Anybody up for a TWA 800 discussion?

[Jetblast]

@tomndebb

Time to get myself a nerw irony meter. This one is pegged to the far right of 100%.

= = =

Jetblast: you keep coming in here making wild claims about what other people have said or what the investigators did or did not do, yet you have only posted one or two links to other people making unsupported claims.

         Once again, if anyone is lurking, this entry is pure ad hominem and operates at a safe level of personal opinion far away from the facts. The idea is to get the discussion of facts and evidence out away from the material and into the venue of opinion where anyone can say anything. If you look at debates in general, people making bad points or not being able to answer directly to facts usually resort to this as a general rule. The idea is to give validity to ridiculing posts and offhand comments in order to discredit material that has obviously forced them into that. 
        
          The actual truth here is 'tomndebb' made white flash claims he was forced to back off of because the investigation's own sources show there wasn't enough oxygen in the tank for a fuel/air explosion. He disappeared after that claim and then came back with this evidence empty-input.


       Not only did the tank lack the conditions for the explosion 'tomndebb' referred to, but we already know that the tank has determinable structural resistance parameters that can be shown to limit the potential of a compression or containment pressure blast. Despite all the spurious input suggesting otherwise, a fuel blast can't make the quick bright flash of ordnance. There's a simple matter of factual competency involved here. And I haven't been forced to back off any of the main points.

   This accusation of not linking supportable claims is clearly false and is unsupportable itself. I've clearly linked FBI material and lawsuits by MIT professor Graeme Sephton and aviation engineer and 747 captain Ray Lahr and many many more credible professionals. I assume most people reading this would understand the difference in credentials and credibility between these sources and the people in here challenging them, whom, as far as I know, have shown nowhere near the level of credibility of these same sources whose credibility is being challenged.
          A near-empty 747 center fuel tank blast can't cause an ordnance flash. 
       I think we've done a good job at showing it is the official investigation that stands as the unsupported source.

[CannyDan]

@Jetblast

Once again, if anyone is lurking, this entry is pure ad hominem and operates at a safe level of personal opinion far away from the facts. <snip the remainder of the ad hominem and the personal opinions far from fact>

Indeed.

Tomndebb, my apology, I thought the thread still had a chance to serve some informational purpose, but I see I was mistaken.

[Jetblast]

@Magiver

Best of luck with your conspiracy.

         Any reasonable person would see you failed to answer the points. 

       Again, a simple look at locator beacon technology and the equipment used to find it would show most of the diversion arguments given here to be irrelevant. A real debate would ask what equipment is used to find black boxes and how does it find them? A real debate would ask how difficult would it be to find black boxes with this equipment in 130 feet of water? A real debate would answer why government claimed it couldn't locate the black boxes (in the context of not even hearing them) when they were right there in the open? 

 I can understand your not being able to answer it. But you already forfeited the debate when you refused to answer for the St Louis bomb test. Your name-calling vs your self-referenced credibility only makes you fall harder.

[GIGObuster]

@Jetblast

Not only did the tank lack the conditions for the explosion ‘tomndebb’ referred to, but we already know that the tank has determinable structural resistance parameters that can be shown to limit the potential of a compression or containment pressure blast. Despite all the spurious input suggesting otherwise, a fuel blast can’t make the quick bright flash of ordnance. There’s a simple matter of factual competency involved here. And I haven’t been forced to back off any of the main points.

   This accusation of not linking supportable claims is clearly false and is unsupportable itself. I've clearly linked FBI material and lawsuits by MIT professor Graeme Sephton and aviation engineer and 747 captain Ray Lahr and many many more credible professionals. I assume most people reading this would understand the difference in credentials and credibility between these sources and the people in here challenging them, whom, as far as I know, have shown nowhere near the level of credibility of these same sources whose credibility is being challenged.
          A near-empty 747 center fuel tank blast can't cause an ordnance flash. 

As researchers from 3 different universities can tell you, yes the tank reached those conditions, and the blast can look like it at a distance. You are hung up just on the color of the flash, at the distances reported it was demonstrated already that is ridiculous to assign an specific color to that explosion.

In any case, I agree with tomndebb, you have only posted one or two links to other people making unsupported claims.

[GIGObuster]

@Jetblast

Any reasonable person would see you failed to answer the points.

       Again, a simple look at locator beacon technology and the equipment used to find it would show most of the diversion arguments given here to be irrelevant. 

Nope, they demonstrate that just like in your irresponsible dismissal of the evidence of the heat conditions of the central tank, you really do not know what you are talking about.

A real debate would ask what equipment is used to find black boxes and how does it find them? A real debate would ask how difficult would it be to find black boxes with this equipment in 130 feet of water? A real debate would answer why government claimed it couldn’t locate the black boxes (in the context of not even hearing them) when they were right there in the open?

 I can understand your not being able to answer it. But you already forfeited the debate when you refused to answer for the St Louis bomb test. Your name-calling vs your self-referenced credibility only makes you fall harder.

I made the point before that you have no evidence that the test was made fraudulently or to give us even a good reason why it changes anything. Please produce a valid cite with the reason why we should put any attention to it or shut up.

Even people in the aviation industry checked almost all your points and “credible” researchers that supported the missile theory and found they were unreliable almost 10 years ago.

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

[GIGObuster]

Just to demonstrate the levels of willful ignorance conspiracy theorists reach, on the previous link (mentioned a while ago) we can check back almost 10 years ago on what was the opinion that many aviators had about the denials of the flammability of the almost empty central tank and the authority of Donaldson:

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

Who is Cmdr. Donaldson? Can his results be taken at face value?

Contributed by Dr. George O. Bizzigotti

 Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, USN Retired, often appears as the public 
 Voice of the Associated Retired Aviation Professionals (ARAP); their 
 web site is found at http://www.twa800.com/index.htm. Unfortunately, 
 Cmdr. Donaldson has made a number of gaffes that have left his 
 technical credibility in tatters. Two examples spring to mind:

 (1) His publicized stunt of dropping a lighted match into a bucket of 
 kerosene as illustrating that "jet fuel can't explode." His stunt had
 nothing to do with the contents of the center fuel tank of a 747. Jet 
 fuel has a fundamental property called "flammability limits." In the 
 case of jet fuel, the flammability limits, which can expressed as the 
 temperature at which the saturated vapor can support combustion, 
 depend on the pressure, which is in turn a function of altitude. The 
 NTSB's exhibit no. 20D, "Fire And Explosion Groups Factual Report, 
 Appendix IV," gives a detailed explanation of how the flammability 
 limits for jet fuel were measured. Exhibit 20D concludes that the 
 lower flammability limit is between 90 and 100 degrees F at sea 
 level, decreasing to between 75 and 84 degrees F at 15,000 ft.

 If a bucket of jet fuel at sea level is cooler than 90-100 degrees F, 
 it will not support combustion; Donaldson can be heard in his video 
 reporting that the temperature is approximately 60 degrees, 
 comfortably below the lower flammability limit. Thus, it is no 
 surprise that Donaldson can extinguish matches in cool jet fuel. 
 Donaldson did do some experiments where he used a modified pressure
 cooker on his backyard grill to heat jet fuel to 145 degrees, 170
 degrees, 185 degrees, and 210 degrees F at sea level air pressure. It is
 important to note that there is both a lower flammability limit ("too
 lean" in the vernacular) and an upper flammability limit ("too rich").

I don’t have the sea level upper limit, but I’d guess that Donaldson
managed to do this set of experiments above the upper limit at sea
level. In any event, flammability is a function of composition,
pressure, and temperature. The composition and temperature for any of
these mixtures are different from that which occurred in the TWA 800
center wing tank. Flammability limits are different at the pressures
associated with sea level and with 13,700 feet altitude.

 Maintain jet fuel at a temperature between the lower and upper
 flammability limits, and it will burn quite rapidly. Thus, had Donaldson
 heated his bucket of kerosene to the same temperature as the center tank
 on TWA 800 and done so at a higher altitude than sea level, he would
 quite likely have obtained a very different result, i.e., a rather
 spectacular whoosh of fire, quite possibly with himself at its center.

 The temperature of the fuel in the TWA 800 CWT was at least 115 degrees
 F, well above the flammability limit for its altitude of 13,700 feet.
 Arguing that experiments on a pressure and temperature dependent
 phenomenon conducted at 60 degrees, 145 degrees, 170 degrees, 185
 degrees, and 210  degrees F at sea level is relevant to an event that
 occurred at ca. 115 degrees F and an altitude of 13,700 feet is both
 disingenuous and a pretty basic scientific error; Donaldson has not made
 any statement to indicate he's even aware of the pressure/altitude
 variable, much less adjusted for it.

 NB: To be precise, a jet fuel and air mixture does not detonate. 
 However, it burns rapidly (NTSB data indicates no more than seconds 
 between ignition and the generation of the peak pressure in the 
 center wing tank), and in a confined space, it can generate 
 sufficient pressure (Exhibit 20 D provides a range of estimated 
 overpressures from to 13.5 to 73.5 pounds per square inch) to rupture 
 the tank. This rupture releases sufficient energy quickly enough to 
 be considered an "explosion." Those who insist that jet fuel vapor 
 cannot detonate, while technically correct, miss the point that rapid
 combustion of a fuel-air mixture is capable of causing enormous 
 damage.

 (2) His proposal at one point that the Iranians had launched a 
 Phoenix missile from a boat. The problem with that idea is that the 
 Phoenix is an air to air missile, which has aerodynamics designed to 
 be launched at an air speed of several hundred miles per hour. On a 
 boat, with zero or minimal air speed, it will be unstable. Paul Adam 
 has posted in considerable detail in years past on why this is an 
 entirely incredible scenario, but I think I have the gist of his 
 argument. 

 One would think that being a retired naval officer with "extensive 
 experience as a Naval crash investigator," Cmdr. Donaldson would have 
 known better than to make either of these elementary errors. Yet he 
 persisted in repeating them even after they were shown to be in 
 considerable error; there was still a video of the "match in jet 
 fuel" experiment on ARAP's web site long after exhibit 20D was 
 published. Donaldson seems to be roughly the equivalent of a retired 
 astronomer coming out and saying that the sun revolves around the 
 earth. He will find that there are a number of people who will agree 
 with him based on their observation that the sun keeps coming up in 
 the east and going down in the west. Some may even applaud him for 
 "challenging the established wisdom." However, were he to attend a 
 meeting of professional astronomers, he would be either ignored or 
 ridiculed because several centuries of more precise observation as 
 well as application of the relevant laws of physics say that he is 
 wrong.

[Rick]

Just to add a little more fuel to the fire (God I crack me up sometimes) You can sometimes under some conditions throw a lit match or cigarette into a bucket of gasoline and it will not ignite. I have seen it done. I think the people that do this are running one hell of a risk, but it can be done.
I don’t think anyone with at least 2 brain cells that are firing at the same time doubts gasoline’s flammability.

[tomndebb]

@Jetblast

Once again, if anyone is lurking, this entry is pure ad hominem and operates at a safe level of personal opinion far away from the facts. The idea is to get the discussion of facts and evidence out away from the material and into the venue of opinion where anyone can say anything. If you look at debates in general, people making bad points or not being able to answer directly to facts usually resort to this as a general rule. The idea is to give validity to ridiculing posts and offhand comments in order to discredit material that has obviously forced them into that.

I think I understand this point:

I am employing ad hominem argumentation in noting that Jetblast has not posted any actual support for claims he has made, because even though all arguments should be based on facts, it is more important that we debate his claims about purported facts rather than actually examining the facts, themselves. It is our responsibility to simply debate any claim he posts as though the claim were true, even if he refuses, (or is otherwise unable), to provide a way for us to look at the same “facts” that he posts. We need to simply take his word for everything and any other approach is merely ad hominem.

Okey dokey.

Anyone still need this thread kept open for any reason?

[RedSwinglineOne]

I’m 'bout done.

[Rick]

The only problem with closing it is he is going to go back and tell all his CT buddies how he kicked our asses so bad the moderator closed the thread rather than hear the tr00th.
:rolleyes:

I think you should leave this thread open at least long enough for someone to invite our friend as the guest of honor in a pit thread.
I have to go out right now, but later I will probably have some time. So if someone else has the energy knock yourself out, otherwise I will do the heavy lifting when I get back from dinner.

[GIGObuster]

Jetblast is like Ralph the Wolf in the Warner Brothers cartoons, he punches the clock at about 11:00 AM, then takes a beating and leaves in about an hour, ready to repeat the process the next day.

Fun for a few cartoon rounds but one loses interest when the CT assumes then that other posters are part of the conspiracy too and his cites turn to be pitiful or useless.

I was done, but his latest appeal to lurkers really takes the cake when he continues to ignore that no one agrees with him and that his champions were found to be hacks or criminals 10 years ago.

If tomorrow he does not even acknowledge the problems that were found a long time ago with his discredited cites, then there is nothing else to say. The physical evidence supports the official conclusions of several universities, labs, the FBI, CIA and the NTSB.

NTSB Chairman Jim Hall Opens TWA Flight 800 Final Report Review
Aired August 22, 2000

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0008/22/se.01.html

This is a lot of ground to cover, but before moving ahead, I would like to make one additional comment. I know that. at the outset, many believe that the crash of flight 800 was caused by a criminal act and, for many, the efforts of the times, the ongoing court trials and the aftermath of the World Trade Center bombings in New York, and the heightened concern about terrorism at the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, seemed to lead a certain credence to the notion.

Certainly, the nature of the event, and its rarity, led some to question whether the crash of flight 800 was really an accident. As many of you know, a substantial law enforcement investigation was conducted in parallel with the safety board’s investigation.

After conducting a thorough investigation, the FBI suspended its investigation in November, 1997, indicating that no evidence had been found to indicate that a criminal act was the cause of the tragedy of TWA Flight 800.

Despite this finding, by our nation’s law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some have urged the safety board to assume, in effect, a law enforcement role, to prove or disprove, their assertion that the crash of flight 800 was the result of a bomb or a missile. That is beyond this agency’s mandate and authority.

Our focus is safety. Our people are aviators, engineers and scientists. I believe some of the best in the world. But they are not criminal investigators.

**However, even though our law enforcement – even though our employees are not law enforcement personnel, they examined every piece of wreckage, for any physical evidence that the crash – that the crash of flight 800 could have been caused by a bomb or a missile.

Had we found such evidence, we would have immediately referred the matter back to the appropriate law enforcement agencies for their action.

Let me state unequivocally, the Safety Board has found no evidence.
**
To the families of flight 800, I would like to add this comment. It is unfortunate that a small number of people, pursuing their own agendas, have persisted in making unfounded charges of a government cover-up in this investigation.** These people do a grievous injustice to the many dedicated individuals, civilian and military, who had been involved in this investigation.** Some 75 NTSB members have participated in this investigation. I’ll pause while their name are listed on the screens in front of you.

[Jetblast]

@tomndebb

I think I understand this point:

I am employing ad hominem argumentation in noting that Jetblast has not posted any actual support for claims he has made, because even though all arguments should be based on facts, it is more important that we debate his claims about purported facts rather than actually examining the facts, themselves. It is our responsibility to simply debate any claim he posts as though the claim were true, even if he refuses, (or is otherwise unable), to provide a way for us to look at the same “facts” that he posts. We need to simply take his word for everything and any other approach is merely ad hominem.

Okey dokey.

Anyone still need this thread kept open for any reason?

       This is just more circular self-serving sophistry totally disconnected to the actual material. When you accuse someone of avoiding the actual material and they then return with an even worse example of evidence disconnected opinion, then you have to wonder about the credibility of the source and the sincerity of their arguments. It's obvious from reading this thread that those who take the evidence-denier position aren't seriously worried about sources and references but are really tired of making up so many excuses that get cut down by the facts over and over for which they can make no answer. It's obvious they're tired of looking bad. 

        I made a very specific point about the serious lack of merit in your entries about flash quality and type of explosion and your having to abandon them and not be able to account for, or even answer, them. Your follow-through, once again, ignored your plainly obvious failure to back your arguments. Yet, you somehow construe that as me not being able to back up my stuff (so much so that you abandoned your points). 

        I think most smart, honest people would see that for what it is (as they would threats to shut down the debate). 
          You people lost this debate when you failed to answer for the impossible St Louis bomb test. So no matter what you say, it is YOUR side that needs to back up and source YOUR official evidence. Your running from this each and every time says all you need to know. 

          Since the St Louis bomb test is now disproven the official story being backed here (without any direct arguments over the evidence) lacks any excuse for the explosives residue found all over the aircraft. The "zoom-climb" has been disproven by several examples of evidence including radar showing no reduction in forward speed which science requires for a climbing (especially nose-less) aircraft. Since the two key parts of the government story are now disproven the official story is therefore disproven. At that point the crash investigation has to, by law, be legally re-opened and these key points of evidence must be accounted for. Since every single one of the 'debaters' (deniers) in here dodged these two key issues they therefore defaulted on them and therefore have no credibility in their opinions no matter what they say. Sorry folks, that's how reality works.
        The reason Flight 800 is important is because, as this debate shows, it introduced a new type of reality in America where plain truth can be denied by government within a system that boasts its type of government protects plain truth and enforces government honesty. Truth is there are more Americans interested in backing government deception in a rogue contest against its exposers than there are persons interested in practicing what the populace is supposed to practice according to our type of government. It's always a red-flag when ANY government can tell you you didn't see something with your own eyes. Not to mention a plain violation of our Constitution. People who understand America shouldn't have to have it explained to them nor should there be a need to explain the ugly things that will necessarily result from this type of government corruption. This is exactly why the founding fathers set-up the system they did. They knew it would be a moral guard against corruption and advantage-taking by power. Myself, I think people who defend government corruption and crimes are cowards afraid to practice the real system the founding fathers left us responsible for. And it's especially dangerous when these people are connected to the military. This type of brazen denial can never be good for any nation based on truth and democracy. And there's no doubt of the direction America has gone in recently, since Flight 800, in relation to quality of government information.

The switched airline seat upholstery being found in a dumpster behind the investigation hangar is, somehow, within the tolerance limits of our fine honest debaters in here with such high standards of evidence and debate.

[Telemark]

@Jetblast

I think most smart, honest people would see that for what it is (as they would threats to shut down the debate).

Trust me, they do.

[RickJay]

@Jetblast

This is just more circular self-serving sophistry totally disconnected to the actual material.

You have a chance to rescue the thread before it gets closed for being pointless. All you have to do is provide cites for some of your claims. Just provide:

1. The radar data you promised,

2. Evidence of missile pieces, and

3. Evidence of persons with knowledge of a conspiracy.

[GIGObuster]

@Jetblast

You people lost this debate when you failed to answer for the impossible St Louis bomb test. So no matter what you say, it is YOUR side that needs to back up and source YOUR official evidence. Your running from this each and every time says all you need to know.

:rolleyes:

The fact is that the cite you produced says “we **believe **we can show” that the test could not have been made.

That is no evidence at all, the main reason why no one has taken you or your cites seriously is that you never bothered to explain the next logical step. **How it is possible that 3 or more **different explosive materials were identified.

When one assumes that a missile(s) was there, the question that follows is: What **kind **of missile has all those elements and how in heck the explosion **separated **those components?

It is when those logical followup questions are not answered by the conspiracy theorists that then the premise has to be dismissed.

The dog test explains properly why differentiated materials were found. As for the nitro, a passenger had nitroglycerin pills.

The red residue was explained 10 years ago by noticing that the sediments on the sea floor had the same composition.

Since no proper evidence has been produced from you after many requests, no one needs to say much now.

[CannyDan]

@Jetblast

This is just more circular self-serving sophistry totally disconnected to the actual material<snip>

Yawn…

**Jetblast **isn’t listening.

If I were attempting to create a totally disingenuous, completely hollow, but superficially legitimate-sounding argument, running it on to quite some length without the slightest bit of actual reasoning let alone evidence, I think this post and the several that precede it would be a fair model.

What it is NOT is a model of a debate.

You know, I’m not sayin’ anything. Just sayin’…

[tomndebb]

@Jetblast

I made a very specific point about the serious lack of merit in your entries about flash quality and type of explosion and your having to abandon them and not be able to account for, or even answer, them. Your follow-through, once again, ignored your plainly obvious failure to back your arguments. Yet, you somehow construe that as me not being able to back up my stuff (so much so that you abandoned your points).

Go back and read your replies to me.

You asserted a lot of things, but have failed to produce a single bit of evidence to support your assertions. Where is the testimony of an actual expert, (not a CT loon) that a fuel-air exposion in a heated tank could not appear like an ordnance explosion from a distance of over ten miles?
You have not proided it.

I have not abandoned any points. I simply decline to continue posting evidence with actual links to actual events when you are going to dismiss them, deny the evidence of your own eyes, then post more things that you have invented or quoted from loons without even bothering to provide links so that we may see that you have not misquoted anyone or manipulated the quote.

[dropzone]

Before it’s closed, I must add that my father, a USAF pilot and jurist of long standing, was convinced he had squared the circle.

No, he hadn’t.