Posted on 01/18/2004 8:28:59 AM PST by OXENinFLA
IMHO the Clinton administration glossed over a lot of terrorist acts, and this was just one.
They lacked the ability to confront such issues, especially to admit their screw-up in not getting custody of BinLaden when they had a chance.
"papering it over" pretty well describes an investigation which not only refuses to investigate the missile theory, but incarcerates independant investigators who check it out.
You believe what you will, but there are too many ends that don't flange up.
That's exactly right.
911 will NEVER happen again.
The Islamofascist girly-men had one shot at this, and they knew it. That's why they originally targetted a lot more than four planes.
Screw the imaginary airport "security" that misses 20% of the real contraband.
Fire the TSA and let anybody on board a plane who wants to fly, with the understanding that terrorist actions will be dealt with in the air, and if it is by the passengers, no charges will be filed no matter how dead the wannabe perps are when the plane touches the tarmac.
You have no tangible evidence, therefore, you have no facts.
You have no reliable witnesses to support a 'missile' theory either.
BUT, there are many legitimate, qualified witnesses who had front row, unobstructed 'seats' that day IN THE SKIES both in front of and behind TWA800.
NONE of you seem to have grasped this concept yet.
Simply remaining ignorant of a WHOLE lot of facts in this event, such as the age of, the number of flight HOURS on that aircraft and the problematic history of CERTAIN subsystems on some of those aircraft (like WIRING) does give you title or the right to call it 'papered over'.
Hell, I can't give you guys ANY CREDENCE on ANY technical subjects! To you guys it is ALWAYS 'conspiracy this' and 'conspiracy that'!
does give you title or -->
does not give you title or
Shortly after this, the government came up with the gig about testing explosives sniffing dogs....
Hmmm. Why not mention that initially, instead of go through the arm waving and concealment of that alleged past activity on the plane? Curious.
If these planes routinely fly with an explosive air/fuel mix in the center fuel tank, then a lot more of them should have been blown out of the sky by now, by their own fuel tanks. For modern commercial jet fuel, the explosive fuel/air mix is a narrower range than that for say, gasoline, and we don't have cars blowing up all by themselves, despite sending units and electric fuel pumps in the fuel tanks. Granted, planes travel farther, but they are not operating on gravel roads in North Dakota.
As for conspiracies, consider that from the OK City bombing on, during the Clinton Administration, there were a number of events which may or may not have been the result of Middle Eastern terrorist activities.
Although the official line about OK City is that it was the work of "white supremacist right wing home-grown terrorists", ties to the Philippines via Terry Nichols' wife, and the Muslim groups there, have been ignored. Even the search for "John Does" was called off and apologies issued to arabic-americans before the smoke had cleared.
Why?
Because Clinton needed two things: A right wing conspiracy to blame the evils of his administration on, and a domestic incident to balance the slaughter at Waco in the court of public opinion. Doing so gave him both.
While Khobar Towers and embassy bombings in Africa were undeniably terrorist attacks, these were on foreign soil and could be ignored by the average American.
Flight 800 originated here, and he couldn't have anything interfere with the feel-good regime. Not until 9/11 was there a blatant, horrifying, and undeniable incident of a terrorist attack on US soil, one which was of sufficient magnitude to get Americans' attention, even if you include the WTC bombing of 1993.
The accounts of the witnesses who saw what appeared to be a missile traveling from the horizon upward were ignored or not seriously considered, despite some of the witnesses having been combat pilots in the past. That alone makes the 'investigation' highly suspect, even though we all know someone of Mr. Clinton's impeccable integrity in all things would never, ever, call for the falsification or whitewash of any investigation conducted on his watch.
As for credence on technical subjects, I am a scientist, and a registered professional in my field. While people can cut themselves on Occam's Razor, usually the simplest explanation which satisfies all the evidence is the best. The CIA (why CIA?, why not NTSB or FAA?) cartoon simply does not do that.
OH BROTHER.
I guess THIS CINCHES IT.
Forget EVERYTHING ELSE, the 'tinfoilers' have found that which trumps physics, trumps research involving past history of said aircraft type AND trumps the history involving fuel tank explosions in general and trumps competent pilot witnesses who were in the air that night.
THANK YOU Mr. tinfoil.
Thanks to you, this case is solved and we can FORGET about EVERY OTHER aspect of 'systems' aboard aircraft because the tinfoil community has said that "NOTHING ELSE *EVER* IMPACTS SAFETY OF FLIGHT -
- NOT WEATHER,
- NOT INSTRUMENT FAILURE,
- NOT WIRING HARNESS SHORTS ABOARD AGING AIRCRFT
- NOT AIRFRAME, SKIN OR CARGO BAY DOOR FAILURE DUE TO
- AGE; ACCUMULATING NUMBER OF TAKE-OFFS AND LANDINGS
NONE OF THIS MATTERS because THE TIN FOILERS HAVE MANAGED TO SOME HOW RE-WRITE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS based on the 'evidence' of a few swatches of fabric that experienced unknown alteration in the mixture of a burning, exploding aircraft containing inumerable items and compounds both in the cabin and in the luggage bay; these items include 'people', the lotions and other compounds in both carry-on and stowed luggage, the clothing they were wearing made of innumerable fabrics ... NOT to mention any INDUSTRIAL materials in the cargo bay that were being freight-expressed overseas ...
YOU POEPLE are undaunted by logical, formal procedures, modern investigative science and ALL that aren't you?
The appearance of the world to YOU guys is that it is run run by un-associated black-magic 'processes', chants, evil and benevolent 'spirits' - the very essence of the 'tin foiler' and conspracy theorist.
From: Ex_4A_appBB_MichaelJulianRussel.pdf
Mr. Russell is a civil engineer and was a passenger on a survey vessel on July 17, 1996, which was proceeding from Moriches Inlet to a dredge located approximately 1 mile southeast of the inlet.*THIS* is is the kind of report that YOUR SOURCES of this conspiracy garbage MUST overlook IN ORDER TO be able to 'spin' a palatable 'conspiratorial tale'.He stated he was in the cabin seated next to a window and he observed a white flash in the sky. According to Mr. Russell, within a second of the white flash he observed a burst of fire forming a huge fireball. He described the fireball as an object or substance of extreme flammability being suddenly ignited as opposed to an explosion expending side to side energy. He said that black smoke appeared over the fireball immediately and white smoke over the black smoke. Two large pieces engulfed in flames fell to the ocean, side-by-side, one lower than the other. These items fell straight down while it appeared the fireball remained suspended in air still burning for a period of time.
Mr. Russell said that he did not hear an explosion, but advised that the noise of the boat diesel engines is quite loud.
In addition, he related that he saw no projectiles or light from surface to air and had not seen the aircraft flying. Also, he emphasized that he was unaware of what he was observing and had no idea that an aircraft was the object.
Following this event, according to Mr. Russell, the boat on which he was a passenger proceeded to the crash site at best speed (approximately 18 to 20 knots and a distance calculated to be approximately 7 miles). He said he witnessed debris falling in small pieces and described this as "raining debris." He also radioed the Coast Guard and described that the boat began to encounter debris when l/2 mile from the crash site. Upon getting closer, he observed fire bubbling up and out of the ocean.
PURE and SIMPLE.
THIS kind of observation, by a competent, technical professional is DAMNING to the plethora of conspiracy 'babbling' that takes place ...
It has been my experience that those who call names fastest, hardest, and longest seldom have valid arguments.
Show me precisely where I said:
we can FORGET about EVERY OTHER aspect of 'systems' aboard aircraft because the tinfoil community has said that "NOTHING ELSE *EVER* IMPACTS SAFETY OF FLIGHT - - NOT WEATHER, - NOT INSTRUMENT FAILURE, - NOT WIRING HARNESS SHORTS ABOARD AGING AIRCRFT - NOT AIRFRAME, SKIN OR CARGO BAY DOOR FAILURE DUE TO - AGE; ACCUMULATING NUMBER OF TAKE-OFFS AND LANDINGS
At no time have I said that either engineering aspects or physics can be ignored.
Nor can one ignore that we are dealing with an era in which FBI lab results were tainted and/or fabricated, admittedly, and may well have been so for political reasons.
No one who has studied the abuse of law enforcement powers and the questionable nature of the investigations into notable acts which ended in the death of one or more persons under the Clinton Administration, including but not limited to the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster, the OK City bombing, Waco, and Flight 800, can discard out of hand the possibility that the investigation may have been directed to find some politically expedient result.
When you work for the government, sooner or later, politics and science collide. How many senior level people would kiss their job and their retirement goodbye by bucking the "Boss", when they had no prospects of independent employment? Couldn't happen? Ask Billy Dale. He was fired for far less.
Note that I have not formally accused anyone involved in this investigation, but have frequently used the word "may". I do not claim to know beyond any reasonable doubt what happened. I wasn't there.
If the theory does not fit the evidence, the theory has problems, but you must have all the evidence. I remain unimpressed by voluminous reports about which agencies state numbers of pages and numbers of hours involved, simply because a few critical items can be left out, critical testimony disregarded. If all possibilities are not seriously considered and are not discarded for specific evidential reasons, then the investigation is not complete. Discarding data which do not fit the theory will simply not yield the correct answer.
SO I ask you, exactly how many 747 center fuel tank explosions have there been? A multitude of aircraft have been shot down by SAMs. Which is the statistically most likely event? Especially in light of at least one plot having been exposed to shoot down civilian airliners as they take off using shoulder-launched missiles?
YOU POEPLE [sic]are undaunted by logical, formal procedures, modern investigative science and ALL that aren't you?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I AM undaunted by logical, formal procedures, modern investigative science, and ALL that. I AM a scientist, and use these procedures every day, nothing 'daunting' about it. I am also aware that the easiest way to get the wrong answer is to NOT ASK the right questions. Logical, formal, scientific, and complete investigation is necessary to get a definitive answer, if one is to be had.
On 9/11, after the first plane hit, how many people thought this was a terrible tragedy instead of a deliberate act? Those numbers changed when the second plane hit, simply because people then realized this was no accident, but a deliberate act.
Just because someone can understand the considerable political pressures (including those of the French, as a number of French citizens were on board) to resolve this in a way which would leave the United States and our relatively lax security unassailable as causes, and the willingness of the Clinton Administration to whitewash virtually any criminal act to maintain good press, that does not make them a 'tinfoil hat' case.
Although I make no claim to the status, virtually every great thinker in history has thought "outside of the box", so to speak, from Newton and Copernicus to Einstein, and the next quantum leap in physics will be made by someone who reveres, but does not blindly worship those accomplishments; if only they do not allow themselves to be 'shouted down' by the vast number of physicists who worship the status quo in physics.
I have also been in situations where I was the only one right, stuck to my guns through massive flack, and was proven correct over a month later, AFTER people finally looked at ALL of the data. So I remain undaunted, (only irritated) by your rant.
Why look for some unknown process of combining unknown materials when an obvious method of introducing PETN residues exists, but that method is patently disregarded as a possibility? Occam's Razor would at least give the impetus to thoroughly investigate the possibility of a missile.
As for the rest of your rant, I believe in Jesus, and believe that in order to be a good servant to those who hire me, my investigations must be complete, thorough, and accurate, or my clients could lose a lot of money. I have no use for charlatans, witch doctors or the like, no matter what cloak they cover themselves in.
As for conspiracy theorists, these theories exist because someone is trying to make sense of data which do not fit within the conventional framework of cause-effect relationships. The theories exist to explain the data. If the Clinton Administration seems to have sprouted a disproportionate number of theories, then it is because a disproportionate number of events occurred which made no sense, either scientifically, within the realm of human nature, or the explanations proffered by the administration seemed far-fetched in light of simpler theories involving misdeeds or corruption.
When the FLIR data from WACO was eventually examined, after the untimely deaths of a couple of the top experts in the field, did anyone seriously suspect that the official results would not exonerate the FBI and HRT of any wrongdoing? Despite the unlikely nature of 'solar reflections off of debris' giving the appearance of automatic weapons fire, and testimony by the handful who survived the inferno, the official version found no wrongdoing. Even later evidence of pyrotechnic tear-gas rounds (would you fire those into a building where you had tape of people allegedly saturating the building with fuel?--unless you wanted an inferno?), the press made little outcry and allowed the Government to stick to the 'official' but unlikely version that the Davidians set the fire themselves.
Compare and contrast the political results of the two possible outcomes in each scenario and there could have been only one 'official' conclusion.
While fuels can ignite with a white flash, it was my experience as a fireman that jet fuel (PAX RIVER NATS) ignites, even in a flash ignition as yellow or orange. The second event described is concordant with the ignition of spilled fuel disseminated in the air, as is black smoke (fuel rich fuel/air mixture). The white flash/white smoke implies a very efficient mixture, yielding higher temperatures. Note that this is relatively difficult to achieve with jet fuel, but is inherent to explosives and explosive warhead design. The presence of the white smoke over the black smoke implies that the plane was at a lower altitude when the spilled fuel ignited, not that it coasted upward several thousand feet.
Two large pieces engulfed in flames fell to the ocean, side-by-side, one lower than the other. These items fell straight down while it appeared the fireball remained suspended in air still burning for a period of time.
The fireball, if composed of spilled fuel, would have a different (slower) terminal velocity than the larger aircraft fragments due to wind resistance. Although acceleration in gravity is independant of mass, air resistance will slow particles based on shape and density.
Following this event, according to Mr. Russell, the boat on which he was a passenger proceeded to the crash site at best speed (approximately 18 to 20 knots and a distance calculated to be approximately 7 miles). He said he witnessed debris falling in small pieces and described this as "raining debris." He also radioed the Coast Guard and described that the boat began to encounter debris when l/2 mile from the crash site. Upon getting closer, he observed fire bubbling up and out of the ocean.
At best speed, the 7 miles took about 20 minutes. Small fragments, paper, lighter materials were still falling. I must assume the "fire bubbling up out of the ocean" was fuel floating to and burning on the surface.
No need to overlook this. The witness, a Civil Engineer, related what he saw. He did not say that he was constantly looking out the window, but the fireball described would have been at about 45 degrees from the horizontal from his position, so, in all likelyhood, he was looking upward when the fireball caught his attention.
What he did not see does not disprove anything. His attention was drawn to a plane flying eastward by an explosion and a subsequent fireball. He saw an explosion, a fireball, debris, but nothing going up (which does not fit the cartoon). An explosion drew his attention, this does not rule out a missile, just his seeing it in transit. If he could not see the plane, (where other witnesses who claim to have seen a missile could), this disproves nothing. If he saw no projectiles or light from surface to air, why mention it? Why not stick to what he saw?
IMHO, his testimony does not disprove the missile theory, and, further, does not support the CIA video.
a) I really don't care b) it is not ridiculous, it is based on facts targetted to allay conspiractorial thinking c) it is nearer the truth than any conspiracy theorist will ever be to the 'facts' surrounding TWA800.
The VAST majority of conspiracy theorists tighten or 'narrow down' their 'scope' or 'field of view' down to a few tangential items WHILE at the same time ignore other, more important facets of *ANY* particular event they wish to 'spin' into their favored 'theory' at the time.
I have little patience for such ramblings anymore, and if your posting get anywhere near 'conspiratorial' in nature (WHICH means disregard for the facts, disregard of *real* material evidence and objective witness testimony from those witnesses with technical backgrounds or from those pilots who witnessed the event within the vicinity of TWA800) I'm going to take this route.
If you're simply uninformed on the various 'findings' to date which the competent investigation on TWA800 has revealed - that's one thing (I suggest you spend some reading the various reports). If you're of the conspiratorial 'bent' that MOST of those who seem ot post on this subject are - that's an entirely different matter and I consider those types as skeet.
No they're not.
They take a select subset of the data (a couple of select pictures, an 'early' news media account or two, a flawed study and mostly outright disregard for contrary evidence) and 'spin' that into the basis of a cause which will support a conspiracy theory.
I see you've drank the Koolaid from the conspiracy crowd on this one too.
I suggest you do some research on MCT-based SPRITE IR sensors and then get back to me ...
The sceince does support Ssolar Specular Reflection from the debris, and it was demonstrated during tests.
Ian Goddard also details exquisitely the MANY causes of 'SSR' comparing visible pictures *with* their IR counterpart and in each case debris of various composition can be seen:
Waco FLIR Debunked - (c) 2001 Ian Williams Goddard
Debunking the Waco FLIR (c) 2001 Ian Williams Goddard
CONCLUSION
The Waco FLIR gunshot claim purports that federal agents machine gunned men, women, and children as they tried to escape the Waco fire. In other words, the United States government is guilty of the systematic mass murder of its own citizens -- a crime against humanity. However, as the facts above demonstrate, the alleged evidentiary basis for this most serious charge -- that the official report lists fifteen bodies shot to death near the rear exit -- is completely false. And the flashes recorded on FLIR that are said to be the gunshots killing those allegedly trying to escape do not actually resemble real gunshots. Instead, the long durations of the flashes resemble thermal reflections. Furthermore, the flashes appear on detectable pieces of reflective debris. The entire Waco FLIR gunshot/mass murder claim is a confabulated mirage built upon falsity and bad analysis.
Prior to the acquisition of empirical data about gun-muzzle flashes and thermal reflections on FLIR, and prior to detailed analyses of the contents of the Waco FLIR, it was a reasonable concern that the flashes might be gunshots directed at Mt Carmel. However, the empirical data and analyses cited in this report leave no room for doubt that the Waco FLIR flashes are thermal reflections on debris, not gunshots. Yet the gunshot claim continues to proliferate due to a concerted effort to sell videos on the topic. Unfortunately the technical nature of the subject leaves most at a loss to see the Waco FLIR gunshot claim for the hallucination that it is.
Hopefully this report will serve as a beacon of reason in a sea of misinformation.
The question that SHOULD be asked is - How many fuel tank explosions have their been aboard transport-category aircraft?"
AFTER ALL, excluding all non-Boeing 747 aircraft IS a bit limiting WHEN it's experience with fuel tank explosions that should concern the subject: safety of the fuel system.
WHAT do you suppose that number is?
Zero?
One?
Two?
More than two?
MORE than twenty perhaps?
Would you be surprised to learn that a fuel tank explosion *has* occurred on another B-747 aircraft?
WOULD you also be surprised to find out that a CWT fuel tank explosion occurred on a B737 aircraft - ON the ground during push-back from the gate?
And he was. I watched him on French TV (translated), where he railed against the way he was treated. He's now a star, having been invited on every talk show in France.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.