Nope, looks like a perfectly standard photo of a monochrome composite screen to me. You are imagining things that are not there, and imagining deletions that are not NOT there. You need to supply SOME SORT OF EVIDENCE of what you claim, not just your hopes and dreams. That photo does NOT, by any stretch of the word, support your position. Face it: you and Jetblast are wrong, and scientifically supported in (I’m STILL waiting for the links that describe the bits and shits moving at Mach 4) very manner placed before you.
At first, yeah, there was a possibility that Flight 800 was brought down by a missile. Hell’s bells, that is what the FBI assumed, and they, against ALL recommendations against assuming such a fait accompli existed, tried to force-fit the evidence to fit the hypothesis that it was a terrorist attack. They even force-fit their interrogations of your precious witnesses to get the result they sought, ie: terrorists done it. It was only SUBSEQUENT studies, those that overturned the assumptions of amateurs, that shifted the results to “it was a very sad result of a mechanical failure.”
I disagree. If you look at the lettering of the words they have the appearance of copy degradation. Look at the crisp lettering of a live radar screen and notice the lack of background as displayed on your monitor. (you have to click on one of the examples).
There are no concentric circles like in the shot from 1996, I have to conclude that more than 10 years after the disaster the radar used is better and/or that the shot in the latest link is from a different radar system.
I will have to join **dropzone **and wait for the links that describe the “bits and shits” moving at Mach 4.
But I’m thinking now that I should not hold my breath for them.
Add me to the list. I’m just pointing out the poor quality of the pictures. They literally look like a photograph of a screen shot that was run through a copier. They suck. The site I linked to for reference has crisp lettering yet you can’t see all the images in the background because of the brightness and contrast settings. You’re not seeing any of the non-tagged aircraft returns.
We can see the first ejecta plume exits starboard to the southeast side of the flight path. There's really no point in trying to hair-split semantic definitions on this. "Forward"? No. The continuing fuselage has a different identified track. But your own U-Tube documentary itself shows a rumbling, slow emergence of fuel fire from under the tank on the plane's bottom in a slow separation of the nose. It depicts the explosion as blowing at low intensity out the bottom and into the slipstream. The reason CIA depicts it this way is because they know the tank is surrounded by wing structure and that that would be the correct path of any fuel explosion according to the resistance of the confining structures around it. In any case, their depiction shows no forward or starboard plume, so your own rendering conflicts with what is shown. In effect, you admit CIA shows something inaccurate to the radar no matter how much you try to bend that obvious lateral ejecta plume forward.
But please note you haven't answered my point. We know the structural properties of a Center Wing Tank and the behavior of fuel explosions within them from your own U-Tube. You have to explain what factors caused the explosion to channel in such a way to create the lateral plume? Gunpowder, when channeled and focused by a gun chamber and barrel can create speeds in excess of exploding gunpowder itself, but we know what factors cause that. In the case of a 747 center tank you have to explain what exactly focused and channeled the ejecta plume in that direction and at that speed? Would the resistive structure of a center tank be able to force such a channeling? Would the surrounding airframe also allow such a channeling? I don't see any attempt to answer this besides trying to bend the plume forward. "I don't know" is invalid in any airline crash investigation.
The correct history of this is Ray Lahr is suing the government over its science. Your answer has no meaning unless you can get that institution to answer the specific points of the radar evidence. (Plus the numerous circumstantial and evidence cases I've discussed that have since been ignored). I think if you researched the University's investigation it was probably based on the official investigation as a source.
Most normal investigations use what data they can to help determine what happened. With TWA 800 we see that fairly normal evidence that usually doesn't receive such a high level of scrutiny is being attacked for its validity. This is unusual. There's a clear pattern of overt attempts to dismiss evidence in order to return to the wreckage evidence as the only source. We already have complaints of hangar investigators themselves complaining of violations and lack of serious investigation. And don't forget police documentation of FBI removing evidence. A crime for which they went unpunished. I find it unbelievable anyone would choose to blatantly ignore this and proceed with the official story as if this didn't exist.
The argument was already stated. The lateral ejecta plume circled in red by Dr Stalcup had debris that reached out to a half mile from the side of the aircraft by measurement. We know that in order to reach a half mile out the furthest-most pieces had to have traveled the distance in between. Any air resistance and surface area arguments are moot because the formula is: A blast shot pieces out to a half mile; the radar records the time it took for those pieces to reach that point; how does this conform with the known behaviors of 747 Center Wing Tank explosions. Plus, lighter pieces would not be the first and furthest-most pieces. The speed measurement is simply the time it took for those pieces to go from the plane to a half mile out. Anything else is to digress from this simple science.
Trying to say you can't identify individual pieces and therefore can't say they came from the plane is dubious simply because the plume obviously originates from the plane on radar.
Honestly, I don't see anything here but a guided tour of the government story.
[sniping more of the same and he did not reply about the heat tank evidence.]
Once again, we don’t know. we still need to see any of the radar evidence that you claim is so convincing. And as time goes by, it is the burden of conspiracy experts to show the evidence not just to keep saying ‘because I said so’
And I don’t need to answer much, because it is with universities and other researchers where your beef is, everyone can see that you are only avoiding explaining the research already done that reports that there is no solid evidence of a missile or bomb causing the damage.
By that I can assume you are, what? Under 30? Welcome to the world of Antique Technology! In 1996 I was not the only person trying to get his C homework done running MS-DOS software on an old computer, for whom a screen shot like that would be business as usual. (Okay, my VGA monitor had died, but it was Turbo-C and hell, that semester I did my Business homework on a bleepin’ TYPEWRITER because I knew a word processer would only encourage revisions and wasted time.) The ATCs of the time weren’t running MS-DOS. Their software and hardware was OLDER! Your link is rather more modern.
Oh, and, at the time, there was a market for slides created from good screen shots. I have a slide–A PHOTOGRAPHIC SLIDE!–of AutoCAD’s Space Shuttle wireframe that I want to work into a dollhouse-sized computer monitor. Though it might be couple years older, you can see that “high res video” had a different meaning.
I was googling TWA 800 crash photos and that website came up. When I saw how glaringly bad the picture was I just had to post it and ask Jetblast where the Mach 4 debris is. I will freely admit that there may be other CT websites with better pictures, but I am not looking for them due to 2 reasons
It is his job to prove his allegations.
Those websites make my head hurt.
I am still waiting for his answer (but not holding my breath) and about burning fuel vs a detonation. Again I will not be holding my breath.
I don't think it's credible to suggest the furthest-most pieces didn't come from the aircraft (or an object intersecting with the aircraft).
It is reasonable to assume the ejecta plume caught on radar originated from the aircraft.
1 - Because your own investigation source failed to find any other materials besides 747 parts. So if you infer, however indirectly, that these pieces caught on radar were somehow not scientifically proven you conflict with your own body of evidence from your own NTSB source that you apparently defend. Denying the radar hits themselves is an extremely weak, self-incriminating argument since they were already proven to conform with the wreckage field.
2 - Because it is scientifically sound to assume that any piece of ejecta originating from the aircraft had to cover the points in between the aircraft and the furthest-most point out from the aircraft at a half mile. Therefore the time recorded for this distance is scientifically valid as an average speed estimate. I see nothing challenging this besides attempts to deny the radar evidence in general.
I think observers can see a semantic/sophist type attempt to move the terms of the discussion from objective scientific argument to semantic interpretations. One argument form is obfuscatory and moves away from the facts and arguments, the other is specific and demands answers from reasonably sound assumptions. The effort to move the argument away from specific points to generalities is the sign of a less than genuine argument. To me it constitutes a default both in credibility and argument. Any observer can see the arguer has no such concern for the long list of proven failures and deceptions on the official investigation side that don't receive the same level of scrutiny. In fact, the official account itself still admits it never found any provable cause.
These are the same people who ignore the bomb test timing being impossible as well as the NASA scientist denying he did any seat glue test. Apparently "garbage in, garbage out" doesn't apply to the investigators.
Another thing shown by ATC radar is the aircraft wasn’t in the sky long enough to do CIA’s “Zoom-Climb”. Radar data shows the length of time Flight 800 stayed in the sky after it exploded. The time a 747 would take to zoom-climb 3000 feet is all easily determinable. Credible researchers (not the denigrating term ‘conspiracy theorists’ that keeps being gratuitously used) found NTSB’s radar interpretation to be incorrect. They found the extra 16 seconds the noseless 747 would have needed to do the zoom-climb wasn’t in the radar data. In fact both the trajectory and timing of the data conformed to a ballistic drop, as the National Guard witness said, “it dropped like a rock”.
The context here is CIA used the "zoom-climb" to account for the rising flare seen by hundreds of witnesses. They claim burning fuel from the center tank blast was seen while the 747 climbed and was mistaken as being a missile. But once you disprove the zoom-climb you disprove the only excuse CIA had for the missile witnesses. So far, there has been no public accounting for this on our media besides repeated assurances that no missile evidence was found.
So far 747 Captain Ray Lahr has been successfully stonewalled in his legal attempts to show this in aviation science.
http://twa800.com/images/exhibit22c_radar.pdf
I’ll agree that if there was a plume of ejecta, that it originated from the aircraft (Flight 800). What I’d like to see (and I think this is what others have asked for as well) is what data do you have that there was a plume of ejecta caught on radar, at all? Please don’t just tell me to read Stalcup - please describe what it is, and provide a link if you need to.
And is it this plume that lets you derive the Mach 4 speed? Discussion of how that’s arrived at would be appreciated, too.
It’s hard to get a sense of the explosion from their video clip. I have no way of relating what 20 to 60 psi pressure rise means in relation to an explosion and I don’t understand why they used JET A and simulant fuel. These are vented tanks and the vents would have taken some of the punch out of an explosion. And to me, the experiment should only involve JET A fuel.
Caltech could do a better job presenting the information.
