You wrote: "OK, I should be working (I mentioned, I'm an engineer) but I went ahead and read...." I give you credit for acknowledging that sometimes it's not laziness that keeps us from reading and doing everything we desire. Other events may demand our attention and time.
Thank you for your links. BTW, it was interesting that the link to NTSB Official Factual Reports Regarding this Accident has been deactivated. However, the links to NTSB's Exhibits and PowerPoint presentation still work, but they appear flawed, undoubtedly a reflection of overall report. Still, it's important not to rush to judgment.
Of note, there were 736 witnesses of which about 44 were judged highly credible. Yet, NTSB discounts witness statements because some had memory errors. Too, the witness photograph (declared defective by the FBI) that showed a streak toward TW800 was ignored by NTSB. Meanwhile, at least three credible witnesses in the presentation noted two explosions:
A Witness
• She saw a red dot of light that appeared to
be a roman candle moving east parallel to
the horizon. One or two seconds later the
dot became bigger and started to fall fast.
The dot then blew up into a fireball. A
second fireball developed and the two
fireballs fell separately.
USAir Flight 217
• Observed blinking lights of an airplane flying
underneath USAir flight 217.
• About 15-20 seconds later, observed a light
that appeared to be a “flare.”
• Observed an initial small explosion in the
same area that he last observed the flare.
• Within a second later, the small explosion
turned into a large explosion.
Helicopter Pilot
• Saw a streak of red light moving very fast
from his right to his left. It moved almost
horizontal in a gently descending curve.
• Observed the streak for 1 or 2 seconds, saw
explosion, second explosion
• Fireball developed, and took 8 to 10 seconds
to fall to the ocean
Sources: Accident Investigation: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/twa800/
Witness Reports: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/twa800/8_Witnesses.htm
I should add that my characterization of a "double explosion" is my own construction, not derived from any conspiracy literature. But, let's debunk the MSM myth that conspiracies don't happen. Although almost universally used as a pejorative, conspiracies are like a good murder mystery. The reader follows the clues to the evidence, excluding the irrelevant, forming and testing hypotheses, and ultimately drawing conclusions on what transpired. As always, it is helpful to observe what we know and what we don't, and who had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime or cover-up, and effect results. There is wide agreement it was an election year.
My observation is that NTSB's presentation does not appear to be an honest recitation of facts. It is highly selective of known evidence, offers no alternative theories to debunk with logical argument, and does not address major criticisms of report opponents. In other words, one doesn't have to argue conspiracy to see that things ain't kosher. Evidence gone missing such as satellite images and witness photos and other evidence still classified add fuel to the controversy. Instead, NTSB has created a backlash by not being straightforward with the discerning public. The fact that MSM and federal employees who lost whistleblower protections were co-opted is not surprising. The then-current president began his administration by firing all U.S. attorneys and replacing them with those he trusted as politically reliable. Many were duped.
Even your linked ADA FAQ gives the impression of an orchestrated effort to obfuscate with overwhelming and irrelevant engineering data. On point, here's a statement contributed by Dr. George O. Bizzigotti, a biochemist in McLean, VA, who years later lent support to Clinton's strike on the al Qaida 'aspirin' factory in Sudan by identifying a precursor chemical to nerve gas.
Sources: http://yarchive.net/chem/biochemistry_books.html, http://yarchive.net/mil/nerve_gas_sudan.html
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti:
"Here's an interesting example of why some of us with technical
backgrounds are skeptical of some of the eyewitness reports. Lisa Perry
was quoted in Dan's Papers, Long Island, 15 May 1998, as follows:
"'The plane stopped for an instant, as something would when it had
suffered an impact, not just an explosion. Then it began to fracture - as
if you had slammed a frozen candy bar down onto a table. You could see the
spaces in between the parts of the plane. Then a moment later there was
another explosion and the plane broke jaggedly in the sky.'"
"Paul Adam has made this point before, but I would like to go into detail
here so that hopefully everyone can appreciate the arguments. I have
seen estimates that put Ms. Perry's position 15.7 nautical miles (18
statute miles) from the crash site; that's 95,400 feet horizontally.
Because she was on the ground, and TWA 800 was at 13,800 feet, she was
96,400 feet from TWA 800. A Boeing 747 is 232 feet long and 64 feet
high, so TWA 800 would have appeared in Ms. Perry's field of view as 8.3
arc-minutes high by 2.3 arc-minutes wide.
"Now let us digress into the world of bio optics. Our eyes work because
photoreceptor cells on our retinas absorb light. we (sic) are only capable of
telling whether or not a cell absorbs the light, so each cell
corresponds to a pixel in an image. The maximum density of the
photoreceptors in the human eye is 160,000 per square millimeter. This
translates to a minimum distance between these receptor cells of 2.8
micrometers. One degree of visual angle is equal to 288 micrometers on
the retina, so the minimum distance between receptor cells corresponds to
0.6 arc-minutes. Based on this, the image on Ms. Perry's retina likely
covered something like 50 cells out of the 100 million receptor cells in
her field of vision.
"In addition, the angular resolution of one's eyesight is limited by
Rayleigh scattering of light. With a 2 mm pupil diameter and 500 nm
light (near the center of the visible spectrum and the wavelength that
maximally excites the receptor cells), the minimum angular separation
required to resolve two points is 1.1 arc minutes. Thus, the physical
properties of light dictate that even someone with absolutely perfect
eyesight cannot distinguish between objects less than 31 feet apart at
96,400 feet.
"By either argument, being able to distinguish the fine detail implied in
Ms. Perry's statement is unbelievable. Have someone slam a frozen six
inch candy bar on a table 208 feet away from you, and see if you can
'see the spaces in between the parts.' How can fifty pixels in a 10,000
x 10,000 image be anything more than an indistinct blur, with little
recognizable detail? Note that there's nothing ideological in this
argument; Bill Clinton has nothing to do with how retinas work or how
light is scattered by an aperture. This is simply what a century of
science has shown us about how our eyes and the universe work. Although
the overall height at the tail of a 747 may be 63 ft 8 in, the narrower
portion of the cabin has a width of only 20 ft; even someone with
perfect eyesight could barely distinguish the top of the fuselage from
the bottom at the 15.7 nm horizontal distance.
"As a result of this, assuming good faith on the part of Ms. Perry, we
are left with only two possibilities:
(1) Ms. Perry has eyes that are literally superhuman, or
(2) Ms. Perry has a fallible memory...."
Source (and continuation of argument):
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~philmil/ADA_FAQ/ADA_FAQ_twa800.htm#%3E%20%202.1.3)%20What%20about%20the%20eyewitness
As Dr. Bizzigotti emailed: "I would presume that if Jones had an airtight argument for his hypothesis you would accept it because it was a better argument, not because of his Ph.D. of his field. That's what I meant by my assertion; evaluate the argument, not the credentials." Fair enough. A consistent logical argument is key to credibility.
Dr. Bizzigotti's ocular resolution arguments are seductive unless one questions why he chose to attack the insignificant portion of Ms. Perry's statement. How he is able to discern what Ms. Perry saw without careful measurements obviously not available, i.e., how far apart pieces of the aircraft flew in the explosion, and whether the scattering parts might have given the impression to a witness, perhaps incorrectly, that the plane paused in midair. Can we really accept that Ms. Perry could not spot the cockpit of the plane separating from the fuselage because it would be impossible for her to see light between these two major sections of the plane as it broke up?
I began to wonder if Dr. Bizzigotti was an amateur magician because of this sleight of hand. We saw this tactic before as some have asserted that there is over 30 tons of reconstructed aircraft wreckage still available for training. But, what is important is not what's there, but what's missing, what went out the back door of the hanger to a second hanger off-limits to all but the inner circle, or the wreckage that was shipped directly to the Hanger 2 by politically reliable Navy guys. Remember, all New York city and state salvage crews were barred from the crash scene and second hanger.
In Dr. Bizzigotti's example, we are deluged with tons of data to determine whether a witness was accurate in her judgment that the TW800 stopped for an instant. In my mind, the more critical aspect of her observation is that there were two explosions, a fact confirmed by at least three other credible witnesses, and presumably overlooked by NTSB when they selected witness statements for the presentation--unless, as they concluded, all witness testimony was remarkably "consistent."
But, one should not reject Dr. Bizzigotti's argument simply because of his biochem credentials. It is his argument lacks credibility. Dr. Bizzigotti might as well have written, "If you want to overpower your opponents, you can either dazzle them with your virtues, or confuse them with bull-shit." Too often, people choose the latter.
Other investigations point to the spill pattern I referenced: what came out of the aircraft and in what order. The spill pattern strongly suggests that there were two explosions. First out were the seats in rows 17-19, the same ones thought to contain missile fuel residue. Next came the cockpit elements, indicating it separated from the fuselage before the center wing tank (CWT) exploded. Meanwhile, NTSB ignores this evidence and provides videos that discuss the sequence of the breakup only after CWT exploded. Nor does NTSB mention onboard communications failed a split second before CWT exploded, tending to confirm a cockpit separation in advance of the main explosion, consistent with the double-explosion scenario.
Tellingly, NTSB also fails to comment on this photo, never shown by MSM:
In summary, Sanders is familiar with the initial reports that witnesses saw a second explosion, which you claim to know nothing about. I was surprised that you were not aware of the two explosion testimony. I must conclude you are not as familiar with the findings as you would appear. You parade impressive credentials and provide links, but the linked reports do not address the specifics, nor do you.
Similarly, I would be interested in the passenger autopsy reports since if many died with their necks broken in a certain direction, that would be further corroboration of the missile strike hypothesis. If there was a considerable range of causes, one might be entitled to rule out an external attack, thus favoring a single CWT explosion. The absence of this evidence in NTSB's report (can you find it?) adds to the missile scenario. It would appear the missile was inert or failed to detonate if armed.
The Missile Impact Analysis has an interesting conclusion that "No conclusive evidence of missile impacts exists," suggesting the existence of some unspecified evidence of a missile hit. More problematic for my incipient research is the origin of the missile.
Back to the Big Question: Why NTSB withheld findings that would make its report more complete is anyone's speculation, but it does fit nicely into the theory that someone was trying divert attention away from either friendly-fire or terrorist attack scenarios in order to secure re-election. NTSB seems to have complied with the letter of political requests, but has not provided an airtight case, perhaps intentionally. Some call this lower level resistance when there is disagreement with the organization's goals, i.e., to cover up what actually happened without making oneself personally liable or vulnerable to removal. For a final NTSB report, as with National Intelligence Estimates, would not dissenting reports be important, if only to highlight argument weaknesses, which could then be addressed? How could a controversial report be complete without such dissents?
Finally, I was struck by several passages in the news article that you have not commented on and, therefore, may not have seen yet:
"In either case, the U.S. Navy did not have the will or the wherewithal to conceal this on its own. That decision would have been made in the family quarters of the White House in the early morning hours of July 18.
"Those few subordinates in the know would have been told that the decision was made for reasons of national security. A more urgent reason, of course, was to secure Clinton's re-election a few months hence.
"The evidence for Navy involvement has been greatly enhanced by the research of Capt. Ray Lahr on the west coast and the legal work in the federal courts by his counsel, John Clarke. Highly useful, too, has been a new and stunningly sophisticated crash analysis drafted by an apparent insider (or insiders), whose identity remains stubbornly unknown.
"As a result of Lahr's work in particular, the NTSB and FBI have quietly abandoned the CIA zoom-climb scenario shown in the YouTube clip and rely now only on a quiescent media to ignore the un-rebutted testimony of some 270 eyewitnesses to a missile strike."
Your comments, please.
.