Posted on 11/07/2002 4:27:52 PM PST by Asmodeus
Well I give you a hint. It's not from Asmodeus's site. Follow the link and read. You'll see that the report is from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The FULL report is available in .PDF format by clicking below.
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Final Report (Full Report)
Is that better now Asmodeus?
LOL! More classic disinformation. FormerLurker provided a link in the very post to which this question was aimed!
You really have a knack for this.
Like I said, Asmodeus is a stand up comic at night.. LOL
Everybody who doesn't agree with the "shootdown" conspiracy theorists are government agent disinformationalist engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of heinous crimes, aren't they, including the entire U.S. congress, the press, members of American armed forces (many of whom are now in harms way) and the millions of others who turned their backs on your "shootdown" case years ago.
A "fact" based entirely on nothing but eyewitness testimony. Here is another fact, only 59 eyewitnesses reported seeing "a streak of light" rise from the ocean into the sky and I don't believe any of them reported seeing it hit TWA800. Here is another fact...recently millions of folks on the East Coast spent several terrifying weeks looking for a single white man in white van who eyewitnesses reported was responsible for a series of sniper shootings. And one final fact...the shooter ended up being two black men in a dark blue sedan. Tell me again why eyewitness testimony should be relied upon without any other supporting evidence?
Irrespective of anyone else, you are doing nothing other than spewing disinformation here - straw men arguments, changing the subject, red herrings. You ask questions but don't answer them.
Just think of all the people out there who have no opinion of TWA 800 one way or another, who come to this thread and see the question raised for the first time. You are the pall-bearer for the spontaneous explosion scenario. How convincing do you think you can possibly be when all you have to offer is disinformation and misinformation? Your citations are to your own website, FL's cite is to a professional organization. There is at least one participant to this thread who has a direct relative who saw the shootdown... but this means nothing to you.
Your ability to deny reality is exceeded only by the democratic pundits walking around in stunned silence after the election. (Although they, at least, realize now that something, somehow, somewhere, has gone horribly wrong.)
They also don't have mists or vapors of highly volatile fuel - except in the vicinity of an impact, explosion, or other energetic mechanical event.
Not that it will make any difference ... but ... you might want to read the CalTech report on JetA and ignition. It says that, "Hundreds of experiments documented in Nestor, Ott, and the Caltech studies demonstrate that an explosion can be produced in a quiescent mixture of Jet A vapor in air".
There were one or two original statements about white vans in 13 shootings, and people desperately searched for them in the hopes of finding the killer. There was also a statement of a dark sedan but this was preempted and therefore suppressed by the first ones.
But you yourself admit that there were 59 different witnesses, most independent, which all agreed something went up from the ocean, on one single event, prior to the crash.
You might try to figure the odds of a one or two reports of an irrelevent sightings in 13 events, compared to 59 irrelevent or erroneus sightings in one single event.
However, there is a discrepancy between the amount signed off at takeoff and the amount indicated by the flight data recorder at the time of the crash, which Donaldson has claimed provides evidence of the shootdown scenario.
I was showing by analogy that a metal box doesn't prevent ignition of contained fuel, which is what was implied in the post I was replying to.
I agree.
"Perhaps we should all take a deep breath and ask ourselves whether it is better that we analyze what has happened and know the truth, or believe in falsehoods.."
And it's only common sense, since all of the "shootdown" conspiracy theorists are amateur witness report analysts and since none of you have been able to present the public with any physical evidence of a missile shootdown (or bomb) after over six years of effort, that you would want an experienced trial lawyer of your own choosing to review your "shootdown" witness reports and this to provide you with his analysis.
Considering that you can extinguish burning rags in jet fuel, this doesn't seem too likely. They used capacitor sparks many, many times more energetic than the highest energy spark they can argue could have been present to ignite vapor. Why?
Not that it will make any difference ... but ... you might want to read the CalTech report on JetA and ignition. It says that, "Hundreds of experiments documented in Nestor, Ott, and the Caltech studies demonstrate that an explosion can be produced in a quiescent mixture of Jet A vapor in air".
I have read it, and it is Clintonian. Yes, you can ignite the quiescent vapor in air if it's hot enough - but TWA 800 wasn't. What temperature the CWT was likely at was measured and is reported in Donaldson's interim report, and was much cooler than the NTSB said. Furthermore, if such vapor can be ingited and made to explode - then why did the explosion tests in a chamber and at Bruntingthorpe have to be done with propane and/or hydrogen? A: because jet fuel isn't so explosive after all.
In any case, the questions remain about why the nose gear doors were first off the plane, why the first class passengers were more injured and burned than the cabin passengers who were over the tank whose explosion allegedly caused the crash, how "fist sized holes" got into first-class seat-backs, why the radar data was seized by the FBI, what did the witnesses see, what was the red residue and why did the NTSB lie about their tests of it in a court of law, etc.
For instance?
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.