Actually, you haven’t. You’ve made assertions where you’ve parroted claims made by others but I haven’t seen you explain any evidence. Your pattern has been to make assertions and then rant about the government. Please skip the ranting, and explain your assertions.
First, I’m NOT debating you. I’m wanting to consider what you have to say with an open mind, but you have not been explaining yourself.
I went back and re-read most of your posts. You assert that there was debris observed on radar a half-mile away after some short time. OK, where is it? I even read through Stalcup’s PDF, and he also simply asserts this half-mile after eight seconds claim, but provides NO data about it, just a claim that Islip radar recorded it.
We’ve also been asking you to explain the Mach 4 claim, and I just found it in Stalcup’s paper. It takes this half-mile claim and then he tries to do physics calculations with it. It’s not very credible to me.
But my mind is open - where is the data that supports this half-mile after eight seconds claim? Since this is apparently the centerpiece of your argument, let’s get that resolved. If that turns out OK, we can then move on to speed calculations, then maybe later get to alleged conspiracies.
Yeah, that’s the beautiful thing. He takes this data, then figures that it was going 625 kt (almost Mach 1) with respect to the airplane’s speed. Then he does some kind of opaque computer modeling taking what was an average of almost Mach 1 over eight seconds, and figures that the initial speed had to be Mach 4.
Wow. :rolleyes: It’s even worse than such a basic arithmetic error. The guy’s calculation of “Mach 4” could only have been based on assuming an extremely high Cd for each of the debris pieces. He didn’t provide what that assumption (not even measurement) was, he just copied the basic drag equation from some high school book. To hide his lack of comprehension of the subject, and even of basic algebra, Stalcup mentioned some “computer program” he made up and did some handwaving about “ballistics analysis.”
So this is the kind of “expert” the conspiracy bugs rely on.
Yep, my assessment on the quality of the experts one finds among the conspiracy theorists was correct once again.
Logic says that if those experts were so great that then they would had no problems in convincing other experts in their specific fields about their “discoveries”, time once again is deadly for ideas that have shaky evidence.
After more than ten years I would expect that the evidence for a missile or bomb to become stronger, instead when I see groups like the National Geographic and others replicating experiments that come up confirming the original results then it is no wonder that very few can take those conspiracy “experts” seriously.
The clear attempt at ignoring the evidence that showed that heat was an issue in the 747s central tanks is done precisely because it is one deadly item for the pet theories of the conspiracy theorists.
I especially enjoy the part about ignoring everything the actual wreckage indicates happened to it because there are some rumors of somebody sneaking in and altering it somehow.
So let me get this straight.
The government recovered about 98% of TWA 800. (which if you think about it is pretty amazing seeing how it was under about 100 feet or so of water)
However along with that 2% of the plane they did not recover they also did not recover 100% of the Al Qaeda suicide plane or the two missiles that you are claiming were fired at it.
What do you suppose the odds of that happening are? Personally I believe the odds are slim and none. And Slim just left town.
You keep talking about radar data. I linked to a set of radar pictures and asked you to show me the debris cloud as I sure as hell could not see any debris cloud. I don’t believe you ever answered me. At least one other person has asked for the same data and you have ignored them also.
The way it works around here is if you are making an allegation it is up to you to supply support for that allegation.
Or in the words of Lance Armstrong; “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
You need to start supplying some proof. don’t just tell us to read some crackpot manifesto that is 100 pages long, link to chapter and verse.
To start off with let’s see some radar images with debris on them.
The experiments shown in the National Geographic documentary also replicated the low atmospheric pressure, the test tank exploded confirming the tests made on behalf of the NTSB.
Whoa! I’m damned glad I live at 15,000’ because otherwise, if I owned a diesel, I’d never get it started. No, wait–I live at about 700’ above sea level and diesels run just fine down here, so that vaporization problem seems to have been licked. (Diesel fuel and jet fuel are very similar.) :rolleyes:
Well, yesterday JetBlast started posting around 11 am CDT, so when you come in today, would you please address this question about the debris a half mile away after eight seconds?
Your diesel relies on a compression ratio of 15 to one and a high pressure spray to vaporize it and raise the temperature… You can pour it on the ground and throw matches on it all day long and it won’t ignite. You can let it sit and “vaporize” all day long and it won’t ignite. It’s absolutely critical to the event that it occurred at altitude because the fuel would not have vaporized enough to create a significant explosion.
What you post does nothing to disprove or even change anything I wrote about Brumley. When Brumley was interviewed at the time when the evidence was allegedly being determined he specifically said the shooting object he saw came from a right to left direction. Investigators looked at where Brumley's USAir flight was located in comparison to Flight 800 and concluded that Flight 800 had to be moving from left to right from Brumley's perspective. This is rock solid evidence that can't be refuted by quoting an offhand, out-of-context quote from Brumley in 1999 when the full cover-up was well going. We don't know what kind of internal influences affected Brumley at that point.
I find the attempt to use what is clearly an invalid reference to Brumley to overturn something that isn't directly answered less than honest. Obviously people are going to lengths to disprove what can only be called condemning evidence in order to back the official story. At the time Brumley said "There is no way that what I saw was trailing burning fuel". If you read what you wrote nowhere does it attempt to address this. Nor does what is basically Brumley's speculation within the various theories after the crash replace this very specific statement. This is just another disingenuous form of the "someone would have talked" canard. Those saying that military personnel have no pressure from within are saying something I think they themselves don't believe. And I don't think anyone really answered what media outlet these whistleblowers would use to expose the scandal?
If anyone is really interested in links all you need is TWA800.com
I'd love to see "Elvis Lives" (Level of credibility shown in title) in a debate with Dr Stalcup in person and we would see who depends on high school-level cheap internet slander and defamation and whose science is sound and provable. I think that contemptuous swagger would be cut-down quickly by Dr Stalcup.
This is coming from someone who posted the ejecta average speed of 225mph - which only showed his own lack of comprehension (contempt?) for the basic argument. The 225mph average includes the mach 4 fastest speed the formulas required for periods in between the sweeps. Nowhere does anyone answer for why the CIA video doesn't show any ejecta plume?
But here we are with the discussion being drawn into a pissing contest where it can be done away with by people not really interested in the truth.
And it’s dishonest for CannyDan to provide a quote from Brumley which contradicts you, and provide a link to that quote, but it’s OK for you to claim, without cites, that Brumley “saw an aircraft come right at his USAir flight” and then “dove towards the fated TWA 747”? Where did Brumley say this stuff?
And an explanation of the half-mile away debris after eight seconds thing, please.
What science? You haven’t presented any data yet. You’re resorting to appeals to authority with a person that has no standing when someone actually starts discussing the case with facts and details. Anytime someone presents data that contradicts your points you claim the data was falsified with no evidence that anything occurred. This isn’t going well.
