Anybody up for a TWA 800 discussion?

[Musicat]

@Jetblast

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.

I can imagine how the planning session went before the “accident”:

"Now since the black boxes may have incriminating data, after the plane goes down, we’ll have to send out divers – if it lands in the water – to recover the boxes. And they’ll have to do it without being seen by any official rescuers. Then we’ll have to take them to a secret lab that has tools that can sureptitiously open them, modify the data, and seal them back up with no traces. Then we’ll take them back to the site, drop them close to the wreckage without being seen while the many rescuers are working.

“Oh, yes, then we’ll have to kill all those who participated in our little scheme to prevent the acts from leaking. Then we’ll have to kill their families so no one asks questions about where they’ve been or what they’re doing. Then we’ll blow up the lab. Then we’ll have to doctor all birth & death records and employment pay stubs to ‘disappear’ all the people we blew up and killed. Then…”

Ya, that’ll work. If only Jetblast had kept his mouth shut. :rolleyes:

[Rick]

It was the US Government, the Trilateral Commission, the Stone Cutters, and the Illuminati, that planned it, right?
fnord

[Ale]

@Rick

It was the US Government, the Trilateral Commission, the Stone Cutters, and the Illuminati, that planned it, right?
fnord

That’s what [shifty eyes]they[/shifty eyes] want you to believe!

[ElvisL1ves]

@Musicat

Then we’ll have to take them to a secret lab that has tools that can sureptitiously open them, modify the data

Their nefarious plot might have worked, too, if they hadn’t done such a lousy job with that part.

[Jetblast]

@CannyDan

So…
The shrapnel, we now see, was made mostly of aluminum, a bit of titanium, and some other metals, exactly the general composition of an airframe but of course this was merely part of the disguise!

        Once again attempting to flagrantly mischaracterize the evidence. Your entry is dismissible in one sentence simply because the pellets were scientifically recognized to be one single self-contained, separable material in which those substances were isolated. The same materials are self-contained in exactly the same proportions in missile incendiary shrapnel.

   
             It doesn't take a genius to figure out if those pellets were recognizable as airframe materials FBI wouldn't be embarrassing itself with such blatant withholding of evidence. The pellets were so obviously warhead shrapnel that FBI was forced to lose the documents showing it. 

        Plus, the blast wasn't strong enough to fragment the airframe into bits (by your own words when you point to lack of missile evidence).

[Jetblast]

@CurtC

I see now why you avoid posting specifics so assiduously - every time you post something specific, it’s wrong!

         Now try re-entering it in correct context. (No, we don't see you trying to maximize semantics in order to evade the obvious).

       If the Dominican search team "located" the boxes instead of "recovered" them it doesn't make any difference, nor does your answer attempt to address the obvious point. I was doing this by memory and mistook 'located' for 'recovered'. However, for those not trying to overturn a huge body of missile evidence on the weakest semantic point it makes no difference since NTSB said they couldn't locate the boxes even though they were in 130 feet of water and, according to them, right under the search vessel. I'm 100% sure if we went and analyzed the fishing sonar (or whatever device detected it) that heard the beeps while NTSB said it couldn't find the boxes we would find the equipment well capable of hearing the beeps. This is just another disingenuous tactic to avoid the obvious.

          I think most people see people trying to seize on the weakest points while ignoring the main point. People aren't dumb. They see cheap devices when they happen. Nowhere does any official story backer try to explain why boxes that were found on open sea floor bottom were not recovered right away? Especially with a criminal cause being suspected.

[Jetblast]

@Ale

Do you have any idea, at all, how difficult it is to find something sunk in the sea? Do you?

    These anecdotal entries are just silly in their overt ignoring of commonly-known locator technology and why the beepers are there in the first place.

      These people suggest that "locator beacons" are something that have to be found by feeling around in the dark.

[Jetblast]

@Magiver

They were found in wreckage 200 feet below the surface. But you’re right, they were located as if they had been dropped in place… from 13,000 feet.

          Hardly an answer to what I wrote.
        If we go back and honestly recognize context we would see that the investigation said it couldn't locate the boxes. Since the boxes were right under the search vessel and the pingers were working (as heard by locals in nearby boats) we know something is wrong here. Especially since government offers no explanation for this.

       When the boxes were found after 2 weeks they were video-ed being found on open sea floor bottom at only 130 feet.  

  This points more towards manipulation than honest accounting (as does your answer). In this case there's enough question to challenge the contents of the recorder. 

         I can understand being unable to give a valid answer.

[Jetblast]

@Musicat

Then we’ll have to take them to a secret lab that has tools that can sureptitiously open them, modify the data, and seal them back up with no traces. :

          This is ignorance because it doesn't recognize that the boxes are designed to be opened.

           It also evades the unanswered question of why they took so long to 'locate' them?

[dropzone]

Jetblast, whom do you believe shot down Flight 800?

[Jetblast]

@RedSwinglineOne

cite?

The accident was 7-17. The FDR was recovered 7-24.

Thats 7 days.

If you are going to pull stuff out your arse, make sure its not part of the public record.

    I was doing this by memory from other sites and thought I saw "2 weeks".

  If it is 7 days thanks for correcting that. It, of course, doesn't do a thing to answer my point or make any difference - but thanks anyway.
         Oh, and as far as "pulling stuff out of your arse" I'm trying to find an answer to the St Louis bomb test but can't seem to find one so far...

[CannyDan]

@Jetblast

Once again attempting to flagrantly mischaracterize the evidence. Your entry is dismissible in one sentence simply because the pellets were scientifically recognized to be one single self-contained, separable material in which those substances were isolated. The same materials are self-contained in exactly the same proportions in missile incendiary shrapnel.

This paragraph is total blithering nonsense. You need to get yourself a dictionary. Remember, this “pellets” drivel is from your own quote, which you offered without a link to the original. Was it more Cashill garbage? Please, please read the second sentence again to see just how amazingly, robustly, overwhelmingly confused it is. Also note that the word incendiary refers to something that can burn or set fire, or containing something that can burn or set fire. So you might have an ‘incendiary missile’ perhaps. And shrapnel refers to hard, sharp material, often metal, hurled at high velocity by an explosion and having mechanical effect on objects it encounters. So parts of an exploding missile would be expected to become shrapnel. But there just isn’t ‘incendiary shrapnel’!! Certainly not as pellets recovered from a human corpse.

@Jetblast

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out if those pellets were recognizable as airframe materials FBI wouldn’t be embarrassing itself with such blatant withholding of evidence. The pellets were so obviously warhead shrapnel that FBI was forced to lose the documents showing it.

Now they’re warhead shrapnel are they? Found in a corpse that was INSIDE an aircraft when the warhead exploded OUTSIDE. And they got into this poor person wia wormhole? Without crossing the intervening space? Without contacting the actual airplane? Because remember, there is zero evidence of shrapnel damage to the airplane itself. But this explosion, not powerful enough to puncture the aircraft with whizzing bits of metal, was still able to bring it down. Somehow.

(See, I told you about those tractor beams before, but you weren’t listening!)

Your quote again identifies these as pellets of some analysis of certain metals. The report notes that they are of “undetermined origin”. This does not mean they came from fairy land, or from a missile, or anyplace else. It certainly does not mean that they did not come from the aircraft. It simply means that the person or lab who performed the metallic analysis did not determine exactly what piece or segment of the aircraft they were originally a part. Maybe nobody asked!

@Jetblast

      Plus, the blast wasn't strong enough to fragment the airframe into bits (by your own words when you point to lack of missile evidence).

What?!!? **WHAT?!!?!?!?! **WHAT!!?!?!?!?!?

SOMETHING brought the airplane down. It’s just that neither you nor anybody else has produced the slightest actual evidence that it was a missile. (Let alone three of them!!)

[Rick]

@Jetblast

Now try re-entering it in correct context. (No, we don’t see you trying to maximize semantics in order to evade the obvious).

       If the Dominican search team "located" the boxes instead of "recovered" them it doesn't make any difference, nor does your answer attempt to address the obvious point. I was doing this by memory and mistook 'located' for 'recovered'. However, for those not trying to overturn a huge body of missile evidence on the weakest semantic point it makes no difference since NTSB said they couldn't locate the boxes even though they were in 130 feet of water and, according to them, right under the search vessel. I'm 100% sure if we went and analyzed the fishing sonar (or whatever device detected it) that heard the beeps while NTSB said it couldn't find the boxes we would find the equipment well capable of hearing the beeps. This is just another disingenuous tactic to avoid the obvious.

          I think most people see people trying to seize on the weakest points while ignoring the main point. People aren't dumb. They see cheap devices when they happen. Nowhere does any official story backer try to explain why boxes that were found on open sea floor bottom were not recovered right away? Especially with a criminal cause being suspected.

Oh bullshit. You constantly misrepresent the facts on damn near everything you have posted about this accident. You continue to misrepresent the facts until one of us finds the facts and calls you on your bullshit. ( In your defense I think you have gotten the airline name, flight number right, but that is close to all)
For example (and this is by no means a comprehensive list)
Mach 4 debris
How long it took to locate the boxes.
How long it took to recover the black boxes from that other flight (72hours vs 3 weeks)
How a fuel explosion looks so different from a high explosive detonation.
Etc, etc, etc.
I’m at work so I don’t have time to go back to your first post and make a complete list of.
Now the latest bit of drivel out of your keyboard is

Once again attempting to flagrantly mischaracterize the evidence. Your entry is dismissible in one sentence simply because the pellets were scientifically recognized to be one single self-contained, separable material in which those substances were isolated. The same materials are self-contained in exactly the same proportions in missile incendiary shrapnel.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out if those pellets were recognizable as airframe materials FBI wouldn’t be embarrassing itself with such blatant withholding of evidence. The pellets were so obviously warhead shrapnel that FBI was forced to lose the documents showing it.

Plus, the blast wasn’t strong enough to fragment the airframe into bits (by your own words when you point to lack of missile evidence).

I call bullshit until you come up with the coroner’s report. Not some nutter website that knows the trooth, but the actual piece of paper.
While you at it:
Radar data
Pieces of the missile
Somebody that was in on the conspiracy.
We are waiting.

[RedSwinglineOne]

@Jetblast

I was doing this by memory from other sites and thought I saw “2 weeks”.

That’s funny, because you said ‘several weeks’.

@Jetblast

After several weeks suddenly the official investigation announced they had found them and they were right under the search vessel the whole time.

bolding mine

@Jetblast

If it is 7 days thanks for correcting that. It, of course, doesn’t do a thing to answer my point or make any difference - but thanks anyway.

It makes every bit of difference. You are claiming that the FDR was recovered, doctored, and dropped back in the water. Your only proof is that it took several weeks to recover. It didn’t. It took 7 days. You emphasize that point by mentioning flight 301, saying it was recovered in 7 hours. It wasn’t. It took 3 weeks.

If the Dominican search team “located” the boxes instead of “recovered” them it doesn’t make any difference, nor does your answer attempt to address the obvious point. I was doing this by memory and mistook ‘located’ for ‘recovered’.

Wrong agian. The crash was Feb 6. The signals were located Feb 15. They were recovered Feb. 28.

[Rick]

If the Dominican search team “located” the boxes instead of “recovered” them it doesn’t make any difference, nor does your answer attempt to address the obvious point. I was doing this by memory and mistook ‘located’ for ‘recovered’.

Wrong agian. The crash was Feb 6. The signals were located Feb 15. They were recovered Feb. 28.

Maybe we should remind our guest that when you find yourself at the bottom of a very deep hole the best thing you can do is to stop digging.

[CannyDan]

@Jetblast

<snip> I’m 100% sure if we went and analyzed the fishing sonar (or whatever device detected it) that heard the beeps while NTSB said it couldn’t find the boxes we would find the equipment well capable of hearing the beeps. This is just another disingenuous tactic to avoid the obvious.<snip>

OK, now you’ve gone completely into the world of make believe. You really don’t know a damn thing about sonar, echo location, or locator beacons, do you?

No fishing boats were allowed in the recovery area. Fishing boats use nets, and nets get entangled in aircraft debris, and that isn’t good for the recovery of the debris or for the nets and the fishermen. Fishing sonar sends pulses of sound (outside the range of human hearing) and analyses the return time of reflections of that sound. It does NOT listen to “beeps” or “pings” in the audible spectrum. No “fishing sonar” and no fisherman would or could have heard locator beacons from the black boxes.

This fairy tale, like everything else you’ve brought to the table, is complete and total crap without the slightest relationship to reality. If you are indeed truly “100% sure” about it, then you are the problem, not the solution.

And what, pray tell, is the point anyway? What if the boxes were in fact adulterated, anywhere along the timeline you propose? Were they altered by complete morons who weren’t let into the rest of the conspiracy? Cause, you know, if I was gonna alter the record of the end of Flight 800, I would hardly have made such a botch of it. I’d have ended it cleanly, like a <snip>. Or I’d have trashed the whole thing, beginning to end. Or I’d have created a continued flight for ten minutes after the plane actually crashed. Or something concrete, like the tail section falling off, or the copilot killing the pilot, or whatever.

I hardly think I’d have gone to all that trouble, just to implant details that are subject to, shall we say, some interpretation.

Your whole thesis is a similar jumble of self contradictory nonsense that fails to even explain itself. You should probably quit selling, because nobody is buying.

[dropzone]

@CannyDan

But there just isn’t ‘incendiary shrapnel’!!

Well, not since about WWII. In WWI it was real useful to take down hydrogen-filled Zeppelins. It was tried by the Germans in WWII to bring down bombers loaded up with Hi-Test, but lost favor later, I suppose, because jet fuel doesn’t light up as easily as av-gas. Not that Jet-A won’t burn–it would be useless as a fuel if it did not–but hydrogen and av-gas REALLY like to burn.

[Rick]

@CannyDan

Fishing sonar sends pulses of sound (outside the range of human hearing) and analyses the return time of reflections of that sound. It does NOT listen to “beeps” or “pings” in the audible spectrum. No “fishing sonar” and no fisherman would or could have heard locator beacons from the black boxes.

But, but when I watched Run Silent Run Deep and The Hunt for Red October you could hear the sonar pings! Really I swear! <-Jetblast’s probable response

:rolleyes:

[RickJay]

@Jetblast

The pellets were so obviously warhead shrapnel that FBI was forced to lose the documents showing it.

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the “obvious” nature of these pellets. Primary evidence, please, such as links to metallurgical reports of the composition of the pellets, and links that demonstrate they are consistent with material normally only used in anti-aircraft missiles.

And if you don’t mind, could you also provide one or more of the following:

1. The radar data you promised,

2. Evidence of missile pieces, and

3. Evidence of persons with knowledge of a conspiracy.

[Telemark]

@Rick

Maybe we should remind our guest that when you find yourself at the bottom of a very deep hole the best thing you can do is to stop digging.

Nah, you get out the explosives…