mind let’s look at all of the data that you claim part of is valid.
Now with the thought in mind that one of two conditions must exist here. Either your girlfriend is pregnant (all the data is true and from Flight 800)
Or
Your girlfriend isn’t pregnant (none of the data is worth a damn.
As you yourself pointed out, you can’t be just a little bit pregnant.
So let’s look at the record shall we?
Altitude
20:31:11 13,772
20:31:12 10,177
Where did the 3600 feet go?

Airspeed
20:31:11 290
20:31:12 100
Where did the 190 knots of airspeed go? Same place as the 3600 feet did I guess.

Pitch
20:31:11 3.6
20:31:12 0.3
I am going to need a cite from a heavy iron pilot that you could pitch a 747 3.3 degrees in 1/4 of a second

Elevator position
20:31:11 0.2
20:31:12 11.2
See my comments above about pitch. Same question about movement of the elevator.

Heading
20:31:11 82
20:31:12 168
So not only did this plane lose 3600 feet in altitude, 190 knots in airspeed, it also turned almost 90 degrees all in 1/4 of a second. Wow, I think the Air Force should buy some of these for dog fighting. This is one hell of a maneuverable bird.

Roll Angle
20:31:11 0
20:31:12 144
So this bird besides being 3600 feet down, 190 knots slower, turned 90 degrees, it was also almost on its back. The pilot did a wing over I guess.

Angle of attack
20:31:11 3
20:31:12 106
And on top of all of those maneuvers it was pointing just over straight up.

Engines
Eng 1
20:31:11 1.30
20:31:12 1.14
Eng 2
20:31:11 1.29
20:31:12 2.46
Eng 3
20:31:11 1.29
20:31:12 2.36
Eng 4
20:31:11 1.29
20:31:12 2.44
Now upthread you made the case against a zoom climb by claiming that the engine return to idle when things go to shit. This data argues that instead of that, the output almost doubled. So which is it?

Long accl.
20:31:11 0.1
20:31:12 0.1
All of those crazy maneuvers and no change in longitudinal acceleration?

Vertical Accl.
20:31:11 0.90
20:31:12 0.89
All of those crazy maneuvers and the vertical accl slightly decreased?

You did learn somewhere along the line that energy can neither be created or destroyed, right?
So where did all the energy go in that 1/4 second? 3600 feet in altitude, 190 knots of airspeed. Also how could you do this with no change in G loads?

The doctor’s office called. The rabbit did not die. In fact the rabbit just left for vacation. Your girlfriend is not pregnant. Hell she wasn’t even 5 minutes late for her period.
The data is garbage.

[Lord_Mondegreen]

@Jetblast

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.

This is just ridiculous. Are you familiar with the concept of expert witnesses? Let’s say there has been a shooting murder and the case goes to court. Do you think it is not good enough for a surgeon to give evidence about the physical damage to the victim and a firearms expert to give evidence about the weapon? Would it only be valid if you could find a surgeon who also happens to be a firearms expert?

Wakinyan clearly knows a lot about aircraft radar. You should be welcoming his involvement. If you are right, then give him the data and he will confirm your claims. This is your big chance to get some credible support and have a bunch of people say, “Hey, we were wrong. Maybe there’s something to this after all. Let’s look at the other issues and see whether we were wrong about those as well.”

Every time I see the thread title on the front page “Anybody up for a TWA 800 discussion?” a voice in my head says, “Apparently not” - at least not an honest and logical one. Which is a shame, because the investigation was truly amazing.

[dropzone]

@Lord_Mondegreen

If you are right, then give him the data and he will confirm your claims.

We have been waiting for the data for days. I can only hope Jetblast has no data and is [del]talking out of his ass[/del] quoting other CTers, who also have only spoken of evidence they cannot produce. The border between being a True Believer and a liar is fuzzy.

[ElvisL1ves]

This thread wouldn’t be complete without this.

[Rick]

@RickJay

Perhaps you could answer some simple questions.

Where is the radar data?

Where is the evidence of missile pieces?

Where is the evidence of someone with knowledge of a conspiracy?

Still waiting…

[CannyDan]

@ElvisL1ves

This thread wouldn’t be complete without this.

Wait! I see a missile! I’m SURE I can see a missile!!

[CannyDan]

Ooo, oooo!

AND a Beechcraft!!

And some Arabs…

[CannyDan]

Ah, rum and diet soda, twist of Key lime. Why do you ask?

[Jetblast]

@Magiver

I couldn’t find the words “blast scar striations” in the NTSB report so I’m not sure what document you’re referring too. What I do know is that the plane exploded and the front of it was violent torn off. I suspect at least 50,000 lbs of metal smashed into the water at over 100 mph. Having seen pictures of high speed car accidents I would imagine that a great deal of striated damage occured upon impact.

    No, you won't find any real missile evidence in the NTSB report. So referring to it is moot.

    There's an important forensic point I discovered on my own. If you view the wreckage the starboard side plugged windows on the upper deck are all punched out by the impact. The port side ones were not. This tells you Flight 800 landed on its starboard side. The 747 came with the 3 window upper deck lounge option or 9 window seat revenue option. Both frames had 9 windows and the 3 window version had the other 6 plugged. This has created a minor conspiracy issue over the planes being different because people saw photos of the aircraft with 3 upper deck windows and the wreckage with 9. Anyhow, since Flight 800 landed on its right side it becomes difficult to get high strength metal alloy to show such damage from a water crash. And I believe the direction of the marks was not conducive to this forensically-indicated impact damage. The marks were different from the impact damage.

        By the way, no one has attempted to answer the St Louis bomb test timing problem. You won't find that in NTSB either...

[ElvisL1ves]

Yes, if your evidence is imaginary, you can draw any conclusions you like.

Do you have anything at all to provide us that’s worth more than a pat on the head in response?

[Jetblast]

@Magiver

Adding to my earlier post, if there was an explosion that blew shrapnel into the wheel rim it would have been captured in the rubber wheel like a pin cushion.

             I would counter that science could determine what impact damage was capable of creating in terms of the wheel rim alloys and their strength? The front gear assemblies are made of tough titanium/aluminum alloys because the gear takes all the weight on touch-down. We could scientifically investigate what possible damage the weaker metals of the nose gear well and doors were capable of making on this harder metal? 

    There actually was shrapnel found by the investigation. The Long Island coroner found metal bits inside many of the victims that tested as metals not used in the manufacture of a Boeing 747. Therefore they had to come from something else. When they were tested by FBI, the metals were shown to be the same metals used in US warhead shrapnel pellets. Although the Long Island coroner had jurisdiction, FBI seized all samples of these metal bits. An MIT professor Graeme Sephton (another conspiracy 'bug', I suppose, according to our official story backers) sued FBI for their 30 page document on these bits. FBI said it searched for the documents and only found the cover sheet. A federal judge in Boston then said, although he thought FBI acted poorly, he was finding in their favor against Sephton (bye bye Constitution). The pellets themselves were supposed to be returned, by law, to the Long Island coroner. 
         This classic behavioral pattern of conspiracy has no affect on official story backers.