Burr5...May I point out that Sanders never stole anything...He and Liz were convicted of conspiracy, aiding and abeting for having the audacity to receive from FedEx, two reddish-orange residue-encrusted foam swatches, sent by a party to the official investigation, TWA 747 Chief Pilot Captain Terrel Stacey; who testified in court that he removed the material from the Calverton hangar under his own volition, and that he was unaware of wrongdoing at the time. Sanders didn't even know they were on the way until after they had been dropped at FedEx. Liz received the 'phone call from Stacey informing her of the fact. Sanders proceeded to send one to CBS, the other was cut into two pieces by the analytical lab in California. One was tested, the other was not. So the FBI, after confiscating the CBS sample and the two pieces in California, had every opportunity to test those pieces and determine if Sanders was accurate or not. They did not do this. Wonder why...
Possibly because they were afraid they "wouldn't be able to put this to bed," as Marian Birky of the NTSB stated to Tom Stalcup.
Sanders was offered a free pass if he would give up his source, (Hangarman/Stacey) but refused, citing First Amendment protection as a journalist.
The only time that Sanders was anywhere near the Calverton hanger was when, under court rules of discovery he was permitted to photograph the wreckage; photographs that, to a great extent, to this day, are still being prevented from being made public by the FBI.
The Sanders were convicted under a law passed to prevent wreckage from being removed from an aircraft crash site by souviner hunters after the ValueJet crash in Florida. James Kallstrom, Deputy FBI Director was not prosecuted for doing that very thing with a piece of TWA800 wreckage he gave away...Terrel Stacey, the individual who removed the, what he believed to be, evidence of a potential missile attack from the hanger, not the crash site, pled guilty to a misdemeanor, and continued flying the line for TWA.
You belitttle yourself with your dishonesty.
the fact that two Captains I refered to were Air National Guard not Coast Guard (you said Air Force officers yourself)
My dear child, ANG officers are Air Force officers. Just ask some. They are not Coast Guard officers. This was your first statement, and it was not factual. I corrected you, thinking charitably that your error stemmed from ignorance. However, you are too persistent in error for it to be anything but deliberate lying. And it's blatant and obvious. It might sell to the nut-ball crowd but it isn't going to persuade anyone that is willing to actually look at all the data.
the "fact" that space junk or a meteorite have been ruled out. Wow. Good point! Only it wasn't an ACTUAL meteorite the Captains were refering to but an object that resembled one:
I assumed anyone with a child's grasp of logic would understand that if there was no path by which a meteorite could have entered and initiated the first explosion, there was no path by which a missile or fragment could have done. QED.
YOU REMEMBER, THE MISSILE WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT?!
Why are you shouting? I'm not deaf... and screaming like a two year old is not going to presuade me. I am not talking about a missile, because it's scientifically proven that this disaster could not have been caused by a missile. All of the force in the center tank came from the inside out, and nothing came from the outside in. This is fact, and if you are so insistent on a missile, you have to have a theory that fits the demonstrated facts, or you are simply shouting and raving and carrying on, to no good purpose. By all means, carry on.
You refuse to see why these witnesses account of the aircraft plunging into the sea immediately after the explosions has any bearing on the credibility of the so-called 4,000 foot climb.
There are witnesses that saw explosions, streaks and fire, but none that saw an airplane, per se.
You admit you haven't seen the photograph (the authenticity of which has never been in doubt) taken at a fundraiser on the Long Island shore which shows CLEARLY a missile.
Where can I see this wonderful photograph? I believe it has been posted here before?
And you discredit James Sanders, who has done yeoman's work to pry loose the truth of this terrible accident
Who has advanced a pet theory through a large number of logical fallacies, and has as little background in air accident investigation as James Fiorentino or any of the other government-haters who yearn to see this hung on the Navy or somebody...
as a "felon".
Why the quotes? He is.
Do you know WHY he's a felon? Probably not.
How about, because of his criminal misconduct in pursuit of his missile fantasies? That would be it, wouldn't it?
He stole swaths of material from recovered seats which had been near the point of impact in order to test them (a felony, yes). Know what labs tests on the material found? No, I'm sure you don't. They showed missile fuel residue all over the things.
Not bad. In this case, you misstate both the charges against Sanders and the outcome of the tests. Missile fuel residue? Does the term "boost phase" mean anything to you? Does the lack of metallurgical indicators of any type of high-explosive detonation mean anything? (High-explosive fragmentation warheads are characteristic of anti-aircraft missiles). You would expect fragment penetration, outside-in metallic deformation, and explosives residue on a plane struck by a missile or damaged by a proximity fused warhead). None of these are present in any of the 800 wreckage. Such inside-out metallic deformation as exists indicates a low-order, low-explosive detonation, not a missile or bomb. Science understands pretty well how metals bend.
You pat yourself on the back all you want over inconsequential details
Let's see. So far I have:
You haven't refuted any of the substance of my position.
What is your position? It seems to be that "TWA 800 was hit by a missile, because the eyewitness statements can be interpreted that way, and Jim Kallstrom thought so for a while, and Jim Sanders ripped off some seat cloth that had minute traces of what he thinks is missile fuel." Yeah, I've read his whiny, self-serving book. By the way, Sanders and his wife were comvicted after making all the same excuses in court. The jury was out a whole two hours before finding them guilty of all charges. The only reason his accomplice Stacey walked is that Stacey agreed to testify in return for having his own felony charge dropped (he admitted his own guilt, but beat the rap by turning in the Sanders crime family).
You haven't seen much of the most compelling evidence
I think I've seen your photograph, just not lately. And I have read Sanders' book. What else is there? The lunatic ravings of Michael Rivero at whatreallyhappened.com? I look at that from time to time, and I think sooner or later he's gonna hook up with these folks. What wonderful evidence am I missing?
and you ignore or belittle all that you have seen that contradicts you
Well, when you keep making assertions that are either false on their face or contradicted by physical fact, guess what, better-informed people are going to disagree with you. Get used to it.
(34 "credible witnesses" are more than enough to convince any jury in the world of anything).
Didn't seem to help Sanders with his jury, did it?
But they can't even put a dent in your made-up mind.
I have read ALL the 302s (yeah, it's a crappy way to do interviews) in this case. They are an appendix or annex to the report. There is not a lot of useful information, there, although what there is fits NTSB closer than it fits Sanders. I have also seen witness statements in literally thousands of other air accidents. Eyewitness evidence is given great weight, but I am used to seeing witnesses disagree about the most fundamental things, or get details wrong. People say the wings came off the plane, but the wings are found still attached -- stuff like that. Human memory is a whole field of study in itself, but eyewitness memory is a lot less reliable than metallurgy as science goes.
Believe the government if you must. I do not. Neither do a majority of Americans.
Well a majority of Americans also believe in UFOs. A majority of americans put Clinton in office (either voting for him, or some loser of a third-party candidate, or sitting home stewing about ZOG and not voting).
WHat happened to TWA800 is a matter of scientific fact and can be determined by studying physical evidence. Belief doesn't enter into it, unless one rejects science, and thinks with his emotions. I believe that that is the trap that befell Jim Sanders and his wife, who both knew crewmembers on that flight and were determined to make something... anything... of their loss.
In almost every case the physical evidence allows a determination of probable cause in an airliner crash, and even in crashes of tiny planes that leave much less evidence (no ATC contact, no recorders). In the history of accident investigation there has never been a more complete recovery of an aircraft that crashed offshore. We owe it to those who died that night to determine the real reason that they died and make sure it never happens again. I am sure that to some Sanders adherents, the billion-dollar rewiring of jets and the massive inspections and the alteration of procedures and airlines' Operations Manuals, all of that is just part of the big cover-up. Is that logical?
Just think about the number of people who would know the "truth" and would be sitting on it, if Sanders's book was correct that the Navy shot the plane down. First, everybody on the ship would know. Everyone involved in the missile test would know. There are thousands and thousands already. They would tell wives and kids. There would be documents (the Navy can't replace a leaky valve without a piece of paper, let alone fire a missile). People would handle the documents. I haven't ever been in the Navy, but I bet that career sailors would be scandalized at the idea of keeping something like that secret -- they are Americans like us. Phones would ring all over Washington. The truth would get out.
Here's another think to stew on: if the evidence really was evidence, that was any use as such, you can bet that tort lawyers would be on it like white on rice. If the Navy killed those people that night, why isn't some Clarence Darrow wannabee haling the navy into court to answer an unlawful death suit? Better yet, why isn't a lawyer like Arthur Wolk who specializes in aviation law doing this? Art has made a very good living (and has enriched a number of clients) suing firms that he believes have killed, through negligence or error. The Navy has no immunity from civil wrongful death suits (only Navy personnel themselves can't sue the Navy). In fact, the recesses of my mind tell me Art may have successfully prosecuted a case against the Air Force, but I might be wrong about that.
If there was liability, there would be lawyers. For me, that is less convincing proof than there being no way for a missile to get through the structure to where the explosion began, but maybe someone else will think it's more important.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
You belitttle yourself with your dishonesty.
the fact that two Captains I refered to were Air National Guard not Coast Guard (you said Air Force officers yourself)
My dear child, ANG officers are Air Force officers. Just ask some. They are not Coast Guard officers. This was your first statement, and it was not factual. I corrected you, thinking charitably that your error stemmed from ignorance. However, you are too persistent in error for it to be anything but deliberate lying. And it's blatant and obvious. It might sell to the nut-ball crowd but it isn't going to persuade anyone that is willing to actually look at all the data.
the "fact" that space junk or a meteorite have been ruled out. Wow. Good point! Only it wasn't an ACTUAL meteorite the Captains were refering to but an object that resembled one:
I assumed anyone with a child's grasp of logic would understand that if there was no path by which a meteorite could have entered and initiated the first explosion, there was no path by which a missile or fragment could have done. QED.
YOU REMEMBER, THE MISSILE WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT?!
Why are you shouting? I'm not deaf... and screaming like a two year old is not going to presuade me. I am not talking about a missile, because it's scientifically proven that this disaster could not have been caused by a missile. All of the force in the center tank came from the inside out, and nothing came from the outside in. This is fact, and if you are so insistent on a missile, you have to have a theory that fits the demonstrated facts, or you are simply shouting and raving and carrying on, to no good purpose. By all means, carry on.
You refuse to see why these witnesses account of the aircraft plunging into the sea immediately after the explosions has any bearing on the credibility of the so-called 4,000 foot climb.
There are witnesses that saw explosions, streaks and fire, but none that saw an airplane, per se.
You admit you haven't seen the photograph (the authenticity of which has never been in doubt) taken at a fundraiser on the Long Island shore which shows CLEARLY a missile.
Where can I see this wonderful photograph? I believe it has been posted here before?
And you discredit James Sanders, who has done yeoman's work to pry loose the truth of this terrible accident
Who has advanced a pet theory through a large number of logical fallacies, and has as little background in air accident investigation as James Fiorentino or any of the other government-haters who yearn to see this hung on the Navy or somebody...
as a "felon".
Why the quotes? He is.
Do you know WHY he's a felon? Probably not.
How about, because of his criminal misconduct in pursuit of his missile fantasies? That would be it, wouldn't it?
He stole swaths of material from recovered seats which had been near the point of impact in order to test them (a felony, yes). Know what labs tests on the material found? No, I'm sure you don't. They showed missile fuel residue all over the things.
Not bad. In this case, you misstate both the charges against Sanders and the outcome of the tests. Missile fuel residue? Does the term "boost phase" mean anything to you? Does the lack of metallurgical indicators of any type of high-explosive detonation mean anything? (High-explosive fragmentation warheads are characteristic of anti-aircraft missiles). You would expect fragment penetration, outside-in metallic deformation, and explosives residue on a plane struck by a missile or damaged by a proximity fused warhead). None of these are present in any of the 800 wreckage. Such inside-out metallic deformation as exists indicates a low-order, low-explosive detonation, not a missile or bomb. Science understands pretty well how metals bend.
You pat yourself on the back all you want over inconsequential details
Let's see. So far I have:
You haven't refuted any of the substance of my position.
What is your position? It seems to be that "TWA 800 was hit by a missile, because the eyewitness statements can be interpreted that way, and Jim Kallstrom thought so for a while, and Jim Sanders ripped off some seat cloth that had minute traces of what he thinks is missile fuel." Yeah, I've read his whiny, self-serving book. By the way, Sanders and his wife were comvicted after making all the same excuses in court. The jury was out a whole two hours before finding them guilty of all charges. The only reason his accomplice Stacey walked is that Stacey agreed to testify in return for having his own felony charge dropped (he admitted his own guilt, but beat the rap by turning in the Sanders crime family).
You haven't seen much of the most compelling evidence
I think I've seen your photograph, just not lately. And I have read Sanders' book. What else is there? The lunatic ravings of Michael Rivero at whatreallyhappened.com? I look at that from time to time, and I think sooner or later he's gonna hook up with these folks. What wonderful evidence am I missing?
and you ignore or belittle all that you have seen that contradicts you
Well, when you keep making assertions that are either false on their face or contradicted by physical fact, guess what, better-informed people are going to disagree with you. Get used to it.
(34 "credible witnesses" are more than enough to convince any jury in the world of anything).
Didn't seem to help Sanders with his jury, did it?
But they can't even put a dent in your made-up mind.
I have read ALL the 302s (yeah, it's a crappy way to do interviews) in this case. They are an appendix or annex to the report. There is not a lot of useful information, there, although what there is fits NTSB closer than it fits Sanders. I have also seen witness statements in literally thousands of other air accidents. Eyewitness evidence is given great weight, but I am used to seeing witnesses disagree about the most fundamental things, or get details wrong. People say the wings came off the plane, but the wings are found still attached -- stuff like that. Human memory is a whole field of study in itself, but eyewitness memory is a lot less reliable than metallurgy as science goes.
Believe the government if you must. I do not. Neither do a majority of Americans.
Well a majority of Americans also believe in UFOs. A majority of americans put Clinton in office (either voting for him, or some loser of a third-party candidate, or sitting home stewing about ZOG and not voting).
WHat happened to TWA800 is a matter of scientific fact and can be determined by studying physical evidence. Belief doesn't enter into it, unless one rejects science, and thinks with his emotions. I believe that that is the trap that befell Jim Sanders and his wife, who both knew crewmembers on that flight and were determined to make something... anything... of their loss.
In almost every case the physical evidence allows a determination of probable cause in an airliner crash, and even in crashes of tiny planes that leave much less evidence (no ATC contact, no recorders). In the history of accident investigation there has never been a more complete recovery of an aircraft that crashed offshore. We owe it to those who died that night to determine the real reason that they died and make sure it never happens again. I am sure that to some Sanders adherents, the billion-dollar rewiring of jets and the massive inspections and the alteration of procedures and airlines' Operations Manuals, all of that is just part of the big cover-up. Is that logical?
Just think about the number of people who would know the "truth" and would be sitting on it, if Sanders's book was correct that the Navy shot the plane down. First, everybody on the ship would know. Everyone involved in the missile test would know. There are thousands and thousands already. They would tell wives and kids. There would be documents (the Navy can't replace a leaky valve without a piece of paper, let alone fire a missile). People would handle the documents. I haven't ever been in the Navy, but I bet that career sailors would be scandalized at the idea of keeping something like that secret -- they are Americans like us. Phones would ring all over Washington. The truth would get out.
Here's another think to stew on: if the evidence really was evidence, that was any use as such, you can bet that tort lawyers would be on it like white on rice. If the Navy killed those people that night, why isn't some Clarence Darrow wannabee haling the navy into court to answer an unlawful death suit? Better yet, why isn't a lawyer like Arthur Wolk who specializes in aviation law doing this? Art has made a very good living (and has enriched a number of clients) suing firms that he believes have killed, through negligence or error. The Navy has no immunity from civil wrongful death suits (only Navy personnel themselves can't sue the Navy). In fact, the recesses of my mind tell me Art may have successfully prosecuted a case against the Air Force, but I might be wrong about that.
If there was liability, there would be lawyers. For me, that is less convincing proof than there being no way for a missile to get through the structure to where the explosion began, but maybe someone else will think it's more important.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F