And it could go a little something like this…
Pilot: The red zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the white zone.
Copilot: No, the white zone is for loading of passengers and there is no stopping in a RED zone.
Pilot : The red zone has always been for loading and unloading of passengers. There’s never stopping in a white zone.
Copilot : Don’t you tell me which zone is for loading, and which zone is for stopping!
Pilot : Listen Betty, don’t start up with your white zone shit again.
Pilot : There’s just no stopping in a white zone.
Copilot : Oh really, Vernon? Why pretend, we both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.
Pilot : It’s really the only sensible thing to do, if its done safely. Therapeutically there’s no danger involved.
Explosives with ‘incendiary shrapnel’???
And stop calling me Shirley!
[hand still raised]
Ooh! Oooooh! Call on me! Call on me, Jetblast!
[putting on Jetblast mask]
Yes, garygnu? What do you have for us?
Yes, like I said. You have no idea of what you are talking about.
The search vessel would hear the locator beacon, since sound propagation in the water can be erratic due to changes in water salinity, temperature and currents the best that can be done is say, “he ping comes from somewhere around this area”, then you drop a ROV and or divers to start combing the area looking for the FDR.
An anti aircraft missile, filled with incendiary shrapnel… riiiiight.
Shrapnel made of aluminum with traces of titanium and some other elements none the less.
You also show that you know nothing about this things neither and probably simply swalloed whatever crap some nutter is spewing. Fragmentation warheads are NOT made of aluminum because A- it’s a light metal so the fragments won’t have enough inertia to travel far or pack a punch. B- it melts at low temperatures so you probably end up splatering a new coat of aluminum on your target, C- even if it doesn’t melt when it goes bang it’s too soft to cause too much damage. Etc, etc.
Fragmentation warheads are made of steel, not aluminum or titanium.
IF pellets of aluminum with traces or titanium and other elements where found in some bodies, my bet would be those are melted metal droplets from the plane’s skin, made of aluminum, painted mostly white (white paint usually contains titanium oxide)
But all that is pointless, I call bullshit on every single thing you’ve said unless you provide cites.
Could you also provide one or more of the following:
- The radar data you promised,
- Evidence of missile pieces, and
- Evidence of persons with knowledge of a conspiracy.
:smack:
You’re not really Jetblast?
Oh, well. From his inability to provide these things, I see that he has conceded defeat, admitting that there was no conspiracy and that the NTSB (et al.)’s description of what happened is true.
I told you, I did that from memory and thought I read that elsewhere.
I asked you to explain how this made any difference to the investigation saying it couldn't locate the black boxes when locals heard the pingers from their boats? Since the black boxes were video-ed being recovered on open sea floor bed there was therefore no excuse for not finding them immediately. You didn't answer.
Do you understand how ignoring the meaningful points in order to return to a contrived semantic point makes you look?
Why couldn't they 'locate' the black boxes even though they were right over them and the boxes were out in the open?
Why didn't government offer any explanation for this?
Direct answers please.
(You're much more critical of missile evidence than you are of an official report that includes a scientifically-impossible zoom-climb and non-existent St Louis bomb test.) If anyone is keeping score CannyDan has been forced to back down from most, if not all, of his deliberately-distorted entries. The entry above is just more worthless talk and if we went and actually found what equipment heard the pings and analyzed it I'm sure we would find it valid.
Besides, if you notice, CannyDan's reply completely ignores the question of why government said it couldn't locate the black boxes even though they were right out in the open in 130 feet of water? (Maybe we can dwell on the fact I said '200 feet' before) OK Rick, since you're such a great detector of bs I'll ask you to please elaborate on my claim that the St Louis bomb test couldn't have happened. Also, please explain to me how a nose-less 747 "zoom-climbed" 3000 feet while trailing burning fuel that was mistaken as a missile?
Go ahead Rick, finish me off. (Or are you another one who "doesn't have to answer any questions"?)
I personally feel that people who deal with the debate by means of offhand personal opinions far from the actual evidence itself have nerve posing themselves as having credible criticisms of my input.OK, I’ll attempt to answer yours, then you answer mine. And I’m not even going to require a cite showing “right over” or “out in the open”. Let’s make the assumption, for the sake of discussion.
A link was provided upthread showing video of the ocean floor at the crash scene. I myself have been on the ocean floor at a depth a good deal less than the crash site. Both my personal experience and the video demonstrate that there is a deceptive simplicity about “going down there” and “picking stuff up”.
Even if you know you are directly over some object, you cannot simply swim down to 200 feet and touch it. Water doesn’t work like that. If you start at the surface and attempt to swim down to a specific location on the bottom, you will be moved aside by currents, often flowing in different directions at different speeds at different depths. You will swim asymetrically, more toward one side than another. The result is that you will reach bottom some unpredictable distance from whatever your original intended target. And every dive will bring you to some other random place on the bottom.
The bottom itself isn’t flat, smooth, or clean. It has various lumps, bumps, and projections of all sizes, plus whatever parts of the plane are present. All of it is covered in slimy mud. And the water itself is filled with mud, with more stirred up every time you near the bottom. There is virtually no ambient light from above, even at noon, because water itself rapidly filters out light as does suspended particles. Visibility near the bottom through this water is measurable in feet on good days. And I mean on the order of five or six, not twenty or thirty. On bad days with additional current it can be reduced to inches.
So search and retrieval doesn’t depend on swimming down to the bottom and grabbing things. Instead certain benchmarks are placed on the sea floor. Think of a hunk of concrete with snaps for attachment of lines or ropes. From these a search grid can be constructed. The bottom is divided up like graph paper, with an “X” axis and a “Y” axis. All retrievals are recorded with their coordinates.
Actual searches are conducted in a systematic fashion, following the grid pattern and inspecting the entire area. Not just random grabs through the murk. That’s why the process takes a long time. But it is also the reason that almost the entire aircraft was recovered. And the reason that the lack of, say, missile parts in the recovery is so persuasive that missile parts were not, in fact, present.
Why didn’t the government provide an explanation of this? Perhaps because they didn’t think it necessary? Because most people (including me!) were actually impressed by the speed and the scope of the retrieval. You are the first I know of who actually claims this was somehow far easier than reality demands.
Realize, there was an entire airplane scattered in various sized bits and pieces across some acres of ocean surface, then randomly distributed to the ocean bottom by the vagaries of sink rate and current. Search vessels were “right over” all of that, all right. But as explained above, being right over the ocean floor isn’t nearly the same as being right over your living room carpet.
Now you answer mine.
What bloody difference does the retrieval time of the recorders make? Is “a long time” simply indicative of a less than enthusiastic effort? Or is it evidence of some conspiratorial shenanigans? And if so, what were they? Alteration of the data? To what end? Or, better, how ineffective could the conspiratorial changes be? If the flight data was altered to confirm a non-true scenario, the alteration should have been unambiguous. But it wasn’t. So again, regarding recovery time for the recorders, so what?
This, like all your assertions, is simply more CT nutbar crap pulled directly out of someone’s ass.
1) Your first entry is childish in its attempt to apply deep water quirks to 130 feet of water. It would be laughed off the stage if presented before any credible experts. It is, once again, an attempt to obfuscate or distort the true facts here. "Salinity differences in 130 feet of water" LOL! That's an insult to anyone's intelligence and won't be questioned by our so-called highly sensitive information critics here. Additionally, your answer does nothing to account for why government said they couldn't even 'locate' the black boxes?
2) The focus on incendiary shrapnel is just another strawman. I do know the Israelis were recently cited for the use of incendiaries (please don't divert us into a discussion on white phosphorous shells). What is obvious is you haven't touched the significance of these isolated pellets being found by the Long Island coroner and even tested by the FBI themselves (and lost afterwards).
3) You haven't touched how a fuel explosion that wasn't strong enough to blast the airframe into pellet-sized bits (by your own accounts) created this shrapnel?
4) Your lack of knowledge of the material isn't my fault. What stands out the most is the difference between your claims about my material and your obvious inability to answer or disprove it.
5) Ad hominem heckling ridicule between debaters is usually the sign of points that can't be answered. The first to do it are usually those losing the debate.Aaarrrggghhhh!!!
Yes, and if we actually went and found the thing that lets a lumberjack cut down a tree, and analyzed it, we’d find it to be a valid chainsaw. So what?
There IS equipment that can “hear” a locator beacon. I’m sure the recovery teams made use of such.
But FISHERMEN are not in the business of analyzing locator beacons because (and I know this is gonna come as a huge shock to you, so you may want to sit down) FISH DO NOT EMIT LOCATOR BEACONS!
Once again for your edification, fishing sonar has absolutely zero, zip, nada, nothing to do with locator beacons.
The whole “fishermen heard it, so the searchers should have heard it, so they should have gotten it the first day, and, and, and, that means missiles were involved!!!” is just more CT nutbar ass wipings.
No sparky you made the claim, it is up to you to support it. Since you have not supported it with cites leading back to testimony we have all filed it away with your
Other claims like Mach 4 missile debris and 72 hours to find the box in the other crash. In otherwords complete and total bullshit.
Still waiting…
The Israelis are in on it too now, I see. Just for clarification, is that Mossad or their navy?
The fishfinder manufacturers were only patsies, though.
I don't have a link for the Brookhaven test of the pellets. But you are blaming me for what is basically FBI's wrongdoing. Since the information you seek is best made available in the actual documents FBI recorded the test within it isn't really fair to blame me for their not being available. In fact this is the whole basis of MIT professor Graeme Sephton's lawsuit against FBI. So you yourself take a missile evidence proponent's side. I think most would understand the injustice of blaming those who seek the documents for this.
Since no Boeing part contains the metals found in those pellets they had to have originated from something other than the aircraft. But you could rule out any fuel tank blast as the source because the coroner noted that the bodies lacked any burns. If the pellets were accompanied by the necessary fire of a blast the bodies would have shown burns. Any blast capable of sending pellets into bodies in the cabin would, by necessity, have to have fire go along with it. But the blast wasn't strong enough to shred airframe metal into pellets (as your own investigation showed). A simple metallurgy test would show the pellets' consistency to be a separate material from airframe metals. The airframe metal argument is easily proven as bogus.
The FBI told Sephton that it couldn't locate the documents you ask for. You need to join Sephton in his search for them.
Realize that in the case of THE most controversial airline crash in US history FBI is saying it misplaced and can't find paper documents it claims are innocuous. And the judge found in their favor. I think the more CannyDan offers hollow anecdotal verbiage the stronger my points become.
We need to know exactly what devices are used to locate the black box pingers and how they work in order to understand their recovery vs the claims being made. I assume the usual electronic triangulation and signal strength methods are used with high tech equipment that can determine it quickly.
Secondly, something obvious is being left out here. The government said it couldn't locate them. If the pingers were working they should have known they were there. Since it is almost impossible two separate black boxes would fail simultaneously and then suddenly have their pingers work a week later, I assume this is also evidence of suspicious business.
Divers have something called 'lights'...Did no one bother to tell you that this lawsuit was resolved in 2006? link
Like a fly returning to a turd, you keep revisiting the same debunked horseshit.
No, no. You can't get away with that. You simply have no credibility if you say something like that. (I thank you for basically proving what I'm saying by default by the way).
The official investigation was supposed to be an honest government investigation of an airline crash according to its rules and laws. The investigation is supposed to evaluate all evidence and information in an honest, objective way. And it is in that way that all matters concerning it should be discussed. In no way can any airline crash be a "fifth amendment," moot court, legal defense process. The government has no right to take the fifth against itself and the public. It has to respond honestly and according to law by its own writs. Since, we've already 'legally' disproven the official story in both the explosives residue test and "zoom-climb" (not to mention instances of malfeasance in the cases of evidence removal and FBI withholding of documents) you have no right to press such a dubious double standard. It can fairly be said that it is YOUR side that has failed to prove its case and answer to the facts.
What obviously has more weight here is government officially claimed a center fuel tank explosion caused the Flight 800 crash. It is you and the official story that has failed to support its claims. Any fool can understand what it means when people avoid obvious questions. And none of the 'noise' in response has really done anything to answer the main points.The previously linked video from the ocean bottom at the recovery zone is anecdotal as a demonstration that open ocean recovery is different from picking a booger out of your nose?
Your commonest phrases are “I assume” and “I believe” and “we need to know”. None of these are evidentiary. But that booger – if you can get it – now that might be evidentiary. See if you can dig it out there, sparky, and show us. It will be the first piece of evidence you’ve delivered in the lengthy history of this thread.
Oh, and those pellets of yours, and your assurance that “no Boeing part contains the metals found” like – aluminum? Really? The aircraft was made of marzipan? And the analysis of these metals comes from – the laboratory report that nobody has! The one your hero sued to obtain. So we really know what that metalic analysis was, do we? Do you set yourself up for these pratfalls deliberately, or can you just not remember what you said previously?
As for those things called “lights” you’ve brought to our attention – I’ll be sure to let all my friends know about them. Especially the cave divers. They’ve really been having a problem all these years with those damn candles…
I answered your question fairly and reasonably. You reply with hand waving and insults. Try, do, to answer it now. Even if the black box recovery was flawed as you suggest, what bloody difference does that make? How does that support the CT nutbar ass wipings involving missiles?