Replies

I find it interesting you won't offer an opinion on the subjects being discussed in a thread you initiated.

With regard to the traces of PETN and RDX found on TWA 800...Yes, I certainly believe they could have found their way onto the aircraft during a dog-training exercise. Thousands of those exercises were/are conducted aboard commercial aircraft every year. I am fully aware of the reports suggesting the exercise that occurred on 10 June must have taken place on a 747 parked next to the future TWA 800 aircraft, so for the sake of argument, lets just say that particular dog-training event never took place. The shelf life of RDX and PETN falls somewhere between 30 and 50 years. What do you suppose the odds are that a dog-training exercise was conducted on the aircraft sometime in its service with TWA? Furthermore, theories suggesting the traces of RDX and PETN came from a bomb or missile must account for the fact that A. the samples weren't co-located, and B. there were no other signs of an explosion associated with the chemicals.

To tie things to the topic of this thread, how is it that if the pellets in question were part of some explosive device, they didn't contain traces of RDX and PETN?

Well, I can theorize anything I want re: some dog training exercise having taken place at some time during the life of TWA800, but that isn't the point. The point is the NTSB and FBI hung their respective hats on the erroneous assumption that the 6/10 exercise was conducted aboard 800. The evidence shows otherwise.

The "shelf-life" of RDX&PETN is irrelevant, UNLESS said explosive traces were IN FACT the result of some theorized prior explosives exercise, with the added caveat, that said exercise was conducted in such a manner as to leave residue behind.

It is also a known fact that immersion in salt water, QUICKLY eliminates traces of both these explosive by-products.

So, from an investigatory standpoint, the statements by NTSB and FBI are dubious at best. Schilliro's comments that the 6/10 exercise "took care of the PETN-RDX question" is NOT supported by the evidence. To state at this point, well, it may have come from ANOTHER exercise, or out of your grandmother's underwear is ludicrous. It's sloppy at best, and perhaps more ominous in a worse case scenario. The fact is the traces of explosives MAY in fact be a benign indicator. You can't get to that point however, by failing to identify the source. The suggestion that lack of proper source identity automatically defaults to a benign causation by some sort of factual attrition is unscientific.

The fact that the pellets didn't have PETN-RDX residue could be explained in a myriad of ways. Of course the first assumption which you have made is they should have had traces of explosives if they were from an explosive device. That was never stated here, nor is it accurate on it's face.

My purpose here, is not to prove one way or the other whether the spheres originated from an explosive device. Frankly, from the evidence as it is presented, I don't believe one could draw that conclusion with any degree of accuracy. However, neither can one rule it out.

You're welcome to respond, and then, if you wish, we could tackle some more questions.......I hope you will have the answers to those also.