So, you are admitting that you did not even look at my links and you are just hoping to bluff your way through?
Find any “expert” who actually says that a fuel-air explosion cannot possibly look like high explosives at a distance of ten miles.
Then note that I have not shown any “CIA video.” None. I showed three fuel-air explosions, all of which have the classic white/pale green color of high explosives and none of which display any orange. Why are you making claims that I can refute simply by reposting my links and everyone can see are wrong by noting that i have provided no links to the CIA?
Maybe the CIA has a thing for Katrina & The Waves?
I just watched all three of those links and in all fairness, the first and third are pretty dang orange.
However:
The first is fast - bang and it’s gone. If you aren’t staring at it and paying attention all you’d see is a blast and then it’s done.
The third one isn’t a proper F-A explosion - it’s a bag of gasoline with a little explosive charge, resulting in a great big orange fireball rolling up into the sky, the same pretty effect that they get in movies with a charge of gasoline-soaked sawdust. That’s certainly not the mechanism of a F-A munition, nor an anti-aircraft missile, nor a big fuel tank pressurized with avgas vapors. It’s what I would have done as a bored teenager if the backyard was bigger.
I think a nice demonstration of the effect is this video of a 15,000 pound F-A bomb dropped from a C-130. It detonates at about 11 seconds into the clip. If you blink you’ll miss the explosion, there’s no ball of fire or anything, just a bang and then a cloud of dust stirred up from the desert. I don’t know how far the camera is from ground zero but certainly a few miles. The idea that someone could tell at a quick glance, without knowing what was coming in advance, the exact nature of that sort of thing from 10 miles away does not pass my sniff test.
One of us has a monitor that needs adjustment. I have just re-watched the first video three times without seeing any color that could be deemed orange.
On the third one, I will grant that an orange flame rises after the explosion, although the explosion, itself, is not orange. OTOH, as you note, the third is not a classic fuel-air explosion, anyway.
The problem is the official investigation has already been caught violating its own rules and even the law. If the tables were turned and I was on the defensive those same government people wouldn't hesitate to legally throw out all information from my side. In fact, they would probably put me in jail for doing what they themselves did. And there, I think, is the importance of Flight 800.
I'm directly accusing them of doctoring the data on the recorder simply on the basis of the unexplainable time it took them to find the boxes in shallow water right under the search vessel. If they aren't doctored I would need that proven to me at this point.
But the recorder data issue obviously comes down to someone explaining how and why, exactly, Donaldson was able to interpret cockpit sensor device indications from the data NTSB describes. In other words, if the data was in the corrupted state NTSB says it was how did Donaldson interpret it the way he did? Since we assume Donaldson saw the same tape NTSB is referring to we have to understand, from a non-government side, why Donaldson interpreted it that way? Like in terms of the erase gap and preamble assignation etc.
I'm not sold on that explanation and would need a comparison to further-on Flight 803 data to see how it lined up. The NTSB explanation doesn't do this.
Because he is a fucking idiot who has no idea what he is talking about.
Asked and answered, he has no clue (like most if not all of the CTers) about what the hell they are talking about.
It doesn’t matter how the data lines up, with the missing snyc bit the info becomes garbage.
As you yourself have claimed you can’t be just a bit pregnant, so either all that data is good, or it is all shit.
since the airplane could not have lost 3600 feet, turned almost 90 degrees, rolled over and slowed down 190 knots in 1/4 second I think anyone that has more than 3 functioning brain cells would agree the data is shit.
In a normal investigation that isn't designed to rip-down the witnesses you would find that even with the geographically-challenged state of Americans these reports would fairly align with the various angles and directions the scattered witnesses saw the missiles from. The intention is obviously to discredit the witnesses rather than interpret what they saw.
I would hold the witness who testified they saw a reddish/pink aura or halo around the white hot exhaust plume as one of the most important missile witnesses. I'm sure some of our Navy guys familiar with missile launches could chime in on this phenomenon. I think I remember seeing it myself in videos of deck launches. And we could have an expert explain the spectral or rainbow effect chemical reaction responsible for it.
Nice cherry picking of the quote there slick. How about the part you left out
So are these “geographically-challenged” Americans also unable to tell the difference between land and sea not to mention up from down?
Now if you had a batch of witness that said it came from the south, or southwest, or southeast and all agreed it came from the sea, I could give some credence to their testimony.
But they are claiming missiles from all directions, altitudes, and both land and sea launched.
There's some question over whether the center tank explosion was a 'deflagration' or 'detonation'. However I believe 'Magiver' answered this further back saying it couldn't be the fuel/air explosion you refer to because of the scientific conditions in the tank not providing enough oxygen. His point wasn't answered.
And, yes, if we sought them out we could find experts to explain the flash brightness potential of a deflagration fuel tank explosion.
Besides, you're ignoring my point that if a compressed, concentrated explosion caused flashbulb brightness it would have to be concentrated into one single burst. Meyer specifically noted several small bursts.
You mean like the pellets they found in the bodies with the Long Island coroner?
Why is it that the strongest evidence comes in cases where the medium was outside of FBI's possession and control, like the bodies?
And FBI honestly lost all its records on these bits?
There actually were some 3/4 to 1 inch impact holes in some parts of the leading wing edge that were witnessed. If there was a suicide aircraft, would it 'shadow' some of the aircraft from missile shrapnel?
Is there anything you believe you know and understand *without *having to hope for some “technical expert” to look into it first? Has it not occurred to you that a massive number of “technical experts” have already looked into the crash, and that what they have had to say is a matter of public record?
Oh yes, everything they’ve found that doesn’t point to a missile (or two, and a plane - is that it?) fired by the Navy, or maybe Al Qaeda, must have been falsified. You know The Truth no matter what those “technical experts” say.
Oh, well, this is the forum for witnessing, after all. Witnessing isn’t limited to religion or politics.
Are you *ever *going to provide a cite or a link of some kind about that? Ever?
Like with Meyer, every single witness was excluded from the official hearing, and even the investigation itself, in its interpretation of what they saw without any chance of challenge from the witnesses, many of whom protested that the investigation did not accurately represent what they said.
This is the only investigation in US history where the witnesses took out a full page advertisement protesting they were being ignored and not having their information represented accurately.
Once again crashing against context.
The official investigators said they couldn't locate the black boxes for several weeks.
Locals out with fishing sonar and other equipment said they heard the 'pings' during this time.
After several weeks suddenly the official investigation announced they had found them and they were right under the search vessel the whole time.
There are cases of other crashes in much deeper waters where the boxes were found within a day or two.
Nobody denies that there was metal in some of the bodies. This is common in a plane crash.
What evidence? You claim that the coroner analyzed the metal and said they did not come from a plane. (cite?) What does he know about planes? According to the report, the bodies were sent to different coroners, mainly for identification. Any metal in the bodies were turned over immediately. The coroners did not idividually send metal out for analysis.
Nobody denies there were holes in the plane. The ntsb analyzed the holes and found that none were ‘high velocity impact holes’, like one would find in the case of a missile explosion.
There is a lot of good stuff in the ntsb report. You should read it.
So the sharpnel hits the suicide plane, but twa800 crashes?
Well duh, if the fisherman could hear it then the Feds could hear it. That’s why they parked their boat over the sound. Do you think it was sitting there like bowling ball in the desert waiting to be picked up? It’s in a debri field of twisted metal in 200 feet of water. You have visibility, current, and decompression to deal with.
Have you ever tried to find a nail you dropped in grass even after you saw where it dropped?
No. This isn't valid.
Some fuel explosions might make what could be described as a white flash, but we are talking a brilliant flashbulb flash of high intensity because of both the high explosive chemicals involved and the 2000 foot per second speed of the explosion itself. You can see some of the linked explosions end in a more orangey color at the end. An ordnance blast doesn't because of its high speed characteristics. I believe this is what Meyer was referring to.
And you completely ignore my point that if CIA thought Meyer saw a brilliant fuel flash they would have depicted it that way in their video. Instead they depict a slow rumbling eruption of orangey flames from the bottom of the aircraft. So you argue against your own official investigation sources. It doesn't matter if you showed it or not. At best you are proving CIA offered inaccurate information - whether intentionally or not.
I've already mentioned that you recklessly ignored the type of explosion and lack of enough oxygen in the tank to cause the fuel air explosions you reference.
As far as bluffing, we'll see who puts better "sunlight" on the evidence.
A study of the actual material would show that those who confused it with a land launch only reinforce the point that they weren't seeing a nose-less 747 zoom-climbing at 20 degrees off the horizon. This was a matter of perspective from where they saw the streaking glowing object.
Any real analysis of the missile witnesses would show the official zoom-climb explanation to be impossible. - Which is why they were excluded and had to take out a full page ad in protest.
The CIA video was not evidence. It’s existence has nothing to do with the investigation.
Now you may ask WHY the CIA, which has nothing to do with media interpretation of NTSB evidence, made a video in the first place. To me, it would be like NASA producing a video on behalf of the IRS. The NTSB routinely produces visual media of major accidents for public dissemination.
