[QUOTE=AndrewL]
…It would be a remarkable coincidence for all these events consistent with an electrical short triggered explosion, to have occurred on a flight that was destroyed by a completely unrelated bomb, missile, or meteor.
[/QUOTE]
Almost, but not quite, as remarkable as flying a couple of jets into some office buildings in such a manner as to not disturb the already laid-out bombs that were planted the week or two before. 
A week or two before? Dude, those bombs were BUILT INTO the towers!
(checking out the various crackpot theories to support that statement) Good Lord, some people think the towers were NUKED! If he wasn’t Finnish I’d blame Reagan for [del]kicking all the crazies out of the loony bins[/del] mainstreaming the mentally ill. Since he is Finnish, I’ll just blame socialized medicine.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Maybe to you, “wispy white smoke” and “gray smoke” are identical (they aren’t), but I would like to call attention to the witness numbers. Assuming that they were assigned consecutively, with no omissions, if there is a Witness #649, then there are at least 649 of them.
[/QUOTE]
Triple foul.
I no where used the term identical; you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say, to refute to make your point. Isn’t there a rather unflattering term for that?
As for the other 642 witnesses? I bet I can come up with 3 very good reasons other than tired fingers for not referencing them in under a minute.
They looked up to the sky too late to witness the particular … event.
Their description, while not contradictory, was too vague to be meaningful (e.g. “this lightish thing”)
They were probably compromised because the description was so technical as to imply preconceived ideas, or so very similar to other nearby that their first impressions could have been ‘contaminated’.
Regardless of the presence or absence of smoke trails, rising aircraft, etc., your theory hinges on all the investigators involved agreeing to lie about finding shrapnel and external explosion evidence near the centre fuel cell and say that there was only evidence of an internal explosion, including the necessary faking of photos and physical evidence so as to fool other professionals who saw it. Nobody, including highly professional accident investigators, and Boeing representatives who would have been highly relieved to find a cause that didn’t implicate a faulty product of their company, refused to go along with the lie or got drunk/had an attack of conscience later in life and spilled the beans? I find this the really hard to believe theory.
[QUOTE=AndrewL]
Consider the following:
TWA800 sat on the runway for an extended period of time, in hot weather, with a nearly empty fuel tank, with the air conditioning packs pumping heat into the central fuel tank.
The airplane in question had a history of electrical faults involving the fuel system instrumentation.
During the ascent one of the pilots was recorded on the cockpit voice recorder remarking as to “crazy” fuel flow indications.
Just before the explosion, the cockpit voice recorder recorded a momentary change in electrical noise consistent with an electrical short.
When recovered, the center fuel tank quantity indicator indicated a fuel quantity which did not match the fuel known to have been in the center tank, but which was consistent with a momentary short between the fuel quantity instrumentation system and the high voltage mains.
It would be a remarkable coincidence for all these events consistent with an electrical short triggered explosion, to have occurred on a flight that was destroyed by a completely unrelated bomb, missile, or meteor.
[/QUOTE]
And those were my exact thoughts until I started looking into it. But when radar images that match eyewitness accounts are both dismissed I get curious. When a 3rd government agency involves itself in functions already covered I wonder why. When they make an animation that shows something for which they have no data to back it up then I want to know what’s going on. The current lawsuit is the 3rd attempt to get the data for the animation. It’s the reason we have the Freedom of Information Act. So the public can review the records of our government.
[QUOTE=j666]
As for the other 642 witnesses? I bet I can come up with 3 very good reasons other than tired fingers for not referencing them in under a minute.
When you discard some of the evidence because you think it is not meaningful, you are distorting the statistics in your favor. This is called the file drawer effect. If 30% of your “witnesses” said they DIDN’T see something even though they were in a position to observe, that may be as significant as the ones that did. If you are trying to be objective, you can’t pick the ones you like and ignore the ones you don’t.
Maybe – in fact, that’s exactly my point made earlier – but you must include ALL the data, even if you have an explanation for why some doesn’t match other.
However, the very fact that, looking more deeply into the eyewitness accounts, you find they are different and varied, makes them all suspect. How do you know which ones are valid? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to turn to the physical evidence, which is less subject to human subjectivity?
Just for reference, and because I suspect some conspiracy proponents may be quoting from this site, here is the link to the Review of the Official TWA Flight 800 Witness reports.
And just in case it hasn’t yet been linked in this thread, here is the complete, official, NTSB Report (PDF, 342 pages).
Happy reading, y’all!
It’s amazing what you can find out from reading the official NTSB report. For example, the NTSB considered the eyewitness reports, and said this (starting at page 262) (all bolding mine):
There’s more, and I urge everyone to read it.
Magiver, you seem to place a lot of weight on the testimony of the flight crew that was supposedly looking right at the plane when it blew up. You cite them as more reliable witnesses due to their profession, the fact that they were at the same altitude, were looking right at it, etc…
So, did this other flight crew that was at the same altitude, looking right at it, report seeing a missile? Or a grey/white smoke trail? I tend to think not, or you would be trumpeting the fact from the housetops. So why didn’t they see it? They were looking right at the plane. If they are such reliable observers, how did they miss it? I see two possibilities, 1) they are not really that reliable, since they missed the SAM; or 2) there was no SAM. Since you have placed so much weight on their testimony, and gone to so much trouble to establish them as reliable witnesses, I am going to take your word for it and believe their testimony, which does not include a SAM.
You want to have it both ways, and pick and choose which “reliable” witness you’re going to use to back up only certain parts of your CT, which ignoring their testimony in areas you don’t like.
More from the official NTSB report (bolding and underlining mine):
Misicat: I’m assuming you made the statement:
It is noteworthy that none of the witness documents included a description of such a scenario
That is simply not true.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Then you couldn’t call them witnesses, could you?When you discard some of the evidence because you think it is not meaningful, you are distorting the statistics in your favor. This is called the file drawer effect. If 30% of your “witnesses” said they DIDN’T see something even though they were in a position to observe, that may be as significant as the ones that did. If you are trying to be objective, you can’t pick the ones you like and ignore the ones you don’t.Maybe – in fact, that’s exactly my point made earlier – but you must include ALL the data, even if you have an explanation for why some doesn’t match other.
However, the very fact that, looking more deeply into the eyewitness accounts, you find they are different and varied, makes them all suspect. How do you know which ones are valid? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to turn to the physical evidence, which is less subject to human subjectivity?
[/QUOTE]
I will remember all these point if I even conduct an investigation in a plane explosion.
Or next week, when I go back to work, and conduct internal investigations in my department.
I will also remain highly tuned to people who makes claims that the evidence flatly contradicts; for example, if someone implies I used the word ‘identical’ when there is documented evidence that I used the ‘similar’ and ‘strikingly similar’.
You dilute your argument when you do things like that.
As for your particular response,
The individuals might have witness some of the events, but not all; they may seen the explosion, but been paying any attention to the sky before that.
How can you be certain that the 30% of your witnesses were in a position to see something? They could have been lighting a cigarette, putting down a glass, or yelling at the kids.
While one may not dismiss any information during an investigation, one is certainly allowed to present it selectively in a informal discussion.
Your insistence that the seven account differ in any important respect is disingenuous; as is your implication that scientific evidence is not interpreted.
Look, I am not a huge believer in Conspiracy Theories, (although I do enjoy them); but I don’t wonder that so many people do when confronted with arguments such as, white is not whitish, whitish is not light gray; a trail is not a streak, a streak is not smoke.
When I read arguments like that, I begin to wonder if there isn’t something in a C. T. …
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Misicat: I’m assuming you made the statement:
It is noteworthy that none of the witness documents included a description of such a scenario
That is simply not true.
[/QUOTE]
No, I did not make that statement. It is a direct quote from the NIST report. My only contribution was to bold it. Did you actually read the report? If it is not true, you are calling the report a liar, not me. Do you have any evidence that NIST is wrong about this?
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
Magiver, you seem to place a lot of weight on the testimony of the flight crew that was supposedly looking right at the plane when it blew up. You cite them as more reliable witnesses due to their profession, the fact that they were at the same altitude, were looking right at it, etc…
So, did this other flight crew that was at the same altitude, looking right at it, report seeing a missile? Or a grey/white smoke trail? I tend to think not, or you would be trumpeting the fact from the housetops. So why didn’t they see it? .
[/QUOTE]
What they said prior was not mentioned and the missile would be a small object at 20 miles out against the brighter background of the setting sun. Unless they were looking right at the missile it would have been invisible. What makes this crew’s testimony so important is that they were specifically looking for the aircraft to identify it as traffic to avoid. At the time of impact a missile would be in ballistic mode and not produce any visible engine flame or contrail. This is consistent with witnesses who said an object ascended above the plane and arced over.
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
They were looking right at the plane. If they are such reliable observers, how did they miss it? I see two possibilities, 1) they are not really that reliable, since they missed the SAM; or 2) there was no SAM. Since you have placed so much weight on their testimony, and gone to so much trouble to establish them as reliable witnesses, I am going to take your word for it and believe their testimony, which does not include a SAM.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve placed a lot of weight on basic observations. If you were a pilot you’d understand how objects appear in relation to the horizon. Something like a 747 that is on fire would be easy to describe as to the nature of the fire and if it was climbing or descending relative to an aircraft close to their altitude. It’s not a function of missing little details. If you witness a bank robbery you should be able to accurately describe a singe person who discharges a gun. It doesn’t matter if you can’t accurately describe the clothing. The basic information should be correct.
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
You want to have it both ways, and pick and choose which “reliable” witness you’re going to use to back up only certain parts of your CT, which ignoring their testimony in areas you don’t like.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t want it both ways. There is no both ways or conflict in the eyewitness testimony. The conflict is with the animation that was produced. If either of the 2 crews who reported on the explosion said it was climbing we wouldn’t be having this discussion. According to the CIA it climbed at a significant rate. 3200 feet in 42 seconds is a 4500 ft per minute climb.
I’ve already talked about the near impossibility of an airplane flying like this this without any control inputs and a major change in center of gravity. Look at the DC-8 that crashed in MIA back in 1997. The plane was loaded tail heavy and from the time it rotated until it crashed was 36 seconds. They barely got out of ground effect. This was a crew TRYING to control the aircraft. A 747 with the nose blown off would be tail heavy and have no control input at all. The horizontal tail plane would be trimmed for climb and the change in CG would have pulled the plane into an immediate stall. If your don’t know anything about planes this is hard to explain but the horizontal plane is adjusted up or down on the forward side using a jackscrew mechanism. This control surface would have certainly frozen in that position. It would be the only control surface frozen in position. The plane would have pitched up violently with the change in CG and with the added turbulence and structural damage from the explosion it would simply pull itself apart.
I’m not trying to produce a defacto case that the plane was hit by a missile. But the CIA rendition is pure bullshit and there is absolutely no reason they should have been involved in the production of it. It is a function of the NTSB to research the mechanical and aerodynamic events of an accident and they are the agency with the skill sets to do this. I also don’t see why the FBI was so adamant about eyewitnesses testifying in public. That alone has a bad smell to it.
If the investigation is finished I don’t see a reason why requests for information are being denied.
[QUOTE=j666]
The individuals might have witness some of the events, but not all; they may seen the explosion, but been paying any attention to the sky before that.
How can you be certain that the 30% of your witnesses were in a position to see something? They could have been lighting a cigarette, putting down a glass, or yelling at the kids.
[/quote]
It appears that you are arguing about things in the report without having read the report. If you do read it, you will see that some individual claims are analyzed and some are refuted for reasons like the witness was not in a position to see what they said they could. Others contradict the undisputed timeline. Some samples from the report (starting at page 233, the following is footnote 447):
Another snippet:
Footnote 451 is interesting:
A notable passage:
That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying, isn’t it?
[QUOTE=Magiver]
I’ve already talked about the near impossibility of an airplane flying like this this without any control inputs and a major change in center of gravity.
[/quote]
The NIST says it can. You say it can’t. They have evidence and testimony from experts. What do you have? Fantasy Island?
To some people, that’s what solid science is. Glad we don’t all feel that way.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
The NIST says it can. You say it can’t. They have evidence and testimony from experts. What do you have? Fantasy Island?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand this statement. Who is the NIST and what are you talking about.
Are you opposed to information being released under the Freedom of Information Act?
[QUOTE=Magiver]
I don’t understand this statement. Who is the NIST and what are you talking about.
[/quote]
Sorry, my mistake. I meant the NTSB.
Of course not. What information are we talking about?
[QUOTE=Magiver]
I’ve already talked about the near impossibility of an airplane flying like this this without any control inputs and a major change in center of gravity. Look at the DC-8 that crashed in MIA back in 1997. The plane was loaded tail heavy and from the time it rotated until it crashed was 36 seconds. They barely got out of ground effect. This was a crew TRYING to control the aircraft.
[/QUOTE]
You appear to have picked up some vocabulary in your peregrinations without picking up the principles involved. Yes, Fine Air 101 was tailheavy. Except you do not understand that it was only operating at what would be barely over takeoff speed for a properly balanced aircraft, which is, obviously, pretty much stall speed since they both describe the velocity where the wing begins to lift, or stops lifting, the aircraft. Ground effect reduces the induced drag of the wing, increasing its lift. Rise above it and you lose lift.
Being much the same, stall and takeoff speed leave a hairy line between them and any factor that modifies velocity or lift will push the aircraft in one direction or the other–either it will continue to climb or it will stall. Push it in the stall direction too close to the ground for the aircraft to recover, as happened with Fine Air 101, and the aircraft will crash. Higher up and the pilot has a fighting chance to regain lift and recover from the stall.
Flight 800 was at a high altitude and moving at a velocity far above its stall speed. Losing all induced control by the aircrew meant that it was left to the airliner’s designed stability to maintain attitude. Had all control been lost by a system failure would leave it traveling at a fairly stable attitude for some distance. Airliners are not fighters and have an amount of inherent stability designed in.
Were the aircrew operating from a station behind the front section that fell off that was protected from the sudden blast of air they would’ve made a gallant attempt to recover but the aircraft was too far unbalanced to make it work. Just like apparently happened with Flight 800, the aircraft would nose up and wing over as it stalled, though with control it might’ve taken longer. Remember, though, we are talking about an aircraft that was moving quite quickly so it would travel pretty far as it scubbed off the cushion between its airspeed and its stall speed. Its reduced mass and tailheavy attitude meant that it climbed during that period. No surprises. Just facts.
Dude, this may be rocket science but it’s something a motivated amateur can pick up. In my case it came from building model airplanes and learning why mine flew so poorly. Learn some basic aeronautics, and not just some fancy words, and you can make a better judgment of what you read.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
Flight 800 was at a high altitude and moving at a velocity far above its stall speed. Losing all induced control by the aircrew meant that it was left to the airliner’s designed stability to maintain attitude. Had all control been lost by a system failure would leave it traveling at a fairly stable attitude for some distance. Airliners are not fighters and have an amount of inherent stability designed in.
[/QUOTE]
Without the front of the aircraft attached? There is nothing left to be stabile. All the controls are gone. All the hydraulic and electrical connections are gone. How did you come to that conclusion?
[QUOTE=dropzone]
Were the aircrew operating from a station behind the front section that fell off that was protected from the sudden blast of air they would’ve made a gallant attempt to recover but the aircraft was too far unbalanced to make it work. Just like apparently happened with Flight 800, the aircraft would nose up and wing over as it stalled, though with control it might’ve taken longer. Remember, though, we are talking about an aircraft that was moving quite quickly so it would travel pretty far as it scubbed off the cushion between its airspeed and its stall speed. Its reduced mass and tailheavy attitude meant that it climbed during that period. No surprises. Just facts.
[/QUOTE]
A 747 is not a fighter and will not hold up to extreme G forces. An explosion powerful enough to rip the front of the aircraft off would result in a hard nose-up pitch due to CG and wing loading which would put tremendous stress on the structural integrity of the remaining plane. Add to that the aerodynamic forces on the exposed tube. It’s going down, not up. And the eyewitness accounts testify to that. There is no data in the investigation to support your theory. That’s the whole point of the lawsuit.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
Dude, this may be rocket science but it’s something a motivated amateur can pick up. In my case it came from building model airplanes and learning why mine flew so poorly. Learn some basic aeronautics, and not just some fancy words, and you can make a better judgment of what you read.
[/QUOTE]
Well I’m glad you’re a motivated amateur but I’ve built a real airplane and modified it requiring recertification of the CG. While it didn’t change the CG appreciably the modifications changed the flying characteristics dramatically. Thanks for the lesson on model airplane aerodynamics.