Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Accuracy In Media ^ | Reed Irvine

Posted on 02/28/2002 9:31:30 AM PST by Asmodeus

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-308 next last
To: n9te
Good morning! Lucky for you I have the day off today! I wish I had a Piper Apache. Looks like fun but I couldn't afford it. Almost all my time is jet. I take it from your post that you now want me to find the data to support your theories? That might be difficult, because I don't think it exists. As far as slamming anybody is concerned, I'll leave that to the experts. I'll limit my comments to requests that people provide some kind of support for their claims. So far, that seems to be enough of a slam.
151 posted on 03/04/2002 6:02:48 AM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

Comment #152 Removed by Moderator

Comment #153 Removed by Moderator

To: n9te
Do you double as Michael Rivero?

You're pretty salty for a guy who's only been aboard a month.

154 posted on 03/04/2002 6:52:24 AM PST by a6intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: n9te
Do you double as Michael Rivero?

You're pretty salty for a guy who's only been aboard a month.

155 posted on 03/04/2002 6:53:19 AM PST by a6intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Haven't seen this one. Thanks, Fred.
156 posted on 03/04/2002 7:03:14 AM PST by mancini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

Comment #157 Removed by Moderator

Comment #158 Removed by Moderator

To: pittsburgh gop guy
>>...How could the sub have "...debris falling around them on film from the periscope" if it was doing " emergency dive...<<

Could have been the lighter stuff falling down later after the sub had come back up to scope depth.

We were still tracking falling debris 45 minutes after the Challenger explosion. (course, they were 10 miles high when it happened)

159 posted on 03/04/2002 7:32:55 AM PST by FReepaholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: n9te
The point I,m trying to make on this is that when you intermingle politics & corruption with the fabrication of this crash report, certain things happen to blur the picture, resulting in people here using incomplete or scewed data to reach conclusions.

I don't want to initiate a long and protracted debate on a side subject that will lead to nothing, but I don't find any documentation that politics and/or corruption on the part of any official involved in the TWA 800 investigation has been alledged or proven. Overwhelmingly asserted by several very vocal and unrelenting individuals, I'll admit. But nothing of substance offered in proof.

The other thing that bothers me personally, is the limits to which people, armed with the incomplete or skewed data, will go in defending their conclusion, however (and most often) fatally flawed it may be.


160 posted on 03/04/2002 7:41:20 AM PST by a6intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: japaneseghost
"W has no interest in causing any more scandals. It's called "CLASS."

What a bunch of crap! It's called continuing a lie. Covering up a lie is complicity! That is the exact opposite of "CLASS"!

161 posted on 03/04/2002 7:44:17 AM PST by hove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #162 Removed by Moderator

To: Keith
My gut feeling is the Moslem mujahedeen under Ben Laden had given some of the shoulder missels to other Moslem terrorist groups, like Hamas? Moslem countries are able to ship these weapons to their embassies in Washington through the cover of diplomatic pouch! Hence we are potentially having these deadly weapons on our soil in under the control of sleeper cells?

Obviously, our government cannot admit that fact, because it can paralize air travel, as well as shake our security. Of course, I have no proof, only speculation. It was obvious to me after hundreds of eye witnesses testified that they seen a flame going up from the sea to hit the plane, and made the explosion. The government said all of them were unreliable? thus a cover up started.

163 posted on 03/04/2002 8:57:29 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
"Instead - look at the ruptured area around the Forward Cargo bay Door, observe the red paint that was impacted onto the white paint area ABOVE the area where the door would have ruptured ... never mind this missile crap - a rupture due to a FCB door explains this transference of paint" - _JIM

Still peddling the cargo door conspiracy theory.

How many government officials have to be lying for this conspriacy theory to be true? (any less than the missile theory?)

164 posted on 03/04/2002 9:22:46 AM PST by Triple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
it is a fact that when TWA 800 exploded it was still daylight.

It couldn't have been.

On July 17, 1996, in New York, sunset occurred at 7:24 PM. Flight 800 exploded at 8:31 PM.

While the aircraft might have still been in direct sunlight because of its altitude (and thus clearly visible from the ground), how much daylight would you expect there to be at ground level 67 minutes after sunset?

165 posted on 03/04/2002 11:43:39 AM PST by Steve1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: n9te
Let me try to sum up your whole "Red Flag" post for you....

No, I don't have any data illustrating what overpressure from exploding ordnance would look like on an FDR tape, and it doesn't matter anyway because the FDR data has been tampered with.

So I guess there is no point in discussing any conclusions anyone has taken from the FDR data. Now maybe we can resume a discussion on the questionable source quoted in Irvine's article ironically published on his AIM site.

166 posted on 03/04/2002 11:50:13 AM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: n9te
"I want to make sure you are not in command of my flight! "

You're safe! There's not a whole lot of room for passengers in my jet.

167 posted on 03/04/2002 11:53:17 AM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: n9te
"one cannot rationally extract or construct a sound theory because of all the meddling that has taken place"

Well, that's a different take from the typical conspiracy approach favored by the likes of Rivero et al. I am surprised this has become an obsession for you, because I think you are on a road to nowhere. You basically trust none of the investigation data, but it is exactly that data that most of the folks you listed as trusted sources rely on. Garbage in equals garbage out, and I'm not sure you are ever going to find something that measures up to your standards. What is your desired outcome in all your personal effort? You have a contract with dead French students? Is that a personal vow or a formal contract? And I'm not sure what citizen duty you hope to accomplish "exposing" me. I'll save you some trouble and invite you to visit me whenever you chose. I live in Madison Wisconsin. Come on up and I'll buy you some cheese curds and a beer. I think you'll find the cheese curds a lot more exciting then anything you'll learn about me.

168 posted on 03/04/2002 12:12:40 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
"Now maybe we can resume a discussion on the questionable source quoted in Irvine's article ironically published on his AIM site."

Some other interesting questions arise out of the following:

Reed Irvine states as follows about his first telephone discussion with Randy Beers: ”I obtained Beers’ phone number from information and found him willing to talk. In our taped interview, he was somewhat more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn’t want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement, but nothing was said about the conversation being off the record. I told him that I was with Accuracy in Media and recommended that he visit our Web site, where he would find a lot of articles we had written about TWA 800. The following is a partial transcript of the taped interview. I did not begin taping at the very beginning of the conversation. The transcript begins where the taping started. This was Thurs., Nov. 15 at 10:00 a.m.” [emphasis added]

”B: I told everything, you know, when the Navy came on board with everybody else on my submarine.

Reed Irvine states as follows about a later telephone discussion with Randy Beers: ”I called Randy again the next morning, Friday, Nov. 16. He asked me to call him back Monday morning, Nov. 19. I did, and I found myself talking to an entirely different person. The confident, courageous master chief had been transformed into a quivering moral coward. He said he had talked to his skipper over the weekend and that he had been reminded that he had signed certain papers when he retired from the Navy. Whoever it was that he had talked to had scared him to death. He feared that he was going to lose his retirement because of what he told me. He claimed he had spoken off the record, but I told him that was not so and that was very clear from the tape that I had recorded.” [emphasis added]

Reed Irvine states as follows about a still later telephone discussion with Randy Beers: "My last conversation with Randy Beers was on February 5. I wanted to tell him that I was going to reveal his name, and I left a message saying it was important that he call me. He did. He first asked me if I was recording the call. I wasn’t and I said so. He then said that he was so upset that he had experienced trouble sleeping for two months. But he had found a solution to his problem. He told me that he was notorious for telling tall tales and that all that he had said about where the Trepang was and what he had seen was false. He claimed he just made it up.

He said the submarine was at its homeport in Groton, Connecticut that night, not beneath TWA Flight 800 when it was blown out of the sky. He said he didn’t know anything about any exercise that was taking place and he had never heard of W-105, the large area off Long Island that is regularly used by the military for testing and training. He said at least twice that this was his story and he was sticking to it. That is a gag line that says, in effect, I am lying but don’t expect me to admit it." [emphasis added]


Note: Everyone should obtain competent legal advice and guidance before making any decisions about taping conversations. Applicable law today, yesterday, last week or last year may be different tomorrow, next week or next year.
[quote][emphasis added]
At first, the question of whether or not to tape record a phone call seems like a matter of personal preference. Some journalists see taping as an indispensable tool, while others don’t like the formality it may impose during an interview. Some would not consider taping a call without the subject’s consent, others do it routinely.

However, there are important questions of law that must be addressed first. There are both federal and state statutes governing the use of electronic recording equipment. The unlawful use of such equipment can give rise not only to a civil suit by the "injured" party, but also criminal prosecution.

Accordingly, it is critical that journalists know the statutes that apply and what their rights and responsibilities are when recording and disclosing communications.

Although most of these statutes address wiretapping and eavesdropping -- listening in on conversations of others without their knowledge -- they usually apply to electronic recording of any conversations, including phone calls and in-person interviews.

Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

It shouldn’t need to be said, but it is illegal in all states to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.

Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.

At least fifteen states have laws outlawing the use of hidden cameras in private places. Be warned, however, that the audio portion of a videotape will be treated under the regular wiretapping laws in any state. Also, many of the statutes concern unattended hidden cameras, not cameras hidden on a person engaged in a conversation. And regardless of whether a state has a criminal law regarding cameras, undercover recording in a private place can prompt civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy.

This guide provides a quick reference to the specific provisions of each jurisdiction’s wiretap law. It outlines whether one-party or all-party consent is required to permit recording of a conversation, and provides the legal citations for wiretap statutes. Some references to case law have been provided in instances where courts have provided further guidance on the law. Penalties for violations of the law are described, including criminal penalties (jail and fines) and civil damages (money that a court may order the violator to pay to the subject of the taping). Instances where the law specifically includes cellular calls and the wireless portion of cordless phone calls are also noted, but many laws are purposely broad enough to encompass such calls without specifically mentioning them.

Sidebar articles throughout the guide address specific issues related to taping. Note that these are general discussions, and you will have to consult the state entries to see how these issues apply in particular states.

Still have questions about how the laws affect you? Journalists can always call the Reporters Committee’s hotline at 800-336-4243 for further information. [end quote]

169 posted on 03/04/2002 12:55:03 PM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Steve0113
I think you raise a valid point. The angle of the Sun below the horizon would definitely impact the degree of visibility. However, the horizon was obviously visible based on many eyewitness accounts, and there are photographs taken at the approximate time of the accident that show visiblity was good for several miles. The ANG helicopter pilot reported watching individual bodies fall past his helicopter. Incidently, he was flying practice approaches in his helicopter waiting for it to get dark when TWA 800 went down. Many eyewitnesses report being outside to enjoy the view and that's why they noticed the incident in the first place. So if you believe eyewitnesses, I think you'd have to believe there was sufficient visibility to see a surfaced submarine a couple miles off shore. If you don't believe the eyewitnesses, the whole question is moot. As an extension of the argument, let's assume it was pitchblack. Which radar track represents the submarine Beers describes?
170 posted on 03/04/2002 1:07:12 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
thanks for that post. I'm wondering, is it legal to record a conversation with a lawyer in NY State (face to face)?
171 posted on 03/04/2002 2:20:12 PM PST by japaneseghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: japaneseghost
"I'm wondering, is it legal to record a conversation with a lawyer in NY State (face to face)?"

The legality or illegality of recording your discussions with another person without their knowledge and consent, whether face to face or on the phone, is dependent on the then applicable law(s) under the circumstances.

It’s only common sense that if you obtain the consent of another person to record your discussion with them, it’s in your own self interest to document it after returning your recorder on and thereby avoid the possibility of a later swearing match.

Reed Irvine has publicly stated that Randy Beers ”claimed he had spoken off the record, but I told him that was not so and that was very clear from the tape that I had recorded.”

Is it logical that Randy Beers would state to Reed Irvine that their earlier discussion was “off the record” if he had known it was being recorded?

Where is the rest of the recording transcript? Will it be "very clear" to objective observers from the complete transcript and tape that Randy Beers knew it was being recorded?

What is clear is that Randy Beers recanted his first story, that he thereby demolished his own credibility and that his recanted comments didn’t even come close to being "shootdown" evidence anyway.

172 posted on 03/05/2002 12:33:49 PM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
Hey, Asmodeus.. as you've been fond of saying to anyone who didn't agree with you before: ex-pert\ adj 1 obs EXPERIENCED 2 : having, involving, or displayiong special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience syn see Proficient

See also: The missile theory myth.

173 posted on 03/05/2002 12:53:37 PM PST by Darksheare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #174 Removed by Moderator

Comment #175 Removed by Moderator

To: n9te
You must own a small farm. Planters and sprayers already repaired?
176 posted on 03/06/2002 5:35:12 AM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener; Rokke
"2. How long does it take to crash dive."

"It could take a couple of minutes."

Falltime of the Massive Fireball to the surface was only about 7-10 seconds. Sources

By the way, there is a "submarine witness" interview report:

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:43:41 -0500
Reply-To: Flight 800 discussion list FLIGHT-800@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
From: Tom Stalcup stalcup@MAGNET.FSU.EDU
Organization: Florida State University
Subject: More Witnesses

[excerpt][quote][emphasis his] BARBARA PACHOLK had an AMAZING story. She saw two objects rise from the water or land. The first object exploded near the tail and the second near the nose. She also saw a black submarine and its periscope. According to Ms. Pacholk, the periscope was looking in the direction of the plane, rotated about a 3/4 turn and saw her, then left the area. She believes that it is possible that at least one missile came from this sub. She also notice two large navy vessels in the ocean. One of which quickly left the area after the tragedy.[end quote]

Stalcup was referred to by Bill Donaldson during his congressional testimony, the transcript of which was earlier posted in this thread.

177 posted on 03/06/2002 6:31:28 PM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #178 Removed by Moderator

Comment #179 Removed by Moderator

Comment #180 Removed by Moderator

To: n9te
Bernard Loeb: [excerpt][emphasis added]
[quote] What I am going to do is to summarize the significant findings of our investigation. This will just be an overview - more detailed explanations will be provided by the investigators during their individual presentations over the next two days. But I think an overall summary at this point would be valuable to put things in context.

First, we knew almost immediately after the accident that TWA Flight 800 had experienced an in-flight breakup. This was strongly suggested by the radar data - there was a loss of transponder returns and the primary radar returns indicated that pieces had departed the airplane and were fairly widely dispersed in the ocean. The wreckage recovery locations made it evident relatively early in the investigation that the in-flight break-up was initiated by an event in the area of the fuselage near the forward part of the center wing tank.

Specifically, pieces from the forward part of the center wing tank and adjacent areas of fuselage were recovered from the westernmost portion of the wreckage field (the portion of the wreckage field closest to JFK Airport from where Flight 800 took off). This first wreckage area is referred to as the "red zone." The recovery of the pieces from the red zone indicated that they were the first pieces to separate from the airplane. The nose portion of the airplane was found farther to the east, in what was labeled the "yellow zone," indicating that this portion of the airplane separated later in the breakup sequence. And most of the remaining wreckage was found in the easternmost portion of the wreckage field, farthest from JFK, which was labeled the "green zone."

This basic evidence - the radar data and the wreckage recovery locations - indicated that the airplane broke up in flight, and that the break-up initiated in the area of the fuselage near the forward part of the center wing tank.

On the basis of this initial information, we considered several possible causes for the initiation of the in-flight break-up:

• a structural failure and decompression;

• a detonation of a high-energy explosive device, such as a bomb or missile warhead; and

• a fuel air vapor explosion in the center wing tank.

We found no evidence that a structural failure and decompression initiated the break-up. A thorough examination of the wreckage by our engineers and metallurgists did not reveal any evidence of fatigue, corrosion, or any other structural fault that could have led to the break-up.

As a side note, I would like to mention that there was absolutely no evidence of an in-flight separation of the forward cargo door - one of the many theories suggested to us by the members of the public. The physical evidence demonstrated that the forward cargo door was closed and latched at water impact.

We also considered the possibility of a bomb or missile. However, high-energy explosions leave distinctive damage signatures on the airplane's structure, such as severe pitting, cratering, hot gas washing, and petaling. No such damage was found on any portion of the recovered airplane structure, and as you know, more than 95 percent of the airplane was recovered. Our investigators, together with many outside participants from the parties to the investigation, closely examined every piece of recovered wreckage. All of the participants agreed that none of the wreckage exhibited any of the damage characteristics of a high-energy explosion - that is, of a bomb or a missile.

Further, no missing portions of fuselage were large enough to represent the entry of a missile. You may have noticed that some of the photographs of the reconstruction show what appear to be several large missing areas, such as those that are shown on the screen now. However, almost all of the fuselage structure in these areas is actually attached to the adjacent pieces, but has been folded back or crushed in such a way that it does not cover its original area. Therefore, these large gaps that appear to exist in the reconstructed fuselage do not represent areas of damage that could have been caused by a missile.

In addition, we found no localized area of severe thermal or fragmentation pieces and no localized severe damage or fragmentation of the seats, such as would be expected if a high-energy explosive device had detonated inside the airplane. The injuries to the occupants and the damage to the airplane were fully consistent with an in-flight break-up and subsequent water impact. In light of all this evidence, a bomb or missile strike has been ruled out as an initiating event of the in-flight break-up.

The FBI did find trace amounts of explosive residue on three pieces of the wreckage. However, these three pieces contain no evidence of pitting, cratering, hot gas washing, or petaling, which would have been there had these trace amounts resulted from a bomb or missile. Further, these trace amounts could have been transferred to these pieces in various ways. For example, in connecting with ferrying troops during the Gulf War or during dog-training explosive detection exercises that were conducted on the accident airplane about one month before the accident. There is also the possibility that the explosive residues could have been deposited on the wreckage during or after the recovery operations as a result of contact with the military personnel, ships, and vehicles used during those operations. We don't know exactly how the explosive residues got there - but we do know from the physical evidence I've just discussed that the residues were not the result of the detonation of a bomb. [end quote] Source

181 posted on 03/07/2002 7:52:25 AM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Magician
”For many years, I held off a friend of mine on this subject. He is a retired Admiral who says that he would not believe that several shiploads of sailors would keep something like this secret. Someone would talk. Well, now someone has talked.”

He said he was a witness and he said he wasn’t a witness.

liar - n : a person who has lied

”Another piece of information making the rounds among Medical Corps types is that the man who actually launched the missile is presently in a mental institution. This comes from a physician whose security clearance is so high that he has worked in the most secret medical facility maintained by the military (sorry, I won't say which one it is). I tend to believe anything this person says, but certainly can't prove it.”

ru•mor - n. Unverified information received from another; hearsay.

182 posted on 03/07/2002 9:34:02 AM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: n9te; Rokke
”By the way, some of the witnesses were "audio" witness. They were first alerted by the windows and house reverberating from a powerful event- from a source more powerfull than what would result from a partial drum of jet-A burping off.”

The following is by a sound expert the FBI reportedly consulted about the Flight 800 disaster:
[excerpts][emphasis added]
"Commander Bill Donaldson's much-publicized contention once was that an errant missile from naval exercises was responsible, but he attributed it to a rocket with a 93-lb explosive warhead, much too small to cause such noise on Long Island, much less the multiple bangs. Later, he switched to a terrorist source, but others still maintain that the U. S. Navy was the source. Whoever the culprits, something the size of a Scud missile, with 1000-lb warhead, could possibly have almost made enough noise, but again, no following sequence of smaller bangs. And I doubt that any cover-up, from the White House, the Kremlin, Teheran, or Bagdad, could have been maintained this long, particularly if the FBI had found any evidence of chemical or nuclear explosion residue on the recovered aircraft fragments".

"So, What Really Happened? Again, I do not know. But, it appears to me that Richard E. Spalding's (Sandia Lab satellite detection expert) hypothesis of an explosive earth-methane burp encounter survives by default. Dick has analyzed many flash signals from satellite monitors that cannot be explained as known explosions or meteorites. He has collected reports, even books, dating back hundreds of years and from every continent, about mysterious bangs and flashes, many of which were sufficiently documented to be quite credible; but just have not or cannot be explained. So, Dick has, for several years now, engaged the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Dynamics of Geospheres, in various studies of methane deposits, possible emission mechanics, and ignition and explosion chemistry and physics. But beyond this mini-Soros program to feed starving Russian scientists, he has gotten no support for any geophysical expeditions required to explore possible methane burps. This subject quickly raises hackles in the establishments of geology and geophysics (See Thomas Gold, "Power from the Earth", J.M.Dent and Sons, London, 1987). Yet Dick has also postulated an ionized methane trail, similar to a lightning leader path, that might be activated to cause the appearance of a rocket plume, as was widely reported to reach TWA Flight 800." [end excerpts]
[Note: It is a “work in progress” website that also includes witness report analysis and the readers are encouraged to examine it at this time for updates]

183 posted on 03/07/2002 10:13:13 AM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
One hundred witnesses and a flight data recorder that recorded an explosion near the front of the plane say it was a missile.

The government's contention that the center fuel tank exploded as the initial event is not supported by a single witness or a single piece of physical evidence. It is invented out of whole cloth.

184 posted on 03/07/2002 10:15:38 AM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

Comment #185 Removed by Moderator

To: japaneseghost
It's called "CLASS."

My A$$. I think that it's safe to say that we all understand the need to keep a lid on certain matters that threaten national security. However, the day that the majority of Freepers agree that a blanket ice-down on all information on a matter of public concern and safety by authorities to whom we give our trust is the day that I shut my hard drive down for good and trade my computer in on a Nintendo.

"the right NOT to know" = DOUBLETHINK

186 posted on 03/07/2002 10:51:24 AM PST by a merkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: a merkin
""the right NOT to know" = DOUBLETHINK


187 posted on 03/07/2002 11:21:19 AM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Magician
"a flight data recorder that recorded an explosion near the front of the plane say it was a missile"

Can I assume you found the data that shows what a missile explosion looks like on a flight data recorder? Could you share it or at least publish a source? Otherwise, your theory is completely unsupportable, and not worth bringing up again and again.

"The government's contention that the center fuel tank exploded as the initial event is not supported by a single witness or a single piece of physical evidence."

How about hundreds of pages of documentation and pictures including signed and approved addendums by engineering experts from Boeing, TWA and ALPA who were actual parties to the investigation, and actually examined the evidence? I guess that carries less weight then your unsupported contention that the FDR perfectly recorded a missile exploding near the front of the plane.

188 posted on 03/07/2002 11:28:57 AM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Magician
”One hundred witnesses and a flight data recorder that recorded an explosion near the front of the plane say it was a missile. The government's contention that the center fuel tank exploded as the initial event is not supported by a single witness or a single piece of physical evidence. It is invented out of whole cloth.”

The visible fiery events seen by the “missile witnesses” did not appear until approximately 20-30 seconds after the initiating event began tearing the 747 apart at 13,800 feet. The Massive Fireball, unofficially calculated at 2000 feet in diameter, exploded in the falling main fuel bearing wreckage, filling the sky between about 5500-7500 feet and the falltime of the MF to the surface took approximately 7-10 seconds, obviously impossible from 13,800 feet. Sources

Think not? Then please extend the readers the courtesy of explaining how witness Meyer could have seen an “ordnance shootdown” of the airliner at 13,800 feet only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explosion at 5500-7500 feet.

189 posted on 03/07/2002 11:32:24 AM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
A thorough description discussion and analysis of the last second of the flight data recorder data took place on the Lsoft flight 800 discussion group shortly after the ORIGINAL data was posted on the Internet by the NTSB.

When it was pointed out that the data of the last second showed changes incompatible with the last second of data recorder (which would have been instantaneously disconnected by a center tank explosion) data of a flight going along normally, the reaction of the NTSB was to claim that they had inadvertantly included one second of the aircraft's previous flight from Paris to New York.

However, further analysis of the air speed, altitude and rate of climb data showed that those of the last second were very abnormal, but coordinated. When analyzed back to the air pressures that would produce such data, it become apparent that the data recorder had recorded a sharp "overpressure", a polite term for an explosion, in proximity to the front of the aircraft.

Lo and behold, soon after this analysis was published, the NTSB pulled the original data recording and substituted another in which the last second of original data had been deleted.

Unless you archived the original data (and I did not) within the first few days of it being posted, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL DATA.

190 posted on 03/07/2002 2:59:24 PM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
A thorough investigation of the TWA 800 crash was conducted for the association representing the retired airline pilots (virtually all of whom doubted the official explanation of the crash) by the late Commander Donaldson (Navy) who was an experienced aviation aircraft accident investigator. The complete report submitted to the NTSB and a congressional committee investigating the crash is available at:

The ORIGINAL flight data recorder data is included in the index of that report, as is a detailed analysis of that data.

It was after Cmdr. Donaldson confronted the NTSB with the fact that their own data showed an explosion in proximity to the aircraft that the NTSB pulled the original last second of data from their site.

I would suggest that anyone interested in whether a missile may have brought down TWA Flight 800 read Cmdr. Donaldson's report. It is about 70 pages long.

I have personally been convinced that a missile brought the aircraft down ever since the night it crashed. That night, I watched on TV the interview of the Air National Guard pilot who was flying the c-130 that was in the area and was the first plane to get to the crash site. This Vietnam U.S. Air Force veteran, who knows exactly what a surface to air missile (SAM) looks like, said in plain English that he had seen what happened and that a SAM had brought down the airliner. When another one hundred witnesses said the same thing, it didn't at all surprise me.

When someone (the NTSB) conducts a hearing and excludes all 100 witnesses who saw the event, and who all say the same thing happened, you better believe the whole thing was rigged from the beginning.

Now tell me again, Rokke, how much you trust the Federal government.

191 posted on 03/07/2002 3:39:09 PM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Magician
"Now tell me again, Rokke, how much you trust the Federal government."

A lot more than I trust an internet debate on LSoft which seems to be your primary source for the "missile" data on the FDR tapes. I haven't read Donaldson's analysis yet, but I will. After reading other bits of analysis he's done, I'm sure I will be completely underwhelmed. The guy had great intentions, but almost no idea of what he was talking about. His analysis of shoulder launched heat seeking missiles guiding on heating vents (fundamental to his theory) is laughable, and his analysis of radar data that supposedly showed missile debris exiting out the right side of the aircraft was so flawed a graduate of 7th grade geometry could disprove it. So let me just make a prediction...I predict Donaldson will continue his streak, and his FDR analysis will be as flawed as the rest of his efforts.

I'll read it tonight and report back.

192 posted on 03/07/2002 5:23:19 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

Comment #193 Removed by Moderator

Comment #194 Removed by Moderator

Comment #195 Removed by Moderator

To: n9te
Don't bother me. I'm busy trying to decipher Donaldson's FDR analysis. Maybe I ought to get into politics. At least they're getting something for their efforts.
196 posted on 03/07/2002 6:40:51 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

Comment #197 Removed by Moderator

To: Magician;n9te
OK, I have a confession to make. I searched all over the website (the web address you gave me was invalid Magician), and though I found a lot of information on the FDR data, I didn't find anything written by Donaldson. Does anybody have a better address or a link to what he wrote? With regard to the other information provided concerning the FDR, the most coherent analysis I could find was an accusation that 4 seconds of the FDR tape were missing. If that were true, then I would suggest it would be even more difficult to prove a high pressure event from an ordnance explosion was recorded perfectly on the FDR tapes.
198 posted on 03/07/2002 8:26:38 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: n9te
Since when do you trust the likes of Stephie, Kallstrom, Hall et al. A transcript of Kallstrom's comment apparently doesn't exist, and Stephie was talking about when the White House situation room was used while he was there. Since TWA 800 was considered to be a terrorist event for several days, I think his slip of the tongue at the end of the day on 9/11 is understandable. If we are to believe him, however, then the entire missile theory has just been debunked. He did say "bombing". Personally, I choose to ignore everything that comes out of his mouth.
199 posted on 03/07/2002 8:43:25 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: n9te

FreeRepublic obviously. But the fact that someone on FreeRepublic tells me the sky is green doesn't make it so, unless they can back it up with evidence and proof. That's all I'm asking for. And from all your barbs directed at Elmer, it would appear you don't like or trust him. I'm familiar with Barf. He and I went round and round about P-3's dragging target sleds. I definitely admire his engineering work. I'm not so impressed with his interpretation of radar data.

200 posted on 03/07/2002 8:48:35 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-308 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson