TWA flight 800

[Sunshine]

I chose this "part of town" from ANYWHERE i wanted to live in the entire country.. And I guarantee ya --- the tours of the homes of the country music stars go right past the road outside my "compound". Your slinging stuff here and not thinking or doing.

I COULD do a beat down on the TRUTH of what I just told you -- but it would be pretty useless --- wouldn't it?

And having a tour bus drive past your house on the way to somewhere doesn't imbue class into a combat zone. Which is what most people I know from NashVegas, where I lived 20 years myself, call that part of town. Blow smoke up your own ass if you want, but I know that area. It won't work with me. You don't know any more about the military activities in and around that airport than anyone driving down the interstate, or parked on it, would know. So stop trying to impress.

How about I take a half hour off from work here to defend the TRUTH I presented and then we NEG each other?? Would that work for you?

So you are posting from work. No doubt you work for the government.

 

[flacaltenn]

There are many different versions of that supposed testimony floating around. And when people ask why there's no concrete testimony, they learn that the feds supposedly put a gag order out. My, how convenient.

And there's _still_ no missile damage on the aircraft. You're avoiding that for some reason.

By the way, why is a transport or helicopter pilot an "expert witness" on explosions? Did they spend their career watching missiles hit aircraft and making them explode? As the answer is "no", how would they know what it looks like? A sensible person would conclude that they have no special expertise there.

See now that's the non-sensical stuff that's tiring me here. A C-130 is one of the military's biggest sitting ducks for small missiles. In fact, used to be a wing of them out of Nashville would practice EVASIVE landings and take-offs in a group (kinda over my massive hillbilly compound)..

If you're the target, I GUARANDAMNTEE you that the military wants you to know what a MANPAD tragectory and trail looks like.. Go groom yourself..

You don't live in a very nice part of town. In fact, you live in the ghetto. Did you buy a computer with your first welfare check? Maybe you could go for a citi card and get air miles.

Just because you live in a ghetto near the airport doesn't give you any greater knowledge about military matters than anyone else.

See now all this started because you and Mamooth decided to badger me about the statement I made above. Without knowing a THING about me or where I've been or done or who I might have in my associations familiar with such things. OR whether I just like watching the military channel.. Instead of showing me that the statement was wrong --- you decide to attack me and just infer that my statement was wrong...

Just like the other moron in this thread badgering me about Revolution Day in Iraq under Sadaam being on the day of Flight 800... A point which I also proved to be correct.

So --- I took a break from making money to back up the ORIGINAL assertion and now you can go show me where i'm wrong.. C-130 aircrews ARE trained in missile avoidance and they have dummy missiles fired at them at Fort Huachuca and train on simulators at various bases in deploying missile countermeasures. They ARE a massive sitting duck because of their heavy weight and relative slowness. Most combat-ready C-130s are equipped with anti-missile decoys and chaff..

2011 Mobility Air Force Exercise goes dark
11/22/2011 - A U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III performs evasive countermeasures by launching flares during a Mobility Air Force Exercise Nov. 16, 2011, over the Nevada Test and Training Range. The U.S. Air Force Weapons School holds MAFEX twice a year to test the ability of the C-17 and C-130 Hercules aircrews from Air Force bases around the world. This exercise was held at night to simulate real-world operations.


Great Aerial Footage of C-130 Firing Flares Over Lake Ontario - YouTube


http://www.ndia.org/Resources/OnlineProceedings/Documents/21T0/21T0-TSIS-2012-USAF-Presentation.pdf


Line of Sight » evasive maneuver

Attack Highlights a Constant Threat Faced by Aircraft in Iraq - NYTimes.com

The missiles, many of them Russian-designed SA-7's or similar models, weigh about 30 pounds, are about six feet long and are easy to smuggle across Iraq's porous borders. The most advanced and effective weapons of the type were not typically found in Iraq's military.

But the threat is serious enough to have kept Baghdad's international airport largely closed to commercial air traffic even though the terminal has been rebuilt and the runways have been repaired, and officials have said it has been ready to reopen since July.

"Baghdad is perhaps the greatest threat we face anywhere in the world," Gen. John W. Handy of the Air Force, who heads the United States Transportation Command, which coordinates the movement of military cargo and personnel, said over the summer.

The United States and other advanced militaries have developed effective defenses against the heat-seeking missiles and other ground fire. To counter missiles, Air Force C-17's, C-130's and other aircraft can discharge flares or metallic chaff to deceive or confuse the missile.

Only C-17's and C-130's equipped with special defensive systems, like flares or chaff, are being flown into Iraq, General Handy said.

When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Iraq in late April, he and his top aides flew to Baghdad's airport aboard an MC-130 Combat Talon, a transport plane normally used to insert commandos on secret missions. The plane flew the last 30 miles just 500 feet above the ground to thwart surface-to-air missiles.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA461534

Most recently, in January 2006, a delegation of the United States House
Armed Services Committee including Representatives Rob Simmons, Jeb
Bradley, John Spratt, and Neil Abercrombie were targeted by one of the most
sophisticated MANPADS available, a Russian-made SA-18.23 This attack
occurred while traveling from Baghdad to Kuwait in a military C-130
transport aircraft in a “lights out” (minimal emissions) configuration.24
Fortunately the C-130’s onboard countermeasures system was one of the
most capable available and deflected the missile and the MANPADS failed.25
This event is significant for several reasons. First, it involved a high profile
target; second, it validated that SA-18s are available to non-state groups;
and third, it showed that an existing onboard countermeasures system
prevailed over a formidable weapon.

You want to argue about my original statement? Or contend that a crew of C-130 are NOT expert witnesses to ground to air missiles?

Or do ya just want to tweek me because you don't take any of this seriously?

 

[Sunshine]

See now that's the non-sensical stuff that's tiring me here. A C-130 is one of the military's biggest sitting ducks for small missiles. In fact, used to be a wing of them out of Nashville would practice EVASIVE landings and take-offs in a group (kinda over my massive hillbilly compound)..

If you're the target, I GUARANDAMNTEE you that the military wants you to know what a MANPAD tragectory and trail looks like.. Go groom yourself..

You don't live in a very nice part of town. In fact, you live in the ghetto. Did you buy a computer with your first welfare check? Maybe you could go for a citi card and get air miles.

Just because you live in a ghetto near the airport doesn't give you any greater knowledge about military matters than anyone else.

See now all this started because you and Mamooth decided to badger me about the statement I made above. Without knowing a THING about me or where I've been or done or who I might have in my associations familiar with such things. OR whether I just like watching the military channel.. Instead of showing me that the statement was wrong --- you decide to attack me and just infer that my statement was wrong...

Just like the other moron in this thread badgering me about Revolution Day in Iraq under Sadaam being on the day of Flight 800... A point which I also proved to be correct.

So --- I took a break from making money to back up the ORIGINAL assertion and now you can go show me where i'm wrong.. C-130 aircrews ARE trained in missile avoidance and they have dummy missiles fired at them at Fort Huachuca and train on simulators at various bases in deploying missile countermeasures. They ARE a massive sitting duck because of their heavy weight and relative slowness. Most combat-ready C-130s are equipped with anti-missile decoys and chaff..

2011 Mobility Air Force Exercise goes dark
11/22/2011 - A U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III performs evasive countermeasures by launching flares during a Mobility Air Force Exercise Nov. 16, 2011, over the Nevada Test and Training Range. The U.S. Air Force Weapons School holds MAFEX twice a year to test the ability of the C-17 and C-130 Hercules aircrews from Air Force bases around the world. This exercise was held at night to simulate real-world operations.


Great Aerial Footage of C-130 Firing Flares Over Lake Ontario - YouTube


http://www.ndia.org/Resources/OnlineProceedings/Documents/21T0/21T0-TSIS-2012-USAF-Presentation.pdf


Line of Sight » evasive maneuver

Attack Highlights a Constant Threat Faced by Aircraft in Iraq - NYTimes.com

The missiles, many of them Russian-designed SA-7's or similar models, weigh about 30 pounds, are about six feet long and are easy to smuggle across Iraq's porous borders. The most advanced and effective weapons of the type were not typically found in Iraq's military.

But the threat is serious enough to have kept Baghdad's international airport largely closed to commercial air traffic even though the terminal has been rebuilt and the runways have been repaired, and officials have said it has been ready to reopen since July.

"Baghdad is perhaps the greatest threat we face anywhere in the world," Gen. John W. Handy of the Air Force, who heads the United States Transportation Command, which coordinates the movement of military cargo and personnel, said over the summer.

The United States and other advanced militaries have developed effective defenses against the heat-seeking missiles and other ground fire. To counter missiles, Air Force C-17's, C-130's and other aircraft can discharge flares or metallic chaff to deceive or confuse the missile.

Only C-17's and C-130's equipped with special defensive systems, like flares or chaff, are being flown into Iraq, General Handy said.

When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Iraq in late April, he and his top aides flew to Baghdad's airport aboard an MC-130 Combat Talon, a transport plane normally used to insert commandos on secret missions. The plane flew the last 30 miles just 500 feet above the ground to thwart surface-to-air missiles.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA461534

Most recently, in January 2006, a delegation of the United States House
Armed Services Committee including Representatives Rob Simmons, Jeb
Bradley, John Spratt, and Neil Abercrombie were targeted by one of the most
sophisticated MANPADS available, a Russian-made SA-18.23 This attack
occurred while traveling from Baghdad to Kuwait in a military C-130
transport aircraft in a “lights out” (minimal emissions) configuration.24
Fortunately the C-130’s onboard countermeasures system was one of the
most capable available and deflected the missile and the MANPADS failed.25
This event is significant for several reasons. First, it involved a high profile
target; second, it validated that SA-18s are available to non-state groups;
and third, it showed that an existing onboard countermeasures system
prevailed over a formidable weapon.

You want to argue about my original statement? Or contend that a crew of C-130 are NOT expert witnesses to ground to air missiles?

Or do ya just want to tweek me because you don't take any of this seriously?

Pretty much everything you post is 'arguable', particularly that part about making money.

 

[Oddball]

Got an EXPERT WITNESS in a C-130 military transport that called in what he and his co-pilot saw. Wasn't fireworks if a veteran military crew called it a missile trail. He was one of the closest aircraft to the airliner. You're avoiding this for "some reason"..

There are many different versions of that supposed testimony floating around. And when people ask why there's no concrete testimony, they learn that the feds supposedly put a gag order out. My, how convenient.

And there's _still_ no missile damage on the aircraft. You're avoiding that for some reason.

By the way, why is a transport or helicopter pilot an "expert witness" on explosions? Did they spend their career watching missiles hit aircraft and making them explode? As the answer is "no", how would they know what it looks like? A sensible person would conclude that they have no special expertise there.

Didn't have to hit the aircraft.

You've obviously never heard of a proximity fuse.

 

[Sunshine]

What would be the intent of shooting down one of our own commercial planes? In 1996?

 

[KissMy]

TWA 800 Seconds From Disaster (2007)
[youtube]0HVMs-Ggacc[/youtube]

So we're to believe that a frayed high-voltage wire's current jumped into a frayed low-voltage wire, which ran down into the fuel tank and exited the insulation on yet a third frayed low voltage wire lighting up the air-fuel mixture?

I've run a few wiring harnesses in my time on motorcycles and know a rectifier is needed to convert current for various uses to various gauges of wire. I never heard of lighter gauge wire able to carry more current than it was designed for. So unless this sequence of events happened within a few inches of each other, I don't see how the theory can work.

Light gage wire will conduct high voltage & frequency necessary to arc as well as heavy wire. Heavy wire is only for more amperage current which is not necessary for arcing. The sensor wire inside the tank does not need to be frayed. If a 400Hz 115 volt-AC line arced into the low voltage DC sensor line it would fry the sensors. 400Hz 115V-AC arcs easier than our typical household 60Hz 115V-AC electricity.

The NTSB report says fuel sensor readings went nuts 2.5 minutes before the explosion. I did not read far enough into the NTSB to see if the sensors were fried.

 

[mamooth]

Here is a for example.......this idiot Mamooth can actually look at this photo taken at the Boston bombing site and not ask one single question. Zero analysis.......a photo of a poor guy who just got his legs blown off.......

What are you babbing about?

Seriously, what are you babbling about? I can't even begin to fathom what sort of diseased mental process has you posting such batshit crazy stuff.

Your "logic":

1. Here's a photo of a guy who got his legs blown off!

2. ?????????

3. Mamooth is really dumb!

Please elaborate on what step 2 supposedly consists of. I'm sure everyone would really like to know.

 

[mamooth]

Didn't have to hit the aircraft.

You've obviously never heard of a proximity fuse.

Yes, it does have to hit the aircraft. At least pieces of shrapnel do. Otherwise, the aircraft is left unharmed. No shrapnel, no shrapnel damage, no missile.

There was no shrapnel, no shrapnel damage.

Hence there was no missile.

What is it about such a simple concept that eludes you all?

 

[JoeBlam]

TWA 800 Seconds From Disaster (2007)
[youtube]0HVMs-Ggacc[/youtube]

So we're to believe that a frayed high-voltage wire's current jumped into a frayed low-voltage wire, which ran down into the fuel tank and exited the insulation on yet a third frayed low voltage wire lighting up the air-fuel mixture?

I've run a few wiring harnesses in my time on motorcycles and know a rectifier is needed to convert current for various uses to various gauges of wire. I never heard of lighter gauge wire able to carry more current than it was designed for. So unless this sequence of events happened within a few inches of each other, I don't see how the theory can work.

Light gage wire will conduct high voltage & frequency necessary to arc as well as heavy wire. Heavy wire is only for more amperage current which is not necessary for arcing. The sensor wire inside the tank does not need to be frayed. If a 400Hz 115 volt-AC line arced into the low voltage DC sensor line it would fry the sensors. 400Hz 115V-AC arcs easier than our typical household 60Hz 115V-AC electricity.

The NTSB report says fuel sensor readings went nuts 2.5 minutes before the explosion. I did not read far enough into the NTSB to see if the sensors were fried.

No it won't.....not for any distance it won't....it will curl from heat, melt the insulation, and short out and besides, the low-voltage wires had to have been originated in a fused-block which would burn and stop the voltage flow then and there. I watched your video and it concluded that 3 wires with frayed insulation sparked of the fuel-air.....I find that pretty peculiar but then I'm not an electrician....just a guy who's learned the hard way a couple times trying to short-cut a wiring schematic.

 

[mamooth]

You want to argue about my original statement? Or contend that a crew of C-130 are NOT expert witnesses to ground to air missiles?

All you've demonstrated is how they have SAM-on-the-brain, and would thus be trained to assume anything they saw is a SAM.

Of course, you still haven't demonstrated this C-130 testimony even exists. Work on getting it beyond rumor status first. After that, you can start explaining why it contradicts other "expert eyewitness" testimony, and why you cherrypicked that expert eyewitness testimony as the OneTrueStory.

Then we can get into the lack of any physical evidence of missile damage, a topic you keep working hard to avoid.

 

[Sunshine]

So far, no answer as to what the motivation of the US government was in 1996 to shoot down a commercial passenger jet.

Motive, motive, motive. What was it?

 

[JoeBlam]

Didn't have to hit the aircraft.

You've obviously never heard of a proximity fuse.

Yes, it does have to hit the aircraft. At least pieces of shrapnel do. Otherwise, the aircraft is left unharmed. No shrapnel, no shrapnel damage, no missile.

There was no shrapnel, no shrapnel damage.

Hence there was no missile.

What is it about such a simple concept that eludes you all?

You keep yapping there's "no shrapnel" damage yet when I look at the side of the reassembly, there's jagged holes all over it. ONE guy says there's no stippling but there doesn't have to be the same explosive compound mixture he saw on the Lockerby metal. Who knows, maybe the missle blew straight through the fuselage, maybe it just nipped the wing, maybe the warhead didn't ignite and it simply knocked the airframe for a loop shorting out wires and busting systems as it went. There are so many leaps of logic in the Discovery version, I almost turned it off a couple times. NO SALE.

 

[Oddball]

So far, no answer as to what the motivation of the US government was in 1996 to shoot down a commercial passenger jet.

Motive, motive, motive. What was it?

Who said it was the US gubmint that shot down the plane?

What we do no for sure is that the "official" story is pure bunk...You would need a tremendous amount of pressure in an unvented fuel cell and the exactly right fuel/air mixture to get the tank to explode as was claimed....But the cells are vented...They have to be or you couldn't draw fuel from them.

If you want to know motivations, ask why the NTSB, FAA and FBI are all lying to us.

 

[KissMy]

So we're to believe that a frayed high-voltage wire's current jumped into a frayed low-voltage wire, which ran down into the fuel tank and exited the insulation on yet a third frayed low voltage wire lighting up the air-fuel mixture?

I've run a few wiring harnesses in my time on motorcycles and know a rectifier is needed to convert current for various uses to various gauges of wire. I never heard of lighter gauge wire able to carry more current than it was designed for. So unless this sequence of events happened within a few inches of each other, I don't see how the theory can work.

Light gage wire will conduct high voltage & frequency necessary to arc as well as heavy wire. Heavy wire is only for more amperage current which is not necessary for arcing. The sensor wire inside the tank does not need to be frayed. If a 400Hz 115 volt-AC line arced into the low voltage DC sensor line it would fry the sensors. 400Hz 115V-AC arcs easier than our typical household 60Hz 115V-AC electricity.

The NTSB report says fuel sensor readings went nuts 2.5 minutes before the explosion. I did not read far enough into the NTSB to see if the sensors were fried.

No it won't.....not for any distance it won't....it will curl from heat, melt the insulation, and short out and besides, the low-voltage wires had to have been originated in a fused-block which would burn and stop the voltage flow then and there. I watched your video and it concluded that 3 wires with frayed insulation sparked of the fuel-air.....I find that pretty peculiar but then I'm not an electrician....just a guy who's learned the hard way a couple times trying to short-cut a wiring schematic.

I am an electrical engineer. Many of my family members are A&P&EE certified aircraft, heavy jet & fighter jet mechanics. A fuse block & low voltage wire will not stop high voltage or frequency. They will only stop high current amperage. Insulation stops high voltage & frequency up to a certain limit. After a point you need a coaxial shield to channel the energy. DC & low frequency power travel inside the conductor. High frequency power travels on the surface of wire. A conductive pipe will conduct high frequency power as well as a solid conductor. When voltage & frequency are high enough they escape the conductor & travel through the air & even into outer space. That is what radio waves are.

 

[JoeBlam]

Light gage wire will conduct high voltage & frequency necessary to arc as well as heavy wire. Heavy wire is only for more amperage current which is not necessary for arcing. The sensor wire inside the tank does not need to be frayed. If a 400Hz 115 volt-AC line arced into the low voltage DC sensor line it would fry the sensors. 400Hz 115V-AC arcs easier than our typical household 60Hz 115V-AC electricity.

The NTSB report says fuel sensor readings went nuts 2.5 minutes before the explosion. I did not read far enough into the NTSB to see if the sensors were fried.

No it won't.....not for any distance it won't....it will curl from heat, melt the insulation, and short out and besides, the low-voltage wires had to have been originated in a fused-block which would burn and stop the voltage flow then and there. I watched your video and it concluded that 3 wires with frayed insulation sparked of the fuel-air.....I find that pretty peculiar but then I'm not an electrician....just a guy who's learned the hard way a couple times trying to short-cut a wiring schematic.

I am an electrical engineer. Many of my family members are A&P&EE certified aircraft, heavy jet & fighter jet mechanics. A fuse block & low voltage wire will not stop high voltage or frequency. They will only stop high current amperage. Insulation stops high voltage & frequency up to a certain limit. After a point you need a coaxial shield to channel the energy. DC & low frequency power travel inside the conductor. High frequency power travels on the surface of wire. A conductive pipe will conduct high frequency power as well as a solid conductor. When voltage & frequency are high enough they escape the conductor & travel through the air & even into outer space. That is what radio waves are.

Alright...I give up...do I get a cigarette and a blindfold?

 

[flacaltenn]

You want to argue about my original statement? Or contend that a crew of C-130 are NOT expert witnesses to ground to air missiles?

All you've demonstrated is how they have SAM-on-the-brain, and would thus be trained to assume anything they saw is a SAM.

Of course, you still haven't demonstrated this C-130 testimony even exists. Work on getting it beyond rumor status first. After that, you can start explaining why it contradicts other "expert eyewitness" testimony, and why you cherrypicked that expert eyewitness testimony as the OneTrueStory.

Then we can get into the lack of any physical evidence of missile damage, a topic you keep working hard to avoid.

Good Progress. If only you were always this educatable.. Now that we have the "C-130 crews and helicopter guys aren't savvy to missiles" crap out of the way.. We can start here.

EXPLOSION ABOARD T.W.A. FLIGHT 800: THE OVERVIEW;INVESTIGATORS SUSPECT EXPLOSIVE DEVICE AS LIKELIEST CAUSE FOR CRASH OF FLIGHT 800 - New York Times

Fred Meyer, a major in the Air National Guard, who was flying a C-130 off Long Island on a training mission at the time of the crash, told reporters that he saw an arc of light moving toward the plane.

He said it followed "the sort of course and trajectory that you see when a shooting star enters the atmosphere."

He said, "Almost immediately thereafter I saw in rapid succession a small explosion and than a large explosion."

There's more -- I just have to unarchive some of it because A LOT HAS DISSAPPEARED and the OFFICIAL witness testimony taken by the FBI -- is not available for release..

You have ANY idea why that MIGHT BE????????

 

[SteadyMercury]

Fred Meyer, a major in the Air National Guard, who was flying a C-130 off Long Island on a training mission at the time of the crash, told reporters that he saw an arc of light moving toward the plane.

Fred Meyer was flying a helicopter, not a C-130. How reliable are your sources you are leaning on if they can't even manage simple, fundamental facts about the witness they are describing?

 

[flacaltenn]

Fred Meyer, a major in the Air National Guard, who was flying a C-130 off Long Island on a training mission at the time of the crash, told reporters that he saw an arc of light moving toward the plane.

Fred Meyer was flying a helicopter, not a C-130. How reliable are your sources you are leaning on if they can't even manage simple, fundamental facts about the witness they are describing?

My source -- the New York Times

Your source -- most likely your ass..

 

[Surfer]

I think we should pray every time we get on a plane since we are putting our fate in the hands of the pilot (s) and crew.

 

[KissMy]

I think we should pray every time we get on a plane since we are putting our fate in the hands of the pilot (s) and crew.

Why - Those guys are pros & very safe. Unlike riding with my wife when I end up praying before the ride is over.