Replies

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.

You say the NTSB's assumption the 6/10 exercise was conducted aboard 800 is erroneous. What do you base that on? An "investigative" report by a reporter with very questionable motives (Hendrix)? As is reported by both the NTSB and conspiracy reporters "investigating" the exercise, there was almost no documentation of the exercise, and the officer concerned was relying on his memory of something he had conducted 70 days before his interview.

The shelf life of PETN and RDX certainly is relevent, as is the manner the exercises are conducted because it changes the timeline required for such an incident to have taken place from 6/10/96 to any day 30 years prior to the crash. From the officer's recollection of the exercise, it is a sloppy procedure. He recalls det cord dust visibly escaping some of his packages, and he recalls his training aids were stored in direct contact with other military type explosives. Clearly, it isn't beyond the realm of possiblity for PETN and RDX to have been introduced into TWA 800 by one of those exercises. In fact, it would be surprising if it wasn't. Does the specific date matter? Only if your motive is to cast doubt on parts of the NTSB investigation. Not if your goal is to identify how explosive elements made it onto the aircraft.

I'll agree that there is a descrepancy between the NTSB account and subsequent accounts published in tabloids, but it is your choice to believe who you want. You rest your hat on reporters who make their living generating news, and I'll rest mine on sworn testimony presented to Congress. I'm not going to argue that people don't lie to Congress, but at least the penalties for doing so are a lot higher.

With regard to PETN and RDX dissolving in salt water, that would certainly imply the explosive elements were introduced after the crash. Apparently that isn't always true, or somehow the pieces of wreckage containing the microscopic trace elements weren't exposed completely to salt water. A common problem with folks unfamiliar with aircraft accident investigation is they insist everything must be black and white. It is or it isn't. There can be no ambiguity. Well, they are wrong, and unfortunately there is a whole industry developed to take advantage of their ignorance in the form of tabloid reporting, investigative novels and documentary films.

If your purpose in this thread is to provide evidence of controversy in the TWA 800 incident, then I'm afraid you are a bit redundant. I do appreciate the fact that you can present your questions in a generally civil and mature manner. That makes you unique in debate full of dead horses.