Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TWA Flight 800 - "Our Must See Video"
Accuracy In Media ^ | 7 May 2002 | Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid

Posted on 05/07/2002 10:59:01 AM PDT by Asmodeus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last
To: All

RadioFR on NOW!

"Unspun" with AnnaZ and Mercuria!

Tonights guests...RON PAUL, GARY ALDRICH, SHEMANE NUGENT and JEFF HEAD!

ON NOW!

Click HERE to listen while you FReep!


81 posted on 05/09/2002 6:17:01 PM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LouD
Kerosine (otherwise known as jet fuel) is NOT explosive. I use it all the time, you can dump a gallon and stand over it with a match without worry- try that with gasoline and you will be a krispy critter.

Now, as for your 'personal belief' that an arc from faulty wiring (inside??? a fuel tank) caused the explosion... on what basis do you believe that?

Oh, and I was one of the many Freepers here who SAW THE VIDEO ON TV OF A MISSLE STREAKING UPWARD (the infamous and quickly vanished 'cocktail party' video)

82 posted on 05/09/2002 6:25:54 PM PDT by Mr. K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tymesup
"I heard Mike Wire on the radio in August of 2001. Mike Wire is one of the witnesses who was quoted in the ad about TWA 800. He referred to something ascending... culminating in an explosion.

Click here for the full page ad referred to.

The timeline and location of the major events of the disaster was approximately as follows:

8:31:11 Intact and climbing 747 approaches 13,800 feet.

8:31:12 Initiating Event at 13,800 feet followed immediately by the commencement of the 747's structural decapitation process.

8:31:47 explosion of Massive Fireball in the falling wreckge at 5500-7500 feet.

8:31:55-8:31:57 splashdown of the Massive Fireball flames.

Accuracy in Media - PRESS RELEASE
Washington, DC - July 14, 2000 For Immediate Release
TWA EyeWitness Alliance to Hold Press Conference on the 4th Anniversary of the TWA Flight 800 Crash
When: Monday, July 17, 2000 at 10:30 a.m.
Where: National Press Club, Zenger Room
[excerpt]
Eyewitnesses - Three of the 755 eyewitnesses interviewed by the FBI will relate what they saw — Dwight Brumley, who from an airliner 5000 feet above TWA 800, saw a missile blow it up; Fred Meyer, veteran helicopter pilot, who saw a missile strike the plane from his National Guard helicopter; Michael Wire, who was falsely described by the CIA as having provided the evidence on which its absurd video simulation of the crash was based. All three agree that this simulation bears no relationship to reality.

Click here for an 18 July 2000 Associated Press article by G. Stephen Bierman Jr. about that Press Conference. Two excerpts read as follows [emphasis added]:

[quote]On the fourth anniversary of the crash of TWA Flight 800, two witnesses criticized investigators Monday for doing too little to determine the source of a light they say they saw in the sky near the doomed plane. [end quote]

[quote]Dwight Brumley, who watched as a passenger on another flight 5,000 feet above Flight 800, said he told his story to the FBI but felt it wasn't taken seriously. "I could not positively say that what I saw was a missile. What I saw was a very bright flame of light moving parallel to my aircraft", Brumley said at a news conference. [end quote]

The same clickable reference source includes the transcript of a recorded inept interview of witness Brumley. It isn't clear if it was at that press conference. Note the elapsed time between the fiery streak and the Massive Fireball explosion in the falling wreckage at 5500-7500 feet - 1-2 seconds.

Meyer apparently didn't appear at the Press Conference but it will be recalled from Reply #69 above he stated as follows to an NTSB Witness Group: ""I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?

Click here for Meyer's detailed report. He obviously could not have seen a "shootdown" of the airliner at 13,800 feet only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explode in the falling wreckage at 5500-7500 feet.

If you have a report of Michael Wire you want to post, do so. The following is from the Archives of the LSoft Flight 800 Forum:

[excerpt][quote]That one eyewitness is Michael Wire, a machinery expert who was working on a new drawbridge on Beach Lane, a road running from Westhampton, Long Island, to the beach. Wire's FBI report says that standing on the bridge, looking toward the beach, he saw a white light just above the rooftop of a house about 900 feet away, ascending from the ground at about a 40 degree angle. It "sparkled" and he thought it was fireworks. It "zig zagged" as it traveled upward and was going south-southeast when it "arched over" and disappeared from view. Two or three seconds later he saw an orange light that appeared to be a fireball in the sky about half a mile away. It was falling at about a 30-degree angle, with a fire trail burning behind it. According to Wire, the fireball disappeared behind a house two houses away from the one where he saw the white light. He then heard the first and loudest of four explosions. It shook the bridge. Eight or nine seconds later he heard two more explosions followed by a fourth a second later. [end quote]

Note that the elapsed time between the fiery streak and the Massive Fireball explosion in the falling wreckage at 5500-7500 feet is two or three seconds.

The sequential timeline tells the tale. The fiery streak was fire in the descending wreckage. There were no "missile witnesses" because there was no missile.

83 posted on 05/09/2002 8:21:39 PM PDT by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

bttt
84 posted on 05/09/2002 10:03:59 PM PDT by Pagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Pagey
Accuracy In Media 10 May 2002

85 posted on 05/10/2002 8:40:09 AM PDT by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
The fact is Stephanopoulos said bomb. Does this make you believe it was an innocent spontaneous fuel tank explosion?

The fact is five years later, Mike Wire is still taking time out of his life to talk about TWA 800. Do you think he is convinced it was an innocent spontaneous fuel tank explosion?

86 posted on 05/10/2002 9:58:54 AM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Tymesup
"The fact is Stephanopoulos said bomb. Does this make you believe it was an innocent spontaneous fuel tank explosion?"

Does it make you believe the 747 was the victim of a bomb?

"The fact is five years later, Mike Wire is still taking time out of his life to talk about TWA 800. Do you think he is convinced it was an innocent spontaneous fuel tank explosion?"

When did he become "convinced" that Flight 800 was a "shootdown" victim? At the time he made his observations or after input from other sources?

Newsday
Brain Often Blurs What Eyes See
By Earl Lane
Washington Bureau

Washington - As investigators have sifted dozens of eyewitness accounts of the destruction of TWA Flight 800, they have had to keep in mind a growing scientific literature on the fallibility of first-hand descriptions.

In the immediate aftermath of the July 17 disaster, FBI agents interviewed several hundred people who had claimed to see the breakup of the airliner.

Some of them also described streaks of light, suggesting the possibility of a missile attack on the doomed plane.

But specialists say eyewitness accounts - no matter how credible those giving them - can be distressingly unreliable, particularly those gathered days after the fact.

"In general, memory researchers recommend that the most fruitful interview is the first interview,'' said Stephen Ceci, a Cornell University psychologist.

"And that's if the person hasn't been tainted or biased in some way by being given a theory or expectancy by the media or the interviewer or a friend."

In highly publicized incidents such as the TWA crash, investigators must be especially wary, Ceci said, since there is so much information - and misinformation - available from media reports and word-of-mouth.

A law enforcement source familar with the TWA investigation said FBI agents use interview methods intended to assess the consistency and reliability of witness accounts. They look for any signs that the witnesses may be repeating news accounts or seeking to give interviewers what they believe they want to hear.

"There is a science to interviewing people,'' the source said.

But even witnesses who have been carefully interviewed and are reporting what they sincerely believe they saw can make mistakes, Ceci said.

"There is not a snapshot in the brain of that fireball in the sky or a streak of light prior to the explosion,'' he said.

Memories are stored in neurons distributed throughout the brain, he said, and the information stored in those brain cells "must be rounded up and put back together to tell a story . . . many things can go wrong in reconstructing it.''

Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist who has written extensively about eyewitness testimony, said people tend to fill in gaps in their recollection with information they get from other sources.

"I don't mean to belittle the crash witnesses," Loftus said. But in some cases, particularly traumatic events, the perceived memories can be both vivid and incorrect. "People have claimed to see things a lot more bizarre than flashes of light," Loftus said.

Loftus has studied accounts of serious auto accidents. "You have cases where a witness says the blue car was traveling south and the yellow car was traveling north,'' Loftus said, and the witness will stick to that account even after it has been proved that just the opposite was the case.

There are ways to improve the reliability of accounts, Loftus said. "Some banks train tellers in anticipation of a bank robbery,'' she said. "You are to sit down, don't talk to anybody else and write out your own version of the event.'' Loftus said that professional training or expertise can affect the reliability of eyewitness accounts. She has done experiments in which she shows arson investigators a video of a fire scene, with fire officials giving orders to their personnel on how to fight the blaze. The arson investigators remember how many hose teams the chief is ordering into the building and other details that untrained viewers disregard, Loftus said.

But experts caution that trained professionals also can make mistakes. Howard Egeth, head of the psychology department at Johns Hopkins University, said studies have found that police officers often do no better than lay persons when trying to identify suspects.

And even when witness testimony is carefully couched, it can be misinterpreted by others.

Investigators in the TWA case have been interested in the accounts of National Guard air crews who were doing search-and-rescue training on the night of the disaster. One pilot reported seeing a "streak of light'' on the same trajectory as a shooting star. His remark was viewed by some as supporting the missile scenario.

But the pilot, a Vietnam veteran who has seen missiles fired in combat, dismissed that notion. He said the orange-red streak was descending across the sky and, as he followed it, eventually erupted into the large fireball described by other witnesses.

Experts also say it is understandable why some witnesses hold strongly to their accounts even as contradictory information comes to light.

As Loftus and a co-author have written, "We want to believe . . . that our minds work in an orderly, efficient way, taking in information, sorting it, filing it, and calling it back later in full and vivid detail. In a chaotic world, where so much is out of control, we need to believe that our minds, at least, are under our command.''
[emphasis added]

87 posted on 05/10/2002 11:39:06 AM PDT by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
bump
88 posted on 05/13/2002 5:01:04 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Tymesup
Bump for lurkers
89 posted on 05/16/2002 10:29:30 AM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Pagey
Bump
90 posted on 05/20/2002 1:02:30 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Tymesup; All
TWA Flight 800 Witness Fred "Fritz" Meyer reportedly says "I suspect that Bill Donaldson was murdered."
91 posted on 06/13/2002 12:58:30 PM PDT by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
Thank you for the bump
92 posted on 06/13/2002 3:50:30 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
What does CYA mean?
93 posted on 06/13/2002 4:14:44 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
I thought you said there were no eyewitnesses. In any case, look buddy, you completely dismiss those that say it was ascending (the large majority) and believe those that say it was descending. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense......
94 posted on 06/13/2002 4:44:05 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
CYA = Cover Your Ass
95 posted on 06/13/2002 5:27:49 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
CYA means Cover Your A$$, a tactic often used by bureaucrats and others to evade responsibility for something.
96 posted on 06/14/2002 9:09:00 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
For related info concerning Fritz Meyer go to:

FUDD'S "EYEWITNESS MYTH" MYTH

97 posted on 06/14/2002 12:05:20 PM PDT by acehai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: acehai
Acehai: "Since you've been sneaking and peeking at the Yahoo Groups TWA 800 board, why don't you let Fritz Meyer answer your misinformed question regarding what he said at the Witness group meeting".

"I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

"Here's Meyer's reply to my e-mail:

"TYPO = I saw a streak of light in the sky. I HAD no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

World of difference, folks.

He had no way of knowing what it was at the time. It looked like a streak of light, and that's what he reported.

But he KNEW what ordnance looked like, and described it when the streak ended and after a space without seeing anything, further to the left, a hard explosion, military ordinance.

He admitted he had never seen the second explosion of "brilliant white light" before...It was totally new to him...

These explosions happened at TWA 800's altitude. The Massive Fireball was the LAST event to happen, further left, and lower down.

____________________

Let's take a little closer look Acehai's rant.

" . . . sneaking and peeking at the Yahoo Groups TWA 800 board".

He's referring to a forum open to the public to read just as FreeRepublic is.

____________________

"TYPO = I saw a streak of light in the sky. I HAD no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"

The "shootdown" tinfoil hats have no idea what the real significance of that statement by witness Meyer is. 1. When he saw the fiery streak, it did not look to him like the exhaust or trail or a missile, dispelling the tinfoil hats' allegations that it was obviously a missile in flight. 2. Experts want to know what witnesses actually saw - and separate those actual observations from the witnesses' conclusions after input from other sources. Which is referred to by experts as tainting input.

____________________

But he KNEW what ordnance looked like, and described it when the streak ended and after a space without seeing anything, further to the left, a hard explosion, military ordinance.

If so, why did Meyer and his crewmates initially speculate that what they had seen was a MIDAIR COLLISION?

"In the first place we didn't know what we had. I think we speculated that we might've had a mid-air because we know from here a lot that aircraft from Easthampton Airport and Montauk Sky Portal and aircraft from west of here fly the beach, and they look at the mansions along the beach. And we know that it's very common to have aircraft flying at 1,000 to 2,000 feet, east and west, right at each other along this beach."

"It's very dangerous. It's all VFR traffic. It's unregulated. The only regulation at all occurs when they fly through the southern tip of a control zone. They'll call this tower for clearance through the control zone. They'll say, all right. I'm at 1,500 feet. And the tower will tell them, well, you got another guy westbound and he's at 1,500. So, why don't one of you change altitude. so -- Mid-airs are -- the potential is always there. It's a very dangerous situation. We thought we had one."
SOURCE.

The "Missile Witnesses" Myth
Major Meyer's Own Detailed Presentation of His Observations
FBI Chief Metallurgist Blows Whistle On Kallstrom's Wild Goose Chase

98 posted on 06/14/2002 5:21:55 PM PDT by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
Elmer...Since you went to so much trouble to post this question on all the threads, I feel it my duty to post the answer that most Freepers would accept as reasonable. Swordmaker was astute enough to provide a reasoned rebuttal to your question, so, begging his indulgence and permission:

{Elmer}If so, why did Meyer and his crewmates initially speculate that what they had seen was a MIDAIR COLLISION?

{Swordmaker} Asmodeus, there is a very simple explanation... these flyers were trying to assess (diagnose) a peculiar event... an event beyond their experience in the area they were flying.

In medicine, an old saying is applicable: "When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not zebras."

In this instance, they saw a streak of light, followed by an bright flash explosion. Their experience, in this flight area, is that it is filled with airplanes (horses) and that it would not be unreasonable to assume, initially, that what they had seen was a mid-air collision of two airplanes.

They DID NOT expect to see a missile (a zebra) flying before their eyes. The first inclination is to fit observed data into expected norms. It is only upon reflection that a rarer diagnosis can be made... that the hoofbeats were from zebras and not horses... when the observations DO NOT FIT the expected normal scenario. In this instance, the streak of light followed by the bright flash of an ordnance explosion DID NOT FIT the mid-air collision scenario expected. To make that conclusion one must shift time and place and situation.

Flying on a warm evening evening off of Long Island, one DOES NOT EXPECT TO SEE an AA missile! One's mind must shift gears and paradigms to realize what actually was seen.

{Elmer}You've given a classic example of "shootdown" tinfoil hat blabberbabble on a subject you know NOTHING about.

{Acehai} ...And you've given a classic example of how to recognize and expose a disinformationist. I'll simply invoke Number 5 of H. Michael Sweeney's 25 Rules of Disinformation, found at his excellent website by clicking...

ASMODEUS HOIST ON HIS OWN PETARD

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', tinfoil hats', [my addendum] radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Swordmaker then responds to your faux pas with the following:

Your database is truly amazing... my compliments to your staff.

This article from the September 1, 1996 Newsday (article deleted in the interest of brevity, check Elmers post if truly necessary to recap [acehai])was part of the astounding coordinated effort to disparage and impeach ALL of the eyewitnesses to TWA-800. To believe this, NOTHING reported by a witness can be at all reliable in any way.

The true method of evaluation of eyewitnesses is to compare and contrast the various reports... not to totally discount everything stated and ignore the qualifications and training of those who are making the reports. ALL observations are filtered through the mind of the observer... and initial reports are best for raw data, however INTERPRETATION of that data requires input from other sources.

Now, let's look at your introduction to the article and see how you are less interested in presenting an objective discussion than you are in attacking anyone who disagrees with you. You said:

You've given a classic example of "shootdown" tinfoil hat blabberbabble on a subject you know NOTHING about.

Expert - "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.

Objective readers are encouraged to compare the following with your wacky "analysis".

Your introduction is filled with "loaded" words... all designed to attack your oponents and are therefore ad hominem" argumental fallacies. They are intended to insult the person you are addressing and prejudice the idle reader against anything they may say.

YOU have no information at all about my background or fields of expertise... yet you, based on some articles in the popular press, call a well thought out analysis and opinion "tinfoil hat blabberbabble" and "wacky." It is neither.

Our system of justice DOES NOT RELY on experts. It relies on the judgement of ordinary people, weighing and evaluating the evidence presented which may include the OPINIONS of experts. In the case of TWA-800, the testimony, the evidence, offered by hundreds of eyewitnesses, regardless of its probitive value, was systematically distorted, devalued, obfuscated, and finally, uniquely, BANNED from presentation before the probitive panel, effectively preventing that panel from evaluating and weighing that evidence. Instead, they were given an "expert's" opinion and interpretation of that testimony that in most, if not all, instances was FALSE TO FACT and was based solely on what THIRD PARTY interviewers recalled of the statements sometime after the interview! The FBI 302 system does not lend itself to accurate reporting... it relies on the memories of the FBI agents as to what the witness reports. The NTSB was then presented with an "expert's" recollection of what the FBI agents wrote down of what they recalled the witnesses said instead of hearing what the witnesses have to say themselves. Absurd.

You continually present yourself as an "expert" on this case... I suggest that there is another definition of "expert" that fits:

Expert - "An unknown drip under pressure."

And the best reply you could come up with, Elmer, was...

You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.

Aw gee, Elmer...Whatsamatter? Won't these nasty old "tin-foil hats" play fair???

99 posted on 06/17/2002 2:33:02 AM PDT by acehai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: acehai; Swordmaker
Click here for the response to your rant.
100 posted on 06/17/2002 11:29:02 AM PDT by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson