User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 4:47:34 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Proximity fuse missile was used which detonates before impact. In fact the radar signature of the blast recorded the debris flying at greater than Mach 4. It's in the documentary and all backed up by experts who were involved in the investigation not your buddy who wasn't involved. No disrespect meant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
also, SA7 hits cause engine detachment or failure in other cases with commercial aircraft, DHL landed one in Baghdad. There are procedures for engine sep on 7 body from same discussion. Proximity fuse missile was used which detonates before impact. In fact the radar signature of the blast recorded the debris flying at greater than Mach 4. It's in the documentary and all backed up by experts who were involved in the investigation not your buddy who wasn't involved. No disrespect meant. Unless you're looking directly at the source material (radar data for instance) your trusting this documentary made by people you don't know is no more logical than him trusting his buddy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 4:50:00 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does a jet liner with no nose and it's center of gravity completely out of whack still manage to climb?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was working for TWA at the time and I believe the official story. Too much to type, but the short version is that the center tank blew....decapitating the 747...throwing the center of gravity way off. The headless jet continues to climb (smoke trail) until it finally exploded. How does a jet liner with no nose and it's center of gravity completely out of whack still manage to climb?? A jet with the nose broken off is pretty much guaranteed to climb as long as the engines continue to operate given that it's center of gravity would have shifted well back from normal. It will climb until the engines stop, it stalls, or a structural failure occurs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 4:50:11 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But by a pilot that was at equal altitude a few miles away? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a difficult time believing that there was a mass hallucination moments before the aircraft decided it should transform into fire. I'd like to see the DSP data for the event. It would at least put the missile debate to bed. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. That was a key point taught in both of my Aircraft Accident Investigation courses. If you see a flash of light out on the horizon (TWA800 was at 15K feet and about 10 miles offshore at the time of the explosion) and then you hear the distant sound of the explosion a minute later, the flash coming from the wreckage vs. going towards it would be easy to confuse in the aftermath. But by a pilot that was at equal altitude a few miles away? Have you seen the photos of the reconstructed wreckage? If you can look at that and say it looks like an external explosion caused the CWT explosion then you have a better imagination than I do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 4:53:59 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless you're looking directly at the source material (radar data for instance) your trusting this documentary made by people you don't know is no more logical than him trusting his buddy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
also, SA7 hits cause engine detachment or failure in other cases with commercial aircraft, DHL landed one in Baghdad. There are procedures for engine sep on 7 body from same discussion. Proximity fuse missile was used which detonates before impact. In fact the radar signature of the blast recorded the debris flying at greater than Mach 4. It's in the documentary and all backed up by experts who were involved in the investigation not your buddy who wasn't involved. No disrespect meant. Unless you're looking directly at the source material (radar data for instance) your trusting this documentary made by people you don't know is no more logical than him trusting his buddy. These people are named sources that were directly involved in the investigation. Their findings were largely omitted from the final report. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 4:54:35 PM EDT
[#5]
I know TWA mx. That airplane didn't "just blow up".
Don't know what killed them but a lot of good men know and were intimidated by the .gov into shutting up. Riddle me this: American Airlines has been slamming airplanes in the ground for most of the '90's and early '00's. USAir did too. How often, after a crash, did the CEO (Crandall, Carty, Schofield or Wolf) end up getting a private jet ride to D.C. to meet privately with the sitting President? The answer would be...ZERO. How many times after TWA slammed a plane into the ground (only once since 1974, Flt. 800) did this happen? ONCE. 100% vs. 0%. Hummm.... TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:01:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know TWA mx. That airplane didn't "just blow up". Don't know what killed them but a lot of good men know and were intimidated by the .gov into shutting up. Riddle me this: American Airlines has been slamming airplanes in the ground for most of the '90's and early '00's. USAir did too. How often, after a crash, did the CEO (Crandall, Carty, Schofield or Wolf) end up getting a private jet ride to D.C. to meet privately with the sitting President? The answer would be...ZERO. How many times after TWA slammed a plane into the ground (only once since 1974, Flt. 800) did this happen? ONCE. 100% vs. 0%. Hummm.... TC Interesting. What is TWA MX? Eta: since the official report claimed an explosion in the center fuel tank, but they couldn't name the ignition source and there hasn't been a redesign to fix it are we to assume all 747's are essentially time bombs that could explode at any moment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:02:38 PM EDT
[#7]
Maintenance
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:02:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This people are named sources that were directly involved in the investigation. Their findings were largely omitted from the final report. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
also, SA7 hits cause engine detachment or failure in other cases with commercial aircraft, DHL landed one in Baghdad. There are procedures for engine sep on 7 body from same discussion. Proximity fuse missile was used which detonates before impact. In fact the radar signature of the blast recorded the debris flying at greater than Mach 4. It's in the documentary and all backed up by experts who were involved in the investigation not your buddy who wasn't involved. No disrespect meant. Unless you're looking directly at the source material (radar data for instance) your trusting this documentary made by people you don't know is no more logical than him trusting his buddy. This people are named sources that were directly involved in the investigation. Their findings were largely omitted from the final report. Again, unless you're looking at the data yourself, you're taking someone else's word. For instance, your Mach 4 radar track. What are the details on that? On how many sweeps did it occur? What was the receive SNR on those targets? Is the radar designed to register a doppler of Mach 4? Is the guy making the statement an aviation expert or a radar expert? What are his credentials? What do radar experts say about this data? Is it real or is it noise? You're taking this documentary at face value. Let me suggest you might want to investigate it more thoroughly and specifically investigate any sources that purport to refute it. You really need to do more homework than just watching a video. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:06:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, unless you're looking at the data yourself, you're taking someone else's word. For instance, your Mach 4 radar track. What are the details on that? On how many sweeps did it occur? What was the receive SNR on those targets? Is the radar designed to register a doppler of Mach 4? Is the guy making the statement an aviation expert or a radar expert? What are his credentials? What do radar experts say about this data? Is it real or is it noise? You're taking this documentary at face value. Let me suggest you might want to investigate it more thoroughly and specifically investigate any sources that purport to refute it. You really need to do more homework than just watching a video. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
also, SA7 hits cause engine detachment or failure in other cases with commercial aircraft, DHL landed one in Baghdad. There are procedures for engine sep on 7 body from same discussion. Proximity fuse missile was used which detonates before impact. In fact the radar signature of the blast recorded the debris flying at greater than Mach 4. It's in the documentary and all backed up by experts who were involved in the investigation not your buddy who wasn't involved. No disrespect meant. Unless you're looking directly at the source material (radar data for instance) your trusting this documentary made by people you don't know is no more logical than him trusting his buddy. This people are named sources that were directly involved in the investigation. Their findings were largely omitted from the final report. Again, unless you're looking at the data yourself, you're taking someone else's word. For instance, your Mach 4 radar track. What are the details on that? On how many sweeps did it occur? What was the receive SNR on those targets? Is the radar designed to register a doppler of Mach 4? Is the guy making the statement an aviation expert or a radar expert? What are his credentials? What do radar experts say about this data? Is it real or is it noise? You're taking this documentary at face value. Let me suggest you might want to investigate it more thoroughly and specifically investigate any sources that purport to refute it. You really need to do more homework than just watching a video. Good point. Is there any source data that refutes it which you can recommend? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:07:30 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maintenance Got it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:08:52 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does a jet liner with no nose and it's center of gravity completely out of whack still manage to climb?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was working for TWA at the time and I believe the official story. Too much to type, but the short version is that the center tank blew....decapitating the 747...throwing the center of gravity way off. The headless jet continues to climb (smoke trail) until it finally exploded. How does a jet liner with no nose and it's center of gravity completely out of whack still manage to climb?? By all accounts, the four engines were still operational and producing climb power. The wing would still have been producing lift.....and with the CG now moved so far aft, the thing would/could have been racing upwards till it exploded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:11:07 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good point. Is there any source data that refutes it which you can recommend? You're the one making the claim. It would be incumbent on you to seek out the source data. And, I don't do other people's homework. Let me just suggest that you don't limit yourself to looking solely at pro-conspiracy advocacy data. Look at all the data, from advocates on all sides, then make up your mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:12:45 PM EDT
[#13]
hundreds of people say they saw an object with a smoke trail and an orange glow on the top leave the surface of the water rise and hit the airplane. The official narrative is that people saw the aircraft when the nose came off climb 3,000 feet while on fire trailing smoke, not a missile. now let us do the math aircraft was about 12 miles off the coast, most witnesses were on the land. Jet was at 13,000 when it happened and without the nose flew up to 16,000 feet. using the 60 to 1 rule, where at 60 miles every degree of angle equals 1 mile at 12 miles every mile is 5 degrees of angle. using the 6000 feet to every nautical mile at 13,000 feet which is about 2.2 NM, that equates to the jet being about 11 degrees above the horizon as viewed from the beach 12 nm away. It climbed 3,000 feet, which at 12 nm is 2.5 degrees of climb as viewed from the beach. So do you really think hundreds of eyewitnesses saw angular movement of 2.5 degrees from 11 degrees above the horizon to 13.5 degrees above the horizon and describe it as leaving the surface and hitting the jet? Do you think your eye could even see 2.5 degrees of movement? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:18:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By all accounts, the four engines were still operational and producing climb power. The wing would still have been producing lift.....and with the CG now moved so far aft, the thing would/could have been racing upwards till it exploded. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was working for TWA at the time and I believe the official story. Too much to type, but the short version is that the center tank blew....decapitating the 747...throwing the center of gravity way off. The headless jet continues to climb (smoke trail) until it finally exploded. How does a jet liner with no nose and it's center of gravity completely out of whack still manage to climb?? By all accounts, the four engines were still operational and producing climb power. The wing would still have been producing lift.....and with the CG now moved so far aft, the thing would/could have been racing upwards till it exploded. Actually it should have kept arcing with nothing to control the rate of turn. Yet cia says that did not happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:20:59 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Proximity fuse missile was used which detonates before impact. In fact the radar signature of the blast recorded the debris flying at greater than Mach 4. It's in the documentary and all backed up by experts who were involved in the investigation not your buddy who wasn't involved. No disrespect meant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
also, SA7 hits cause engine detachment or failure in other cases with commercial aircraft, DHL landed one in Baghdad. There are procedures for engine sep on 7 body from same discussion. Proximity fuse missile was used which detonates before impact. In fact the radar signature of the blast recorded the debris flying at greater than Mach 4. It's in the documentary and all backed up by experts who were involved in the investigation not your buddy who wasn't involved. No disrespect meant. none taken. I watched the same film and thought it was pretty well made and covered data in a level headed way. So after asking someone who does the job for a living was able to look at it from a different perspective. If it wasn't a standard missile or other US based system that would require crew operation (approaching impossible) and not an sa-7, whats left? After this airlines were forced to adopt systems that displace ambient air in the fuel tanks, or that is my understanding. I am clearly not a subject matter expert but did ask around in the airline community and didn't find a good conspiracy explanation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:29:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're the one making the claim. It would be incumbent on you to seek out the source data. And, I don't do other people's homework. Let me just suggest that you don't limit yourself to looking solely at pro-conspiracy advocacy data. Look at all the data, from advocates on all sides, then make up your mind. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good point. Is there any source data that refutes it which you can recommend? You're the one making the claim. It would be incumbent on you to seek out the source data. And, I don't do other people's homework. Let me just suggest that you don't limit yourself to looking solely at pro-conspiracy advocacy data. Look at all the data, from advocates on all sides, then make up your mind. So in other words you have just blindly excepted the official story and don't really have anything to share either way except trivial statements. Got it. Good boy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:33:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
hundreds of people say they saw an object with a smoke trail and an orange glow on the top leave the surface of the water rise and hit the airplane. The official narrative is that people saw the aircraft when the nose came off climb 3,000 feet while on fire trailing smoke, not a missile. now let us do the math aircraft was about 12 miles off the coast, most witnesses were on the land. Jet was at 13,000 when it happened and without the nose flew up to 16,000 feet. using the 60 to 1 rule, where at 60 miles every degree of angle equals 1 mile at 12 miles every mile is 5 degrees of angle. using the 6000 feet to every nautical mile at 13,000 feet which is about 2.2 NM, that equates to the jet being about 11 degrees above the horizon as viewed from the beach 12 nm away. It climbed 3,000 feet, which at 12 nm is 2.5 degrees of climb as viewed from the beach. So do you really think hundreds of eyewitnesses saw angular movement of 2.5 degrees from 11 degrees above the horizon to 13.5 degrees above the horizon and describe it as leaving the surface and hitting the jet? Do you think your eye could even see 2.5 degrees of movement? Those same witnesses also generally reported that they saw the missile hit and heard the detonation at the moment of impact. Small problem with that testimony. Give their position and the distance to the aircraft and the speed of sound, they would have heard the detonation a full minute after the supposed missile hit the aircraft. So, they are confused in some manner. We can suggest that they actually turned to look at the aircraft only after they heard the explosion, in which case they would have seen the aftermath of an explosion that had occurred 60 seconds earlier, in which case the debris trails falling away could have easily been misinterpreted as missile tracks rising upward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:36:13 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
none taken. I watched the same film and thought it was pretty well made and covered data in a level headed way. So after asking someone who does the job for a living was able to look at it from a different perspective. If it wasn't a standard missile or other US based system that would require crew operation (approaching impossible) and not an sa-7, whats left? After this airlines were forced to adopt systems that displace ambient air in the fuel tanks, or that is my understanding. I am clearly not a subject matter expert but did ask around in the airline community and didn't find a good conspiracy explanation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
also, SA7 hits cause engine detachment or failure in other cases with commercial aircraft, DHL landed one in Baghdad. There are procedures for engine sep on 7 body from same discussion. Proximity fuse missile was used which detonates before impact. In fact the radar signature of the blast recorded the debris flying at greater than Mach 4. It's in the documentary and all backed up by experts who were involved in the investigation not your buddy who wasn't involved. No disrespect meant. none taken. I watched the same film and thought it was pretty well made and covered data in a level headed way. So after asking someone who does the job for a living was able to look at it from a different perspective. If it wasn't a standard missile or other US based system that would require crew operation (approaching impossible) and not an sa-7, whats left? After this airlines were forced to adopt systems that displace ambient air in the fuel tanks, or that is my understanding. I am clearly not a subject matter expert but did ask around in the airline community and didn't find a good conspiracy explanation. There's some portable systems that are capable of it. It's still getting right up at the edge of those systems capabilities and those particular systems add in other complications. Anything largerwould be extremely difficult to hide, require a lot of support equipment, and we would have almost certainly heard something of it by now. It would also leave a lot of evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:45:32 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So in other words you have just blindly excepted the official story and don't really have anything to share either way except trivial statements. Got it. Good boy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good point. Is there any source data that refutes it which you can recommend? You're the one making the claim. It would be incumbent on you to seek out the source data. And, I don't do other people's homework. Let me just suggest that you don't limit yourself to looking solely at pro-conspiracy advocacy data. Look at all the data, from advocates on all sides, then make up your mind. So in other words you have just blindly excepted the official story and don't really have anything to share either way except trivial statements. Got it. Good boy. That video you seem to be so taken with - it claims does it not that three missiles hit TWA 800? Now, if one missile is unlikely and we don't see evidence of an external explosion, what does that say about three? Here you go sport, I've broken my normal rule of not doing other people's homework. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4099 http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/fly-wire/why-twa-flight-800-documentary-wrong http://www.askthepilot.com/twa-800-revisited/ Maybe you'll learn that critical thinking involves looking at both sides of an argument. ETA: Fixed links |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:47:44 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does a jet liner with no nose and it's center of gravity completely out of whack still manage to climb?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was working for TWA at the time and I believe the official story. Too much to type, but the short version is that the center tank blew....decapitating the 747...throwing the center of gravity way off. The headless jet continues to climb (smoke trail) until it finally exploded. How does a jet liner with no nose and it's center of gravity completely out of whack still manage to climb?? I'll take inertia for $200 Alex. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:48:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those same witnesses also generally reported that they saw the missile hit and heard the detonation at the moment of impact. Small problem with that testimony. Give their position and the distance to the aircraft and the speed of sound, they would have heard the detonation a full minute after the supposed missile hit the aircraft. So, they are confused in some manner. We can suggest that they actually turned to look at the aircraft only after they heard the explosion, in which case they would have seen the aftermath of an explosion that had occurred 60 seconds earlier, in which case the debris trails falling away could have easily been misinterpreted as missile tracks rising upward. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
hundreds of people say they saw an object with a smoke trail and an orange glow on the top leave the surface of the water rise and hit the airplane. The official narrative is that people saw the aircraft when the nose came off climb 3,000 feet while on fire trailing smoke, not a missile. now let us do the math aircraft was about 12 miles off the coast, most witnesses were on the land. Jet was at 13,000 when it happened and without the nose flew up to 16,000 feet. using the 60 to 1 rule, where at 60 miles every degree of angle equals 1 mile at 12 miles every mile is 5 degrees of angle. using the 6000 feet to every nautical mile at 13,000 feet which is about 2.2 NM, that equates to the jet being about 11 degrees above the horizon as viewed from the beach 12 nm away. It climbed 3,000 feet, which at 12 nm is 2.5 degrees of climb as viewed from the beach. So do you really think hundreds of eyewitnesses saw angular movement of 2.5 degrees from 11 degrees above the horizon to 13.5 degrees above the horizon and describe it as leaving the surface and hitting the jet? Do you think your eye could even see 2.5 degrees of movement? Those same witnesses also generally reported that they saw the missile hit and heard the detonation at the moment of impact. Small problem with that testimony. Give their position and the distance to the aircraft and the speed of sound, they would have heard the detonation a full minute after the supposed missile hit the aircraft. So, they are confused in some manner. We can suggest that they actually turned to look at the aircraft only after they heard the explosion, in which case they would have seen the aftermath of an explosion that had occurred 60 seconds earlier, in which case the debris trails falling away could have easily been misinterpreted as missile tracks rising upward. either way, the official narative is bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 5:49:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you think your eye could even see 2.5 degrees of movement? People spot flares from miles away all the time. If I'm doing my math right, a flare burning for just a few seconds going 400 feet in the air seen from 2 miles away would only be going about 2 degrees. I know it's not a perfect example, but it's what I've seen with my own eyes (whennot looking for a flare. Much easier to find when you are looking for one  )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:05:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
either way, the official narative is bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
hundreds of people say they saw an object with a smoke trail and an orange glow on the top leave the surface of the water rise and hit the airplane. The official narrative is that people saw the aircraft when the nose came off climb 3,000 feet while on fire trailing smoke, not a missile. now let us do the math aircraft was about 12 miles off the coast, most witnesses were on the land. Jet was at 13,000 when it happened and without the nose flew up to 16,000 feet. using the 60 to 1 rule, where at 60 miles every degree of angle equals 1 mile at 12 miles every mile is 5 degrees of angle. using the 6000 feet to every nautical mile at 13,000 feet which is about 2.2 NM, that equates to the jet being about 11 degrees above the horizon as viewed from the beach 12 nm away. It climbed 3,000 feet, which at 12 nm is 2.5 degrees of climb as viewed from the beach. So do you really think hundreds of eyewitnesses saw angular movement of 2.5 degrees from 11 degrees above the horizon to 13.5 degrees above the horizon and describe it as leaving the surface and hitting the jet? Do you think your eye could even see 2.5 degrees of movement? Those same witnesses also generally reported that they saw the missile hit and heard the detonation at the moment of impact. Small problem with that testimony. Give their position and the distance to the aircraft and the speed of sound, they would have heard the detonation a full minute after the supposed missile hit the aircraft. So, they are confused in some manner. We can suggest that they actually turned to look at the aircraft only after they heard the explosion, in which case they would have seen the aftermath of an explosion that had occurred 60 seconds earlier, in which case the debris trails falling away could have easily been misinterpreted as missile tracks rising upward. either way, the official narative is bullshit. That's the only thing we know for sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:26:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People spot flares from miles away all the time. If I'm doing my math right, a flare burning for just a few seconds going 400 feet in the air seen from 2 miles away would only be going about 2 degrees. I know it's not a perfect example, but it's what I've seen with my own eyes (whennot looking for a flare. Much easier to find when you are looking for one )Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you think your eye could even see 2.5 degrees of movement? People spot flares from miles away all the time. If I'm doing my math right, a flare burning for just a few seconds going 400 feet in the air seen from 2 miles away would only be going about 2 degrees. I know it's not a perfect example, but it's what I've seen with my own eyes (whennot looking for a flare. Much easier to find when you are looking for one )seeing a flare is easy. seeing it move is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:34:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What was the documantary ?. "TWA Got Shot Down By The Gubmint Because That Makes No Fucking Sense Whatsoever, The Movie" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:38:45 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"TWA Got Shot Down By The Gubmint Because That Makes No Fucking Sense Whatsoever, The Movie" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What was the documantary ?. "TWA Got Shot Down By The Gubmint Because That Makes No Fucking Sense Whatsoever, The Movie" Yeah, with three missiles. No one would make up a story about three missiles hitting a plane so you know it must be true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:44:15 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, with three missiles. No one would make up a story about three missiles hitting a plane so you know it must be true. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What was the documantary ?. "TWA Got Shot Down By The Gubmint Because That Makes No Fucking Sense Whatsoever, The Movie" Yeah, with three missiles. No one would make up a story about three missiles hitting a plane so you know it must be true. Cheney ordered the hit, from his lair in the Catskills. It was in the movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:46:18 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think the government shot it down. At least not on purpose, could have been an accident, but that requires a lot of people keeping a big secret. Could have been a terrorist that got hold of something more substantial than a manpad and the ability to launch from sea. The only thing I believe for certain is that the official explanation is not the truth and that it was a missile. pretty much |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:48:33 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
seeing a flare is easy. seeing it move is not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you think your eye could even see 2.5 degrees of movement? People spot flares from miles away all the time. If I'm doing my math right, a flare burning for just a few seconds going 400 feet in the air seen from 2 miles away would only be going about 2 degrees. I know it's not a perfect example, but it's what I've seen with my own eyes (whennot looking for a flare. Much easier to find when you are looking for one )seeing a flare is easy. seeing it move is not. I disagree. They don't burn long (3-7 seconds) and are usually pretty dim (depending on distance) Pretty much the only way you see them is catching the upward movement. But like I said, not the perfect example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:49:39 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Has this become a taboo subject and if so how did I miss it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ibtl
Has this become a taboo subject and if so how did I miss it. It's been beaten to death a few thousand times over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:52:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's been beaten to death a few thousand times over. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ibtl
Has this become a taboo subject and if so how did I miss it. It's been beaten to death a few thousand times over. I spend quite a bit of time here but obviously not as much as you as I don't recall one single thread about this yet alone some of the epic ones that have been aluded to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:53:01 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck I don't know, just talking shit. If I had to guess, I'd say shoulder fired SAM fired by hadjis, and covered up to not scare the sheep away from airports. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was a missile. No doubt in my mind. What kind of missile? Fired by whom? For what purpose? If not fired by the U.S., what is the purpose of the cover up? Fuck I don't know, just talking shit. If I had to guess, I'd say shoulder fired SAM fired by hadjis, and covered up to not scare the sheep away from airports. TWA 800 was out of the WEZ of any MANPAD system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:54:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I spend quite a bit of time here but obviously not as much as you as I don't recall one single thread about this yet alone some of the epic ones that have been aluded to. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ibtl
Has this become a taboo subject and if so how did I miss it. It's been beaten to death a few thousand times over. I spend quite a bit of time here but obviously not as much as you as I don't recall one single thread about this yet alone some of the epic ones that have been aluded to. I can remember 3 in the past year. I bet we get at least 2 good ones a year...20+ pages, lots of drama-llamas |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:58:17 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does a jet liner with no nose and it's center of gravity completely out of whack still manage to climb?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was working for TWA at the time and I believe the official story. Too much to type, but the short version is that the center tank blew....decapitating the 747...throwing the center of gravity way off. The headless jet continues to climb (smoke trail) until it finally exploded. How does a jet liner with no nose and it's center of gravity completely out of whack still manage to climb?? Because losing the nose of the aircraft seriously shifts the center of gravity back, causing the remaining section of the aircraft to pitch up. Since it is going pretty fast, momentum is going to cause it to climb before it stalls out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:59:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TWA 800 was out of the WEZ of any MANPAD system. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was a missile. No doubt in my mind. What kind of missile? Fired by whom? For what purpose? If not fired by the U.S., what is the purpose of the cover up? Fuck I don't know, just talking shit. If I had to guess, I'd say shoulder fired SAM fired by hadjis, and covered up to not scare the sheep away from airports. TWA 800 was out of the WEZ of any MANPAD system. I remember one guy that insisted it was an rbs-70 bolide, even when told it wasn't developed until well after the crash. I'm personally a fan of the full size Russian vertical launched SAM with associated fire control equipment cobbled onto a fishing boat which was then scuttled theory. It makes me chuckle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 7:07:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I spend quite a bit of time here but obviously not as much as you as I don't recall one single thread about this yet alone some of the epic ones that have been aluded to. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ibtl
Has this become a taboo subject and if so how did I miss it. It's been beaten to death a few thousand times over. I spend quite a bit of time here but obviously not as much as you as I don't recall one single thread about this yet alone some of the epic ones that have been aluded to. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they haven't occurred. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 7:08:32 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they haven't occurred. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ibtl
Has this become a taboo subject and if so how did I miss it. It's been beaten to death a few thousand times over. I spend quite a bit of time here but obviously not as much as you as I don't recall one single thread about this yet alone some of the epic ones that have been aluded to. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they haven't occurred. We're conspiring to hide the evidence of all the other threads. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 7:09:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they haven't occurred. And just because they have occured doesn't mean I've seen or remember them 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 7:09:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TWA 800 was out of the WEZ of any MANPAD system. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was a missile. No doubt in my mind. What kind of missile? Fired by whom? For what purpose? If not fired by the U.S., what is the purpose of the cover up? Fuck I don't know, just talking shit. If I had to guess, I'd say shoulder fired SAM fired by hadjis, and covered up to not scare the sheep away from airports. TWA 800 was out of the WEZ of any MANPAD system. Not really. It was right at the advertised Stinger effective range. Who knows what the actual classified effective range is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 7:15:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really. It was right at the advertised Stinger effective range. Who knows what the actual classified effective range is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was a missile. No doubt in my mind. What kind of missile? Fired by whom? For what purpose? If not fired by the U.S., what is the purpose of the cover up? Fuck I don't know, just talking shit. If I had to guess, I'd say shoulder fired SAM fired by hadjis, and covered up to not scare the sheep away from airports. TWA 800 was out of the WEZ of any MANPAD system. Not really. It was right at the advertised Stinger effective range. Who knows what the actual classified effective range is. That generation of Stinger had been in the wild for a while. Not sure there was much unknown about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 7:18:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually it should have kept arcing with nothing to control the rate of turn. Yet cia says that did not happen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was working for TWA at the time and I believe the official story. Too much to type, but the short version is that the center tank blew....decapitating the 747...throwing the center of gravity way off. The headless jet continues to climb (smoke trail) until it finally exploded. How does a jet liner with no nose and it's center of gravity completely out of whack still manage to climb?? By all accounts, the four engines were still operational and producing climb power. The wing would still have been producing lift.....and with the CG now moved so far aft, the thing would/could have been racing upwards till it exploded. Actually it should have kept arcing with nothing to control the rate of turn. Yet cia says that did not happen. Arcing? I thought they were wings level and climbing at the time of the explosion. Maybe you're right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 7:40:16 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
either way, the official narative is bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
hundreds of people say they saw an object with a smoke trail and an orange glow on the top leave the surface of the water rise and hit the airplane. The official narrative is that people saw the aircraft when the nose came off climb 3,000 feet while on fire trailing smoke, not a missile. now let us do the math aircraft was about 12 miles off the coast, most witnesses were on the land. Jet was at 13,000 when it happened and without the nose flew up to 16,000 feet. using the 60 to 1 rule, where at 60 miles every degree of angle equals 1 mile at 12 miles every mile is 5 degrees of angle. using the 6000 feet to every nautical mile at 13,000 feet which is about 2.2 NM, that equates to the jet being about 11 degrees above the horizon as viewed from the beach 12 nm away. It climbed 3,000 feet, which at 12 nm is 2.5 degrees of climb as viewed from the beach. So do you really think hundreds of eyewitnesses saw angular movement of 2.5 degrees from 11 degrees above the horizon to 13.5 degrees above the horizon and describe it as leaving the surface and hitting the jet? Do you think your eye could even see 2.5 degrees of movement? Those same witnesses also generally reported that they saw the missile hit and heard the detonation at the moment of impact. Small problem with that testimony. Give their position and the distance to the aircraft and the speed of sound, they would have heard the detonation a full minute after the supposed missile hit the aircraft. So, they are confused in some manner. We can suggest that they actually turned to look at the aircraft only after they heard the explosion, in which case they would have seen the aftermath of an explosion that had occurred 60 seconds earlier, in which case the debris trails falling away could have easily been misinterpreted as missile tracks rising upward. either way, the official narative is bullshit. Based on his proven expertise as a military pilot, I think Mach's opinion carries more weight than anyone else in this thread (myself included). I agree 100% the official narrative is a whitewash. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 10:23:07 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What kind of missile? Fired by whom? For what purpose? If not fired by the U.S., what is the purpose of the cover up? People are always looking for a reason as to why, and the absence of one means some other explanation. I thought I had a pretty rounded knowledge about things but I never heard about this: LaGuardia So. if they don't know who or why did it mean it didn't happen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 10:25:20 PM EDT
[#44]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 10:35:27 PM EDT
[#45]
Damn! Not this crap again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2014 5:48:45 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arcing? I thought they were wings level and climbing at the time of the explosion. Maybe you're right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was working for TWA at the time and I believe the official story. Too much to type, but the short version is that the center tank blew....decapitating the 747...throwing the center of gravity way off. The headless jet continues to climb (smoke trail) until it finally exploded. How does a jet liner with no nose and it's center of gravity completely out of whack still manage to climb?? By all accounts, the four engines were still operational and producing climb power. The wing would still have been producing lift.....and with the CG now moved so far aft, the thing would/could have been racing upwards till it exploded. Actually it should have kept arcing with nothing to control the rate of turn. Yet cia says that did not happen. Arcing? I thought they were wings level and climbing at the time of the explosion. Maybe you're right. The CIA report says the wings were level and climbing but the drastic change in CG would cause the craft to begin a backwards loop. So yes it would Climb, but not just a set number of degrees and then continue, the weight that pulls the tail down would be constantly below the lift of the wings causing the craft to loop backwards. Test it on any styrofoam model you choose, put just a little too much weight aft of the CG and when thrust is applied the craft reverse loops. Every time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2014 6:39:49 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn! Not this crap again. Was 2013 just chocked full of Flight 800 conspiracy theory threads? 
Or... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2014 6:55:03 AM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2014 6:55:55 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Common GD response:" I totally do NOT believe the gubberment unless its an official explanation for some odd or unusual event." lollololololol |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2014 7:13:17 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryIf the report doesn't match the reality, that's a coverup. If you think the report intentionally does not accurately reflect what happened with TWA or Sandy Hook you must, by definition, believe there was a coverup. Not exactly. A cover up is a story with intent to hide and omit information. These goals are required. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
