Posted on 10/18/2005 6:18:49 PM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
Heads up! Seconds From Disaster, TWA Flight 800 (2005) Documentary on National Geographic on now Channel 276 Direct TV
I think you mean "bomb sniffing dogs".
Pretty convenient, huh? I wonder how many US airliners have been contaminated with explosive residue because they have been used as props to train dogs.
Imagine that you wished to package explosive materials so that it could be hidden on an airliner and it emanates vapors so that dogs can sense it AND it somehow leaves a residue that can be detected after the plane crashes into the water weeks later. How would you do that?
What do you want to bet that the original documents of the training organization are not available to the public? What do you want to bet that the training team has never delivered or used a trained dog at any other time.
I have been up since 4:30 painting the foyer. Up & down Up & down up & down that damned extension ladder. One husband, three sons, so who spends the day at the top of a 22 foot ladder? Yes, I meant drug sniffing dogs, LOL!
In light of the reminder above about the shoe bomber, the fact that the residue was found in (or was it under?) a peice of carpet made more sense to me than it did to the guy on TV.
I don't know enough about this to have an opinion which carries any weight. 258 seems too large of a large number to be wrong or to misinterpret what they see.
Meanwhile PBS TV is showing a hit piece on Gitmo. Those Army intel guys must be pure evil zombies to abuse those innocent freedom fighters in this manner! The panty head shot was shown and zoomed dramatically!
Originally the story of explosives was that the aircraft participated in transporting explosives during Gulf War I.
Talking about the Pheonix lights. My son plays Team Handball (won the Gold in Brazil-have to brag).
When he returned from one tournament, I picked him up at MARTA (Atlanta Rapid Transit) at 12:00 midnight. This was after 9/11 - terror in the sky was a reality.
We traveled north up the expressway towards Forsyth County.
My son is not much of a talker when he is tired and when he is tired, he is grumpy so no one was talking. Just driving along.
Suddenly out of the sky at about a 60 degree angle, in an east to west direction was a huge "thing" going towards the ground.
I would say it was a flash of light or a meteor, but it wasn't.
It was green with a short tail. It looked like (and I swear to God this part is true) one of those rockets you would see in an early black & white cartoon. Cylinder shaped, pointed at the end closest to the ground.
My son saw it. At the same time we both said "Did you see that?" We`watched for an explosion or any sign of an impact-nothing.
My son asked me if I was going to call the sheriff's dept. Yeah right. "Officer, I just saw a green cartoon rocket traveling towards earth near exit 13."
There was never anything in the news and to this day I wonder about that. Weird.
I don't know which specific radar you are talking about. The way primary (skin track, as opposed to transponder or secondary) ATC radar work, they get lots of "false alarms", at different detection levels.
The standard is generally one false "contact" or "primative" per scan of 360 degrees. ( Navy uses "contact", FAA "primative".) If a primative correlates with another primative on the next scan, a tentative track is formed. After several scans, depending on the design and history of correlated returns, the tenative track is promoted to "established" and reported to ATC or deemed false and dropped.
An uncorrelated plot is insignificant. Several would be significant, even if uncorrelated. Generally, the logic used for ATC will not correlate skin tracks from targets moving with a ground speed in excess of 600 kts, which excludes high performance military jets, and significantly, most air to air missiles.
Explosives sniffing dogs. That's supposed to explain the traces of explosive residue.
Ghost images are not nearly so common as they once where. A combination of automatic detection and improved signal processing. However you do get false detections, but those will not be correlated from scan to scan, they will essentially be random "sparkle" (Which is what the AWACS guys call the similar false detections on their radar displays).
I think you mean "bomb sniffing dogs".
Pretty convenient, huh? I wonder how many US airliners have been contaminated with explosive residue because they have been used as props to train dogs.
Imagine that you wished to package explosive materials so that it could be hidden on an airliner and it emanates vapors so that dogs can sense it AND it somehow leaves a residue that can be detected after the plane crashes into the water weeks later. How would you do that?
What do you want to bet that the original documents of the training organization are not available to the public? What do you want to bet that the training team has never delivered or used a trained dog at any other time.
The bomb-sniffing dog story was disproved by Peter Lance in "Cover-Up". Go to www.peterlance.com
It was an Air National Guard helicopter, from a rescue unit.
So far, on the repeat, they haven't mentioned the crew's report of an Ordnance Explosion , which would be much different than a fuel explosion. At least one of them had seen such explosions before, directed at his aircraft, in the sky over Vietnam.
Can you summarize for me what he found and how he disproved the bomb-sniffing dog assertion?
Thanks.
It's one of those things that I just believe, and nothing can change my mind."
Since your entire first statement is almost entirely incorrect, I can understand why you remain confused.
I notice you didn't bother to correct it - if I'm so incorrect ..?? What's with that! How do I know YOUR information is correct ..?? LOL!!
1. "258 witnesses were discredited - most of whom said they saw a streak of light leave the ground and strike the plane."
Off all the witnesses interviewed 183 say they saw a streak of light. Of those, 96 say the streak originated from the ground. Of those, 40 say it originated from the water and 10 said from the land. None of them reported seeing it "strike the plane".
2. "And most of those people were very credible - pilots - military - people in sciences who understood what they were seeing."
Very few of the witnesses to the event were anything like what you just described. With the exception of an ANG helicopter crew, none of the airborne witnesses (26 total including several airline pilots) reported seeing any streak at all. Your statement is simply false.
No, they have a new one... and it still includes the ridiculous Zoom Climb of the noseless 747... they even show it climbing with the whining sounds of the engines forcing it up.
The claim a climb from 13,800 to about 15,700... 1,900 feet... and again state it is this Zoom climb that the eyewitnesses mistook for a missile.
It was a waste of time...
I saw a home video of this ...just after it happened. When I watched the news later that evening to see a replay.....it never showed again. The naysayers can believe what they want...... I know what I saw.
I don't have time except to say that he interviewed the man who did the exercise and it was on a different plane.
Well, the CIA has never let physics get in the way of a good story. Magic bullets, magic planes - it's all good.
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.