TWA FLIGHT 800

3rd party | 11/27/01 | Fred Roberts

[sandydipper]

Today I had conversation with a commercial pilot who said that in July of 1996 just after the SHOOT DOWN of TWA800 a co-worker also a commercial pilot told him that he was sent to Paris to pick up the TWA president and fly him back to DC. The second pilot was a military pilot at the time and said that as soon as they returned to DC the TWA guy was helicoptered to the White House.

[barf]

Christ Elmer, what are you smoking? I would switch brands if I were you. On what date were the poor innocent P3 crew members transferred? Please don't write within 8 months. We'll already suffered through that one. Like I have written, your phoney patriotism doesn't fly here. Redundancy may be your forte', but give it a rest. You are such a bore.

[Rokke]

"Your coordinates are meaningless to me. The picture tells the real tale."

This says a lot. The picture is created by plotting coordinates. Each one of your "double returns" are actually coordinate points. Without them, there is no picture. But you say the coordinates are meaningless. If the coordinates are meaningless, so is the picture. That is a very basic application of logic.

[Rokke]

"You picked the wrong sets to compare."

OK, then you must be able to tell me which sets I should compare.

"Also, three dimensional data requires x,y and z."

True, but the data (picture) on page 42 does not represent a three dimensional view. What's your point?

"You left out a major axis reference."

Kind of hard to plat data that doesn't exist. The Boston Center radar doesn't record elevation. Again, if you don't believe me, call the FAA.

" The NTSB moved a block of chaff data by rotating its reference to the receiving antenna and I don't believe any specific data as a result of this."

If you don't believe any data, then what the heck is your whole "double returns" theory based on??? Well, when all else fails, you can always create something that doesn't exist and then say the government lied about it. That is the usual strategy conspiracists take. Is this the chaff that was supposedly expelled by your hybrid missile?

[Rokke]

"That's one of the M.O. of the Gubment appoligists, to type a bunch of sentences with just the right amount of technical jargon, and buzzwords to sound completely knowledgeable on the subject."

Yeah, heaven forbid anyone should actually know anything about what they're talking about. That certainly puts a damper on the whole conspiracy theme.

[Rokke]

"You can start by explaining why two nodes fell in each 12 second interval rather than only one."

Sorry, I forgot to answer this. But I think the lightbulb is starting to come on for you. The Boston Center radar data is obviously flawed. It includes data that the radar could not have seen based on a 12 second sweep rate. Therefore, your entire "double return" P-3 sled theory is based on flawed data. Since 8 radars tracked the P-3, doesn't it make sense to rely on the data of the seven radars that agree, and ignore the one data set that could not have happened.

[timestax]

Yeah, heaven forbid anyone should actually know anything about what they're talking about. That certainly puts a damper on the whole conspiracy theme.

You mean Reed Irvine, and all the hundereds of eye witneses?!

This incident will never be forgotten.

[barf]

You are missing my point. The numbers themselves mean nothing to me. The plots have been messed with. We don't know for a fact that the points are exactly where they should be. If uniformily displaced the pattern tells us more than the actual numbers.

[barf]

You are making little if any sense. You are rambling. The crap that the NTSB gave us did not match either the radar or the FDR and was of little value because of this. You are now stating that if it were good enough for the NTSB, it is good enough for you. The NTSB gave us garbage just as you are giving us garbage. You now claim that your coordinates are complete when they are not. I have been telling you that the numbers themselves are meaningless and I get the impression that you may now agree since a three dimensional world cannot be explained in two dimensional terms. The view shown as either plan or elevation tells the tale, not the numbers themselves. We can see for a fact that two objects were seen in each twelve second period of sweep. The numbers in the charts don't do a damn thing beyond that other than tell us that there was a nominal half mile vertical differenctial between the two objects and the scale in the plan view shows a mile plus or minus differential though the actual cable length is much more than that being similar to a catenary. It is nice that you now admit that two radar returns are shown. Congratulations. Apparently your weasel wording has run out.

[barf]

Your statement about flawed radar data is interesting. The major flaw is where the NTSB masked real data with 102000 data. It was a nice try, but no cigar. They left in enough to tell what was happening. Apparently the underlings at the NTSB were fed up with what their bosses were doing and snuck in bits and pieces to show some honor amongst thieves.

[Rokke]

OK. I guess I can sum up your reading of the radar data (upon which rests your whole case) by saying that you believe the only accurate representation of the P-3 is what is depicted by the upside down blue triangles on Page 42. Yet, you don't believe that the numbers the blue triangles are based on mean anything despite the fact that they correspond directly with the upside down blue triangles on page 42. You believe that uniformily displacing the patterns created by plotting the numbers provided to the NTSB (not by the NTSB) gives the true picture. You choose to ignore the other 7 sets of data for the same target for reasons you haven't provided. Once you've displaced your sets of faulty data, it will be obviously apparent that the P-3 was dragging something. Does that about sum it up?

Well, Barf, if we just continue along that theme I can uniformily shift sets of data points to spell out "Barf is not an engineer" and will probably be more accurate. Let me be the first to contribute $100 to a fund that will provide you with an all expenses paid trip to visit Washington D.C. so that you can explain your analysis to the Senator, Congressman or Cabinet official of your choice. But I have one condition...The meeting has to be on video and I get distribution rights for the video.

[Rokke]

"The major flaw is where the NTSB masked real data with 102000 data"

Here's a little test for you. What does the number 102000 represent, and where did the NTSB get that number?

[Rokke]

Sorry, I just can't stop myself. Read your quote here:

"You are making little if any sense. You are rambling."

And then read your quote here (which appears just a few lines after your first quote):

"The numbers in the charts don't do a damn thing beyond that other than tell us that there was a nominal half mile vertical differenctial between the two objects and the scale in the plan view shows a mile plus or minus differential though the actual cable length is much more than that being similar to a catenary."

Whaaat?

[barf]

Just admit that you lost the battle. You are now only an Elmer parrot. He was reduced to only copying other posts and you are now doing the same. Goodbye. It was fun while it lasted but the best engineer won. You are a laughingstock who tried to back up the NTSB lies but then contended that the NTSB data was flawed. No shit, Dick Tracy. You are now in my camp. Now that we agree with each other we could team up and fight the other creeps who lie. Once you admitted that two returns were within a twelve second time span, you joined my discovery that something was rotten in Denmark. Relative to engineering, this game playing is out of my normal field since I specialize in dome design. But I imagine that my trig calculations are a bit better caliber than yours. I don't work in numbers with less than ten place accuracy. That got to be a joke at work. When I retired sixteen years ago as the manager of R&D, I was given a plaque which showed my time with the company out to a zillion places. But my intent was to prevent cumulative error.

[Rokke]

"Just admit that you lost the battle."

You have failed to provide evidence of a 30 knot sub, a 1995 Standard KKV missile test, or a target towing P-3. Your analysis of radar data relies on plots of numbers we both agree are faulty at best. That leaves you with nothing. As far as I'm concerned, there was no battle. You never even showed up. Earlier you said you were an aeronautical engineer. It became very obvious that was not true, and I find dome designing much more believeable. I imagine that is a very complex field of work. Next time I have questions concerning dome design, I'll know who to come to.

[Rokke]

"failed to provide evidence "

Sorry, I meant failed to provide proof.

[barf]

The next time that you are in Boulder CO you could stop at the Fiske Planetarium at the U of CO. I was the sole engineer on that design. I did not design the South Pole dome but was involved in its erection. Or, in Long Beach, I was the principal engineer on the world's largest clear span dome made of aluminum. If you would like to have the geometry calculations for a dome a bit larger than the Astrodome in Houston, I prepared them seven years ago while sitting at home. My software was used on domes now being built in China and the rest if Asia. I am sorry that our NTSB is flawed because it could be much better if not mired in politics rather than science.

[barf]

I am not on trial here. You are. You are one of the folk who supports lies from our government. I don't. You agreed that something was wrong at the same place that turned me on to something being wrong. Now we agree and you can stop playing the 'gimme proof' 'gimme proof' 'gimme proof' game. I am only using my brain. The NTSB has the proof, ask them. You are only a younger copy of Elmer now. He is an even older old fart than I am. I think that he is an ally of the trial lawyers who don't want the truth to be known. Since the Navy caused the accident, the greedy lawyers should not be getting money from either Boeing or TWA. The Clinton administration was created to benefit the trial lawyers. Slick's first words were " all Americans deserve their own private health insurance". The trial lawyers would have had the maximum available money for expanding lawsuit awards if Hillarious had been successful. Slick Willie and Hillarious were a fraud team who wanted the use the Wh(or)e House for their advantage. Their being crooks was the primary reason for the NTSB to be crooked.

[Darksheare]

You tend to forget that rocket exhaust would pit the metal just as much or more than a high explosive. Guess again. Simple really. I already told you. You keep grasping at straws. Try again, this time with more feeling.

[Rokke]

I am being completely honest when I say that I am impressed with your engineering accomplishments. Like I said, I am sure dome design is a very complex field of work. Congratulations on having something on Earth that will stand as a testiment to the area of work you are an expert in.

[UCANSEE2]

It might interest you to know that there was another thread posted, (I will try to find the link) that gave information on the fact that the NTSB is having any pertinent physical evidence of the facts of TWA 800 DESTROYED. The remains of the plane are being trucked to a salvage yard and scrapped, as you read this. The cabin areas and seats were destroyed first !