Posted on 12/02/2002 2:03:16 PM PST by Asmodeus
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:01:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
"We are not letting TWA off the hook. But it is clearly easier for us to prevail in a civil suit against the manufacturer," Lawyer Frank Granito
The theory of liability centers on the presence of explosive fuel air vapors within the plane's center wing fuel tank that were ignited by an internal ignition source. For decades, Boeing was aware of the dangers associated with the presence of these vapors in the tanks of its commercial airplanes. Boeing's design philosophy was to eliminate potential ignition sources from entering the fuel tank. However, this design has proved to be flawed, based upon the number of explosions over the past 35 years caused by the detonation of the vapors from internal energy sources.......
(Posters note++++++-- This of course is crap!....At the time of this writing there were ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, spontaneous in-air explosions in ANY 747 CWT--that is STILL THE CASE TODAY!)
http://www.speiserkrause.com/Newsletter/98fall/home.html
You posted your own sequential timeline here in FreeRepublic on 25 August 2002.:
8:31:12 Initiating Event.
8:31:36 Massive Fireball explosion.
8:31:54 Splashdown.
Swordmaker's sequential timeline attempts to shorten the elapsed time between the Initiating Event and the Massive Fireball explosion "to make it fit" his own missile shootdown theory and alleges that Initiating Event (IE) took place at 8:31:13.
Swordmaker, again "to make it fit" his own missile shootdown theory, alleges that the first "ordnance" explosion seen by witness Meyer, took place at the time of the Initiating Event. In short, he alleges that witness Meyer saw the Initiating Event. You stated in your 15 March 2002 posting in the Yahoo TWA800 forum "based on Meyer's statements, I don't believe he witnessed the IE" and you added "look at his timeline". You have not changed your stance on that key issue since then. But you now state: "More recent information however, tends to steer one in the direction of a missile, rather than a bomb" - which raises the obvious question: What specifically is that "more recent information"?
Another related major issue is whether witness Meyer saw the streak of light before or after 8:31:12/13. Swordmaker, again "to make it fit" his own missile shootdown theory, alleges that witness Meyer first saw the streak of light at 8:31:10. You stated in the Yahoo TWA800 forum on 12 April 2002: "Most here are convinced a "missile" did the dirty deed. I'm not, not yet at least. The initial assessment was 'bomb'. I thought so to. I still do.". It's accordingly self evident that you did not then believe that the streak of light preceded the Initiating Event. Do you now?
Those who disagree with the "shootdown" conspiracy theorists, including the "bomb" conspiracy theorists, have to expect to be asked to explain the streak of light. What explanation for it did you have in mind at the time you made your referred to 15 March 2002 and 12 April 2002 postings? What explanation do you have for it now?
Your source is FIRO - Tom Stalcup's "Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization" and the following excerpt from it is self explanatory.
If the complete report is declassifed, it should all be available. You state:
"I have numerous other related documents obtained under the FOIA."
Please post them at this time or, if you have earlier posted them elsewhere, please provide us the URL(s).
"The follow up article on the Flight800 is forthcoming."
Your are presumably referring to your thread you started on 8 November 2002 which you so dramatically titled "Physical Evidence Points to Foul-Play in TWA Flight 800 Disaster" but failed to provide the readers of it with the "evidence", indicating instead that you were still working on it. Please provide the readers here with your best estimate of when to expect that long promised "evidence".
You also stated in #60:
"It is also EXTREMELY noteworthy that there is NO indication ANY of the information in the formerly SECRET BNLabs report was ever shared with ANY OTHER investigative agency or party to the investigation. This of course would include BOEING or it's LEGAL COUNSEL." [emphasis yours]
Do you have any evidence that Boeing and it's lawyers have NOT todate been provided with a complete copy, including the pages missing in FIRO's website?
Truth is determined with EVIDENCE - not suspicions, speculations, allegations or accusations.
TWA Flight 800 - Residue, Blasts Linked by JohnFiorentino 11 November 2002
I'll tell you what John. You link your unidentified ceramic balls to a missile and I will be really impressed. That means something more substantive than "these could be something someone might use in some way in a possible missile." Until then, all I see in the thread you linked is a teaser (with no support or conclusion) for your upcoming book.
178 posted on 11/14/2002 6:42 AM PST by Rokke
Here's where the conspiracy theorists' "case" appears to presently stand:
INDEPENDENT EXPERTS CONCLUSIONS:
NO EVIDENCE - HIGH EXPLOSIVE DAMAGE
NO EVIDENCE - EXPLOSION OF A MISSILE WARHEAD
NO EVIDENCE - MISSILE IMPACT
Source.
Stop putting words in my mouth! You continually place the phrase "to make it fit" in bold, underlined, and in QUOTATION marks to imply that I SAID IT. That is an implied lie that just continues your style of attack. What I said is: "...the Fred Meyers observations were inserted where they seemed to fit according to the objective record from the radar returns."
YOU are the only one to use the phrase "to make it fit" and that is YOUR distorted misinterpretation. This is just more of your dishonesty in debate.
You state:
Swordmaker's sequential timeline attempts to shorten the elapsed time between the Initiating Event and the Massive Fireball explosion "to make it fit" his own missile shootdown theory and alleges that Initiating Event (IE) took place at 8:31:13.
You apparently like to pick nits... here you are fuming because of approximately ONE SECOND! Ridiculous.
Show me the hard and fast times of the initiating event and the massive fireball explosion, Asmodeus. Please provide a difinative answer of exactly when those two events took place so that I could "shorten" them. You won't find them, Asmodeus.
All we know is that the aircraft was operating normally at 20:31:12, the time of its last transponder return. The initiating event could have occurred ANYTIME in the next 4.65 seconds, the time between radar sweeps. My timeline starts the entry for the initiating event thusly:
"20:31:13 - ~13,840 ft. ~1 sec.
Do you see that little wavey line before the "1 sec." that I have underlined? That is a symbol that translates as "approximately"... but I probably erred in assuming that you knew that.
Before you confabulate something else in the timeline, I should tell you that the description of events following each time entry are those things I believe transpire between THAT TIME ENTRY and the next... in other words, for the reasoning challenged, they can occur anytime in the interval between entries NOT EXACTLY ON THE ENTRY.
The Massive Fireball Explosion is also not shown or reported on ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE... it is only reported in SUBJECTIVE reports of the eyewitnesses. The objective records show that there are sudden vector changes after the radar sweep at 20:31:34:97 that seems to indicate something violent may have occurred in that time interval (incidentally, your BLOG site omits the line feed that should start that particular timeline entry and includes it in the preceeding entry... perhaps a typo from you, Asmodeus?) and the altitude at that time is in the reported range of 5000 - 7500 feet the witness report for the MFE.
As a matter of fact, Asmodeus, my timeline actually LENGTHENS the time between the initiating events and John's as he postulates (according to your citation of what you purport he said) the Massive Explosion as occurring at 20:31:36 and my timeline indicates it occurred shortly after 20:31:39:64 because that is when the math and physics show that the crippled aircraft was in the reported altitude range. John says the IE and MFE were seperated by ~24 seconds while I maintain it was closer to 27 seconds... for the math challenged, that is about THREE SECONDS LONGER.
Therefore, Asmodeus, there is no "shortening" to "fit"... it is just my reasoned timeline based on the objective facts and certain inferences.
Why? I think the readers already know. If you don't, Asmodeus, why don't you just ask for your self?
Inserting fantasies "where they seem to fit" in their own fertile imaginations is one of the trademarks of the "shootdown" conspiracy theorists, as your postings - and those of others, like the following posted elsewhere today, continue to dramatize.
Yahoo TWA800 forum
From: George A Donaldson Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002
[excerpt][quote]
I can still see a possible daylight savings/standard EST conflict being in the mix. This puts the P-3 into the zone one hour early. Without the P-3 entering the air corridor, TWA800 safely lands in Paris. The submarine may have been told to fire on the presence of the P-3 towed 'target'. The sub, if on the surface, was moving quite slowly relative to aircraft interfaces. An one hour delay in the test time could have moved the test into W-105 which was to go hot at 8 PM EST, since Zulu does not use 'daylight savings'. Zulu time is standard time throughout the world. 8:30 PM EDST is only 7:30 EST Zulu.
A private mailing to me early on mentioned that the target was deployed prematurely and an attachment had specs on towed sleds.
The total crash scenario could be laid at the feet of the P-3 crew and whomever coordinated their takeoff time. Not so strange that the flight deck crew was FYIGMO'ed out of station just after the crash. The P-3 flight crew acted strangely after the crash, asking if they should reverse their course as though their own test time had not yet arrived. They may not have expected to interface the sub that early if the test plan showed a later interface. It wouldn't have surprised me if a suicide watch had been placed on the P-3 pilot after the screw up. I now feel that the target was still being let down, or on a momentary hold, when the shit hit the fan.
A time SNAFU does explain a lot of mix ups. ATC appeared confused when the P-3 asked to cross the air corridor. They also allowed vertical clearance for a towed target to be two miles back with a sag of one mile. At the time of the IE, the towed target was one mile back with a sag of a half mile. ATC had already instructed TWA to climb to FL190 but rescinded that when the P-3 showed up.
A communications SNAFU could also be in the mix if the test coordinator wanted to abort the test but could not stop the sub from launching. Communications with a sub is not the same as with a surface vessel. If the original test plan had the towed target at a one mile sag from the P-3 altitude, the target would have been at around 15,000 feet rather than 17,600 feet at the time of the IE. An altitude of 15,000 feet seems to ring a bell for the intended test elevation. ATC wanted TWA800 to expedite to 15,000 feet for some odd reason after the P-3 crossed its intended path. (to get it at or above the missile intercept elevation?) The SM-2 missile had only an instrumentation warhead, but its mass was enough for a KKV. Having the target a half mile higher than intended allowed vertical space for the IR homing to take over and intercept the B747.
So many parts of the puzzle seem to be fitting together.
[end quote]
Does that "seem to fit" your fantasy "shootdown" scenario?
By the way, do John Fiorentino's comments in his reply #73 appear to you to be truthful and factual or deceitful?
Has he answered the questions he was asked in Reply #62?
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.