Posted on 04/30/2002 12:32:08 PM PDT by Asmodeus
It's as though you'd chosen the handle "ChronicLiar." It does immediate harm to your credibility.
You keep posting "Truth is always dependent on facts"
But from you own source The "Missile Witnesses" Myth states
[quote] Just after the initial explosion at 8:31.07.5 PM, the aircraft pitched up abruptly and climbed several thousand feet from its cruise altitude of 13,800 feet to a maximum altitude of about 17,000 feet. This is consistent with information provided by National Transportation Safety Board and Boeing engineeers indicating that the front third of the aircraft, including the cockpit, separated from the fuselage just two to four seconds after the initial explosion. This significant sudden loss of mass from the front of the aircraft caused the rapid pitch-up.
But the hard "FACTS" of the radar track does not support an abruptly climb from 13,800 to 17,000 feet!
The facts do not support this and as you say "Truth is always dependent on facts"
Correction:
Truth is always dependent on all the facts, not facts left out, not cover-ups, not mischaracterizations of witness' comments, not out-right lies and subtrifuge.
1. Why did the fabric from the seat show missile residue on it, if not for a missile?
It didn't.
2. Why did all plane wreckage fall out of the sky on the right hand side of the flight path, when a fuel tank explosion would blast the airplane apart from the center?
The winds that night were out of the west.
3. Why did some 200 witnesses declare that what they saw was consistant with a missile, and bore no resemblence to the CIA's cartoon?
They didn't. Or have you discovered some previously unknown source?
4. Why was the nose wheel compartment door bent inward. It was dislodged from the plane, but an internal explosion would have bent it outward.
Wasn't the nose section relatively intact when it hit the water? What effect does impacting water at high speed have on aluminium.
5. Why did the government swear that no naval operations were taking place in the area that night, only to admit later on that there were?
Define area.
6. Why did the government state that the nearest Navy ship was 125 miles away, when they were actually present almost directly under the aircraft?
There was? What was it, and who says?
7. Why did the government completely ignore radar data that showed at least one bogie intersect with the plane at the moment it fell out of the sky?
If they ignored it, how do you know about it. The only radar data for the incident comes from the Government's report
8. Why did the White House situation room become activated as a result of that airline crash.
They thought it was a terrorist incident. Why would they activate the room if the Navy had done it?
9. How could a plane with it's center of gravity altered beyond flight worthiness by the decapitation of the cockpit, fly onward and upward for another 2000 feet?
Strange isn't. But that's what Boeing, NASA and the radar data said happened.
There isn't a pilot around that will buy that one, yet the NTSC, FBI and CIA want you to belive it did.
I'm a pilot, and I do. So does the Airline Pilots Association, TWA and Boeing, so I guess I'm in good company.
You appear to imply that you saw one or more of the alleged "several videos" as how else could you claim to know what it or they supposedly clearly depicted?
Is that what you're alleging? Please clarify and provide us all with any evidence you have along with the reference source URL's that you believe might support the "shootdown video(s)" allegations that have periodically surfaced for years.
Please show me the radar data that supports this climb..
This is not and attack ...and I am open to it if it is supported
However every radar track that I have seen on TWA 800 does not support a climb
Here's a quote from the TWA submission to the NTSB report:
"No evidence of a bomb, missile, or high order explosive damage was found on any pieces of wreckage which were examined."
It doesn't look to me like they believe TWA 800 was brought down by a bomb or missile.
You then state: "It would not have been a problem at all."
How many eyewitnesses were there - 700+? Let's skip the legalities for the moment while you tell us all specifically how you would have prepared all of the eyewitnesses to testify at Baltimore if you had then been Top Dog at the NTSB. If "it would not have been a problem at all" for you then it should be easy for you to provide us with the details.
For all your blather you can't confirm that a center fuel tank explosion took out the aircraft. Nobody can, including the FBI, CIA and the NTSB. Forgot to mention that didn't you. At the present time there is no confirmed reason why the aircraft feel out of the sky. 200 witnesses saw various statges of something leaving the surface and impacting the plane. In reaction to this the FBI surmised that the center fuel tank blew up.
Aw those intuitive G-Men, they're really something. And you're really something too bud.
"Boeing’s assessment of the evidence is based on extensive observations of the wreckage, analysis of possible failure modes, observations of the wreckage reconstruction, analysis and simulation of explosion scenarios, and review of other pertinent data gathered during the investigation. Based on a review of this information, Boeing believes that there was an ignition of the flammable vapors in the CWT resulting in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft. Although there has been significant analysis of the wreckage and potential failure modes by some of the best minds in aviation, the government and academia, the investigation, to date, has not determined the ignition source."
This is from ALPA's:
"Immediately after the accident, there was strong speculation that a criminal act was the cause of the explosion. However, as the wreckage recovery progressed, it became clear that the center wing tank (CWT) was the origin point of the explosion, and the focus of the investigative efforts became the identification of the ignition source. To date, the investigative team has been unsuccessful in determining a specific causal mechanism. However, the investigation has significantly advanced industry knowledge and understanding of many aspects of the 'basic sciences' related to this accident. These areas included aircraft systems design, certification and inspection practices, aircraft systems and component degradation, fuel flammability, and explosion dynamics."
And I think we all know what the NTSB thinks. And here is another interesting point. You offer no support for any of your theories in any of your posts, yet you accuse me of blathering. Maybe your theories would gain a little more traction if there was anything of substance to support them.
How many eyewitnesses were there - 700+? Let's skip the legalities for the moment while you tell us all specifically how you would have prepared for all of the eyewitnesses to testify at Baltimore if you had then been Top Dog at the NTSB. If "it would not have been a problem at all" for you then it should be easy for you to provide us with the details.
You quote me: "None of the Flight 900 eyewitnesses - whether perceived by you or anyone else to be "hostile", "friendly" or "neutral" - testified at either of the NTSB's hearings. It would have been both a legal and logistical impossibility."
You then state: "It would not have been a problem at all."
How many eyewitnesses were there - 700+? Let's skip the legalities for the moment while you tell us all specifically how you would have prepared all of the eyewitnesses to testify at Baltimore if you had then been Top Dog at the NTSB. If "it would not have been a problem at all" for you then it should be easy for you to provide us with the details.
72 posted on 5/1/02 12:20 PM Pacific by Asmodeus
The fact that won't go away is that there were some 200 people who saw something leave the surface of the ocean and impact the plane. Their reports weren't identical, but they were consistant. Triangulated they each did see something, the same thing according to the location they each referenced, despite different angles of sight. This is irrefutable. Was it a missile? Well, if you see something boxy going down the freeway on what appears to be wheels, do you jump to a conclusion and venture a guess that it might be a car? Perhaps you wouldn't, but most sane people would.
What else streaks up from the ground, makes what some witnesses refered to as mid-course corrections, and then impacts a plane? A. Bread Box? B. Beagle? C. Carp? D. Missile? You figure it out.
Now, despite these witnesses, the NTSB concluded a laughable scenario that dismissed most of them. Then it came up with a cartoon that defied logic, physics and a those witnesses.
Despite all this, the NTSB has no irrefutable proof that TWA-800 was blown out of the sky by a middle fuel tank explosion. That's just their best guess.
Now if it's just their best guess, that means that something else could have happened too, doesn't it! The only thing is, when it comes time to present the report, one theory is promoted, the other theory isn't even mentioned, or when it is, it is dismissed.
If the NTSB could provide reasons why one scenario was possible, it would seem that they could explain the reasons why the other scenario was possible too. But that isn't what happened is it? No. Why is that? Is it because there was no evidence to support the missile premise? No. There was radar evidence and eye witness testimony. Did the NTSB lend any credence to them? No. Again, why is that? Providing a rational case for each scenario then leaving them hang in the air would have been credible. A comment along the lines of, "We just don't know, we think it may have been a center fuel tank explosion or even possible a missile, but we can't confirm or deny either." would be credible. What was presented wasn't.
Two hundred witnesses could have been flown down on one flight. But then you and I know that two hundred wouldn't have been needed to present the case for a missile impact. You're just trying to be as absurd as possible. Ten to twenty witnesses could have provided more than enough information to introduce that theory. It's certainly more credible than a center fuel-tank explosion induced due to a neighboring air conditioner unit elevating temperatures inside the fuel tank, or some such nonsense. TWA jets have been flying in the middle-east for twenty years. The temperatures over there reach 130 degrees. Aircraft sit on tarmacs of there too. None of them are blown to bits.
Reliance upon mantra is a poor substitute for proving that a loose wire ignited the center fuselage fuel tank. Admit it. There is NO proof - no evidence - that a wire ignited the fuel tank. There is only conjecture. The feds were unable to duplicate the disaster under any of the conditions under which they claimed TWA800 was subjected.
You would have better luck pusing your lame fed theory by hiring ABC's Nightline to attach incendiary devices to the tanks, like they do with pickup trucks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.