Someone has finally talked! Reed Irvine on Navy witness who saw Flight 800 downed by missile

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, January 31, 2002 | Reed Irvine

[Rokke]

This website has an excellent analysis of the eyewitness statements starting on page 229.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf
Whether you believe the missile theory or not, it offers some interesting insight on why the witnesses may have thought they saw what they reported.

[Rokke]

Here is UberVernunft's original statement:

"Other than the hundreds of witnesses who saw a light streak up from the ground toward the plane."

Where in the quotes you provided does it say hundreds of witnesses saw a streak of light rise from the ground toward the plane? I'll help you out...it doesn't. UberVernunft has already admitted he was wrong. You are beating a dead horse.

Perhaps the Sidebar Moderator has the ability to determine I have no other aliases in this forum. I hope he does. Then maybe you'll give up your obsession with something that doesn't matter anyway.

Now, why don't you go back and count all the times I've listed URL's to support my posts. For that matter, who do you think gave you the URL you posted your info from. And while you are counting, pause at post #148 and see if you can come up with a suitable response.

[sinkspur]

You remind me of "Landshark" and Sinkspur. Like you, they are too lazy to post a URL. They speak as if they know something and never source their comments.

Why are you dragging me into this, jerkweed?

You don't read enough of my posts, obviously.

I post articles, I post links (though mostly to articles dealing with the Catholic Church).

If I don't know anything, why the hell do you bother? In fact, don't, in the future. Just ignore me, and I'll ignore you.

[Rokke]

Hmmmm. It looks like you have quite a fan club. Unless of course, we're all the same person.

[UberVernunft]

Again I ask Rokke, where is your source for the 96 witnesses statement? Your credibility is beginning to suffer.

When this thread started I thought the number of winesses was around 130 or so. When the figure of 96 was given I accepted it for the sake of argumentation. The whole point was that 96 witnesses is still such a large number that my original argument was still valid. But for Rokke to incessantly harass me over over the use of the term "hundreds" (over 8 posts) is really pushing it. He sure seems like a disrupter to me.

[UberVernunft]

There was an article within the last year in the WSJ to the effect that someone had studied explosions in fuel tanks. They expected approximately one incident would occur in twenty years. Therefore, no action would be taken to fix this "problem".

Do you have a specific source?

[eazdzit]

You stated...."Where in the quotes you provided does it say hundreds of witnesses saw a streak of light rise from the ground toward the plane? I'll help you out...it doesn't. "

And where does it say 96 witnesses saw a streak of light rise from the ground toward the plane? I'll help you out...it doesn't.

From the NTSB URL that you provide and the LINK that I provided.....

* Of the 183(note that only 458 of the 755 interviewed by the FBI are addressed by the NTSB) who observed a streak of light, 102 gave information about the origin of the streak. Six said the streak originated from the air, and 96 said that it originated from the surface. Of the 96 who said it originated from the surface, 40 said it originated from the sea and 10 said it originated from land.

If you expect me to know what you meant, I think it is only fair to expect you to know what he meant. Just like I meant link when I said URL. Since I was complaining that you didn't provide one, you could deduce that I meant link.

Since he was talking about hundreds of witnesses (183) that thought they saw the missile you could deduce he didn't mean just the 10 who said it came from the ground.

In all three cases, we didn't say what we meant. However what we meant was easy enough to figure out.

You... wanted my comments on your post 148.

I have no comments on your technical statements in post 148. I don't know.

You did concede..."The Islip radar may have picked up debris to the right of the aircraft, but it isn't a missile warhead. "

From the NTSB Exhibit 4A.....

"* One hundred twenty-eight witnesses reported an immediate end of the streak, 85 described it ending in an explosion, 32 said it ended in a fireball, and 11 said it ended in a flash."

Sounds like it could have been a missile. Wouldn't you agree?

What would happen to the debris from the missile. It would seem to me that at a minimum it would keep debris from the target from moving in the direction the missile came from.

If the tank exploded from a spark, why would the debris go to the right?

[Rokke]

Words mean things. Stating hundreds of people watched a missile rise from the surface and hit TWA 800 is not the same as stating the fact that 183 people observed a streak of light. That has been my point all along. Your assumption that the streak was a missile is not a fact. It's an assumption. It is a fact that 96 of those witnesses reported the streak originated from the surface. So why not just stick to the facts and say 96 people reported a streak of light originated from the surface. If your theory is strong, you don't need to embellish it with exaggerated figures and assumptions. If my stating that makes me a disrupter, then so be it.

I honestly didn't know you meant link instead of url. I'm not very well versed in the whole html thing, and though I have looked up how to post links in the past, I find it easier just to cut and paste the url. Yes, I guess that makes me lazy.

"I have no comments on your technical statements in post 148. I don't know." Fair enough. But it's a little frustrating that you produce post after post accusing me of being a disruptor and telling me my credibility is suffering when you won't even discuss the information you introduce.

"Sounds like it could have been a missile. Wouldn't you agree?"
Or, it could have been a burning 747 that subsequently exploded. I highly recommend you read the NTSB final report concerning the witness statements. Here is the url:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf
As I have previously stated, it has a very good analysis of the witness statements starting on page 229 including how the NTSB defined "streak of light".

What would happen to the debris from the missile.
It depends on the missile. The warheads for most missiles are located about 1/3 of the way down the missile body. Newer missiles are designed to take advantage of any remaining fuel in the missile to maximize their destructive impact. After they explode, very little is left. Especially if, as CMDR Donaldson suggests, the missile actually impacted TWA 800 at a nearly perpendicular angle.

"If the tank exploded from a spark, why would the debris go to the right?"
Take another look at the radar data in depicted in Donaldson's article from your post #140. TWA 800 was moving at 360kts or 6 nm per minute. The radar sweep updated every 5 seconds, during which time TWA 800 would have moved 1/2 a mile. The first piece of "missile" data Donaldson identifies appears at 31:16.22. TWA 800 appears on the same sweep at 31:16.49 about 1/2 a mile away from the "missile" debris which has barely moved laterally from the course flown by TWA 800. If a missile blew debris at "high velocity" from the right side of the aircraft, how come the debris doesn't show greater displacement from the plane's flightpath. In the next three sweeps the debris barely moves at all. So are we to assume it left the aircraft at high velocity, only to stop 10 seconds later? The debris then continues to drift at exactly the same rate and direction as all the other debris as TWA 800 continues to break up. What the radar really shows are returns from pieces of TWA 800 leaving through the belly of the aircraft after the explosion inside the CWT initiated a chain of events that eventually caused the nose of the aircraft to seperate. CMDR Donaldson proves once again why his analysis is never considered by any source other than WND. He may have been a nice guy, but his analysis of the whole TWA 800 incident is worthless.

[eazdzit]

I stated...."No I'm afraid you can't convince me that the center fuel tank exploded." You responded...."That's fine, but can you convince the engineers at Boeing that it didn't?"

Look at Boeings technical response. They flat out state that none of the suggested causes for the fuel tank explosion were even plausible.

See Appendix C pages 33-46 of report. Design review and Tests

[Rokke]

First, let me say that I appreciate you reading the Boeing report. Most folks who believe TWA 800 was shotdown or bombed don't bother reading anything on the NTSB site. Now, let me quote Boeing from page 2 of their submission in the section titled "Evidence Assessment":

"Based on a review of this information, Boeing believes that there was an ignition of the flammable vapors in the CWT resulting in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft. Although there has been significant analysis of the wreckage and potential failure modes by some of the best minds in aviation, the government and academia, the investigation, to date, has not determined the ignition source."

This makes it very clear that they believe the explosion in the CWT caused the breakup of TWA 800. What isn't known is the ignition source. However, Boeing subsequently offers page after page of proposed changes, recommendations and new regulations to reduce the the chance of flammable vapor explosions in their fuel tanks. I think it is safe to say, that they believe the CWT exploded.

[eazdzit]

OK I concede. There probably was an explosion in the location of the CWT. I don't know what caused it. I do not believe it was caused by a malfunction.

In addition you have convinced me you are not lazy.

Cheers:^)

[Rokke]

Well, hopefully sometime in the near future I'll learn to make a point without convincing folks I'm a multi-personalitied big-mouth. It sure would save a lot of time for everyone involved.

Cheers to you as well.

[Tymesup]

Interesting, albeit inconclusive, analysis.

[Rokke]

I'll buy that. And I would add that if a team of expert analysts can't draw any real conclusions, how can a bunch of arm chair accident investigators?

[Uncle Bill]

NTSB DESTROYS TWA 800 EVIDENCE

The Eyewitness Evidence of Flight 800

The Flight 800 Eyewitness Hearing

WE SAW TWA FLIGHT 800 SHOT DOWN BY MISSILES!

..

• Kallstrom's quest for redemption

• Why John Kerry talks about TWA 800

• Deception for dollars

• Exposing FBI's red herring: Parts 1 and 2

• The fight goes on

• Cracks appear in fuel-tank charade

• The incredible shrinking climb

• All the AG's men

• Demise of the TWA 800 cover-up?

• Silenced no more!

• Ashcroft imprisoned by Reno legacy?

• Exploding hypotheses: Parts 1 and 2

• Imaginary flagpoles

• The collapse of American journalism

• Psychology of a cover-up

• Feds muffle voice recorder data

• Fateful 4 seconds

• Unraveling the cover-up

• TWA 800 controversy heats up

• Cashill's five-part series, "Silenced: Flight 800 and the subversion of justice":

  Part 1
  Part 2
  Part 3
  Part 4
  Part 5

  Related stories:

• Justice Department rips Flight 800 video

• Haunting evidence of missile attack

• 'Deadly Departure'

• New evidence of missile attack

• TWA 800 and official lies

• Investigator testifies to Congress

• U.S. Stinger chief suspect

• Donaldson called conspiracy theorist

• Were missile parts hidden away?

• Is there proof of a missile?

• Was there a government cover-up?

• How government stopped probers

• What happened to TWA Flight 800?

• TWA Flight 800 was 'shot down'

[OKCSubmariner]

_Jim will be here anytime now.

Uncle Bill must really be getting too close!

[Uncle Bill]

Bump!

[Uncle Bill]

Bump!