Then how do you know about it? Your M.O. here is to assert something as fact, then when asked for cites, change the subject to something completely different.
For example, you very next sentence…
Yet again changing the subject. I hope someone here is keeping a list of all the assertions you’ve made and our requests for you to back them up.
We could take a helicopter and 747 and go to Meyer's position on a similar day and see what Meyer saw. This argument is besides the point. What is most important is Meyer seeing an ordnance flash and recognizing it as such and his timing of the "fell like a stone" comment in relation to it. Meyer does two things: He shows a missile blast and he disproves the "Zoom-Climb" - which is why NTSB disincluded a top credibility witness from the case. Sunlight arguments are strawmen.
Your argument once again crashes and burns under its own inherent flaws. Any expert will tell you no fuel blast is capable of making a high explosives ordnance flash. Anyone with any common sense would realize if it was NTSB would have claimed it as the source of what Meyer saw. Instead they crudely excluded him. But, even worse, your own CIA video shows a slow eruption of orangey-colored fuel. So you might want to send your criticisms along to them since they also seem to have failed to live up to your demands. These arguments are silly mainly because Meyer said he saw several bursts of bright intensity. Any fuel burst that defied science and created bright white light would have to have expended its energy in the first burst.
And we'll just ignore the missile streak Meyer witnessed before it happened because "Meyer was turning his head when he saw it". Ah ha.
No serious person would ever claim Meyer thought he saw a "shooting star" because he was turning his head causing an optical illusion. I'd love to see you say that in front of Meyer and video his response. We would quickly see who had credibility and who didn't. Meyer would quickly establish that he saw the streaking object in clear view.
Your interpretation obviously changes what Meyer said. His statement makes clear the "shooting-star" and ordnance explosions were clearly in separate places. But, once again, we could simply go to Meyer and ask him if he was turning his head? Or if he saw sun glinting?
I'll leave it up to others to decide if Meyer has more credibility describing what he himself, who was there, saw or if 'tomndebb' has a better description of telling Meyer what he saw?Or you could answer these questions:
Where is the radar data?
Where is the evidence of missile pieces?
Where is the evidence of someone with knowledge of a conspiracy?
OK, as one of the “others” I’ll say:
[ul]
[li]credibility of Meyers’ original account, transcript of 1997 – reasonably high[/li][li]credibility of tomndebb, whose interpretation draws on Meyers’ observations but not **Jetblast’s **conclusions – quite high[/li][li]credibility of Meyers himself, in his revised and re-created “affidavit” of 6 years later – the pits[/li][/ul]
As even **Jetblast **now admits, “No, you won’t find any real missile evidence in the NTSB report. So referring to it is moot.”
Guess there won’t be any missile evidence, any radar evidence, or any non-loon testimony of a conspiracy. We ask – and we wait – in vain.
Can we add “shrapnel evidence” to the list too? Thanks, people.
That nosewheel stuff is babble. No need there.
Actually, there is much missile evidence in the report, (have you read it? If you havent, you should. Its full of all kinds of evidence, tests, and referenced sources and things.) Unfortunately it all points to there being no missile.
98% of the skin of the aircraft was recovered. Yet,
from the ntsb report TWA Flight 800 Missile Impact Analysis
And just so I can follow along, have you given up on that last line of data from the FDR?
Hey 'RedSwingLine', I thank you for this. It's the first post containing a real argument in a long time.
I read the entire pdf and will read it again. I wasn't aware of it because, honestly, I haven't looked too deeply into the official report simply because it is a cover-up and I get easily disgusted making an effort over false official information.
The data is highly technical and some of it is above my ability. However I'm sure someone with the ability could look at it from the other side.
The first point I would make in answering this is any court, if it was trying this honestly, would throw out all the official investigation material that was in its hands and could be manipulated simply on the things they have already been caught doing, like tampering with or removing evidence. In the case of the black boxes they were unexplainably not located for several weeks even though they were right under the search vessel. This alone, combined with the numerous other examples of fraudulent investigation, would automatically exclude any such evidence until it was proven that it *wasn't* tampered with.
With what my brain can understand here I question why the official explanation didn't go over Donladson's actual data lines themselves. Why they didn't detail the specific data lines he refers to and their functions but instead discounted them by means of showing where the tape was at the time and how it was recorded. If this was an honest explanation I would need those individual lines interpreted and shown why they didn't match what Donaldson claimed and why? This is difficult because Donaldson died of brain cancer right before 9-11. I would need Donaldson to reply and defend his data or someone who he would have chosen to defend it. I need to see that first.
Please note that the official explanation makes a claim about the specific bits themselves being corrupted but doesn't put them into perspective to Donaldson's argument nor does it relate them to the previous Flight 803.
In short, knowing they have already faked evidence there are just too many ways from them to record what looks like an original and substitute it. In fact, I directly accuse them of doing that during the mystery time when they just couldn't find the black boxes in 200 feet of water. I would have to have it proven to me that this wasn't done before I would accept anything from cover-up sources.
Oh jumping Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.
If they went to the trouble to grab the black box, erase the data, and sub in new, then why oh why would they leave that one data block for Donaldson to find?
:rolleyes:
You yourself said that you can’t be just a little bit pregnant.
So using your own standard, either all that data is garbage or it is all gold.
If it is all gold where did the 3600 feet and 190 knots of airspeed go?
If anyone cares, here is the definition of jet blast. It is the exhaust of a jet engine which as we all know is nothing but hot air.
“Couldn’t find the black boxes”? Couldn’t find the black boxes???
Have you ever been under 200 feet of Atlantic ocean, in the mud and the gloom, wearing full suit, breathing canned mix, and searching for something about the size of a child’s lunch box?
And yet you, indubitable expert that you are, speaking *ex cathedra *from your own nether regions, have the nerve to demand that someone prove to you that the black boxes couldn’t have been found sooner!!!
‘OK, everybody-- I’m just gonna toss out ALL the evidence, because you can’t prove to my satisfaction that it wasn’t tampered with. No, I have nothing but the most specious cause to claim that. So what? I don’t gotta believe anything I don’t wanna believe.’
‘So now that we’re starting with this level playing field of no evidence at all, feel free to convince me, using any OTHER evidence, that this wasn’t a missile hit. Dare you!’
This thread has lost all possible meaning.
I'm sure. And the pattern of eyewitnesses all seeing missile behavior and being totally excluded from the investigation also points to no missiles (of course). We'll just ignore that Sanders found rocket propellant residue and FBI confiscated and destroyed all the samples while calling it seat glue - a claim rejected by the scientist they claimed made the test. And the media isn't interested in that scandalous story because it comes from a NASA scientist who has now caught a weird conspiracy bug, identified by official story backers, which affected pilots, military, Phd's, police, aviation science grads, credible investigators etc?
This, of course, has no affect on official story backers...
By the way, what were the FBI agents, recorded by the Long Island police, removing that night from the hangar and why? Isn't that against the law?Thanks for taking the time to read it.
I’m no expert either but it does. The last full block of data was 20:31:11. The power failed at this point. The data which read as 20:31:12 was a partially erased data block on the other side of the erase gap. This was data from twa803 that was about to be erased. Because the data was partially erased, one of the the ‘sync’ words which are needed for the software to process the binary data was not there.
For all we know, if they were removing anything, it could easily have been an agent’s porn collection, secreted away for off-time enjoyment in the hanger but now requested by a friend with a special passion for Miss December 1995.
What leads you to conclude that this incident, if it happened at all, had anything to do with concealing evidence?
Your “any expert” doesn’t exist and Meyer was used to seeing napalm and maybe full fuel tanks catch fire. He apparently never saw a true fuel/air explosive detonate, which is much more like the explosion of high explosives, both technically and visually, than a car gas tank blowing up on TV. I refer you back to tomndebb’s earlier post and especially to his second link.
So just which direction did that missile come from?
One if by land two if by sea.
So unless about 20 missiles were fired at the plane some if not all of these witness have to be wrong. You pick.
Maybe they were removing the thousands of tiny high velocity impact holes that would have been evidence of a missile explosion.
:dubious:
The area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. 
And the Al Qaeda suicide plane. I’d really like to find out more about that one.
What makes you think there was just one?
I’d point out we’re still waiting for the radar data, so on and so forth, etc.
This is completely untrue. Not only were the eyewitness stories not excluded from the investigation, there are thousands of pages in the ntsb report. Thousands of pages going on and on in mind numbing detail about flashes and streaks and flares and upside down ice cream cones. I don’t think any two people saw the same thing.
There is also tons of analysis of the witnesses, including their positions and viewing angles.
You seem to be trying to make things sound more sinister than they are.
I think he’s referring to the hearings in which they were left out.
Add the Beatles to the conspiracy.