TWA 800...FOIA battle yielding results

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>sorry you DO NOT UNDERSTAND physics and how the buildings>collapsed. NUMEROUS PHD's (not some idiot teenager who has>produced now three versions of "Loose Change") have DESTROYED>this MYTH.>>So these are "the idiot teenagers" your talking about!>>http://physics911.ca/members/the 911 conspiracy crowd has hijacked names before (a common michael moore tactic). proof that even PhD's are idiots too (hey they become suicide bombers too in the middle east). does it comfort you that Rosie O'Donnell believes you? a committee named SPINE, that's funny. each spent what, ten minutes googling on the internet.look at the raw numbers supporting the arguments. the conspiracy nuts are about 1-2%.the history channel had a special on recently debunking all this with people on from mit, etc. how convenient the conspiracy crowd can simply say, "they're part of the conspiracy and coverup".

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>Your forgetting one thing. A few of those witnesses, weren't>your average untrained citizens, they were Air National Guard>crews of a C-130 and a Blackhawk.These people see UFO's too, doesn't make it true. These ANG also debunk your Flight 93 conspiracy crap also, but you choose not to believe that.>Plus there were ATC radar>images of something approaching TWA 800 right before it blew>up, which tends to backup their's and the other witnesses>story. Can you prove this or are you simply believing what someone else says they saw?

[Tabs 2,790]

Can ATC radar even see something with as small a radar cross section as a surface to air missile? They had trouble locating the raw radar returns of the (much larger) 9/11 aircraft after the transponders were shut off... I find it hard to believe you'd be able to see such a small high speed object.Regarding that "SPINE" group... Most of those people listed have nothing at all to do with structural engineering or anything that would give their assertions on the physical events of 9/11 credibility. What exactly does having a degree in Biology or Islamic Studies tell you about any of this?Please note what it is they're claiming on that site too - it's not just the standard Loose Change stuff about demolition, they're saying that the aircraft crashes themselves were faked using military lookalikes and that the people onboard the real planes were all killed on the ground by the government after the planes landed. Not only this, but Al Qaeda does not exist and is a "long term US intelligence black op" started in the 1970s with Osama Bin Laden as its patsy for all of these attacks.Uh huh.

[tf51d 284]

>>Your forgetting one thing. A few of those witnesses,>weren't>>your average untrained citizens, they were Air National>Guard>>crews of a C-130 and a Blackhawk.>>These people see UFO's too, doesn't make it true. These ANG>also debunk your Flight 93 conspiracy crap also, but you>choose not to believe that.>>>Plus there were ATC radar>>images of something approaching TWA 800 right before it blew>>up, which tends to backup their's and the other witnesses>>story. >>Can you prove this or are you simply believing what someone>else says they saw?I remember seeing it myself on the evening news one night, but I just googled it to see if the video was posted anywhere, I didn't find the video, but this site has still images of the radar return. Whatever it was caused an alert on the radar screen.http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.html

[btacon 1,772]

Sorry tf51d...I have to politely disagree with you.http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...aw/1227842.htmlI saw the planes hit the towers. I observed the buildings fall.Even Mr. Bin Deadin (perhaps livin?) took credit part and parcel for 9/11 in his "Gone but not forgotten Osama Remix -- 2007" of recent days.

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>I remember seeing it myself on the evening news one night, but>I just googled it to see if the video was posted anywhere, I>didn't find the video, but this site has still images of the>radar return. Whatever it was caused an alert on the radar>screen.>>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.htmlthe tapes show a US Air flight and a P3 in the radar whats the big deal? the C is TWA 800. the LA/CA alert would alert the datatag as to which flight is affected. the LA/CA alert could simply be the LA/CA alert box on the ARTS IIIa.look at the images on atcsimulator.com. the LA/CA Alert is a set apart area on the screen which will tell you when and who is affected if one happens. from the photos you show that area is CLEAR and thus no LA/CA Alert is happening. it is simply near the TWA 800 datatag and target.i could take a picture EVERY leg i fly of "ghost" tracks on TCAS (ie random targets that appear and move right at us and then disappear at the 5nm zone). it doesn't mean a missile is coming at me. just like radar sometimes acts funny and picks up things that aren't there.

[bob.bernstein 0]

The easiest way to diffuse a discussion, and to descredit the question under review is to link the topic to other less likely instances and declare the whole mess "conspiracy theories"...a phrase that means to the general public "delusional flakes".See how it works. Right away you are no longer discussing the subject the OP wrote about...read the posts. Its all right in front of us. The very first reply links the subject of the OP to the Kennedy assasination and 9-11.Too bad folks. It would be pleasant to read a thread that avoids this trap, but that would put pressure on responders to stay to the facts, stay on subject, and perhaps folks feel like they may be forced to think too hard. Much easier if you can just get away with a slight bit of mental "slight of hand".Not cool.Bob

[Tabs 2,790]

Bob,Referencing other incidents as analogies or comparisons is a fundamental debating technique, not something to be avoided.I think it's the same underlying psychology at play in all of those, which is why I brought some of them up. Please note too that I've have argued the particular point as well as offering those analogies. What "facts" am I supposed to stick to when the very point of the initial post in this thread was to claim that what's accepted as fact by the NTSB, Boeing etc aren't facts and that these theories are the real facts?

[btacon 1,772]

Tabs...one of your "facts" needs correction.Boeing never endorsed Zoom Climb. Never. As a matter of fact they very publicaly distanced themselves from that spurious theory.The record of experts, both aviation and other, who disagree with the NTSB's closure of TWA800 is long, and not limited to fringe elements. If there is any fire to be found under all that smoke, Lahr's FOIA pursuit is our best chance of finding it.BTW...have you viewed the documentary I link to in my original post? Are you aware of the facts that fuel the controversy? The facts that the courts called out in their decision of late last year in favor of Larh? While the truthers try to get around the laws of physics and the videotaped evidence when they claim 9/11 and the twin towers was an inside job, in the case of the TWA800 investigation, the roles are reversed, with the CIA/NSA/FBI/NTSB playing the role of physics and evidence denier.Best,bt

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>Tabs...one of your "facts" needs correction.>>Boeing never endorsed Zoom Climb. Never. As a matter>of fact they very publicaly distanced themselves from that>spurious theory.>>The record of experts, both aviation and other, who disagree>with the NTSB's closure of TWA800 is long, and not limited to>fringe elements. If there is any fire to be found under all>that smoke, Lahr's FOIA pursuit is our best chance of finding>it.>>BTW...have you viewed the documentary I link to in my original>post? Are you aware of the facts that fuel the controversy? >The facts that the courts called out in their decision of late>last year in favor of Larh? While the truthers try to get>around the laws of physics and the videotaped evidence when>they claim 9/11 and the twin towers was an inside job, in the>case of the TWA800 investigation, the roles are reversed, with>the CIA/NSA/FBI/NTSB playing the role of physics and evidence>denier.>>Best,>>btthe radar images, as shown earlier, are being used falsely by insinuating a LA/CA Alert is being made when it isn't. this is implying something based on a preconceived belief and using chosen images, etc to support that. the fact that it shows a primary on a P3 and a 737 does nothing to prove a manpad impact on twa800.as to the physics of accident, i will simply rely on the NTSB as they are the experts on this. why would they lie and assist in a coverup? the basic question here is why hide a terrorist/manpad downing of a civilian airliner? did they do this in lockerbie when a 747 was blown up? what difference is there between the two?the courts should support larh and his foia. further holding stuff back only fuels the fire. if NOTHING is found via these documents, they can simply fall back on the "government hiding information" line.btw here is the most important (to them that is) link on the flight800 website:http://www.flight800.org/donate.htm

[bob.bernstein 0]

The subject (as presented by the OP) was that work has been done that disproves the zoomclimb theory.Analogy to the Kennedy assasination or any other event is useful if "zoomclimb" was presented as an explanation for those events as well.Since I know of no zoomclimb theory used to explain any other event, then analogy is not an appropriate technique for this thread.What we do have to review is the engineering analysis presented. I found it compelling, especially when independantly confirmed that stall would occur within too short a time interval to make a rise of 3000 feet possible.So....no zoomclimb was possibleSo....conclusions based on zoomclimb are wrong.The engineer in me can't deny that reality even if I can't make sense out of the motivations of the people involved.

[btacon 1,772]

"as to the physics of accident, i will simply rely on the NTSB as they are the experts on this"If the NTSB are the experts, then why did the CIA claim to produce the theory/video, only years later to be revealed (by exhaustive FOIA inquiries) that in fact, Zoom-Climb is a product of the NSA?The bigger riddle is what were our national security agencies doing in the thick of this. Aircraft incident investigations and causative analysis are not in their charter. Period. Investigate and validate/discount external/terrorist ties...sure. Beyond that, no way. That is the charter of the NTSB, no one else. News reports and internal govt documents clearly demonstrate that the NTSB was usurped and hijacked by the FBI/CIA/NSA. Why? Can you tell me? No you cant, and that is one of the reasons why this controversy exists to this day, because even our govt wont give us the answers to this one basic question. Classified they claim. What's to classify? This was an explosion in the center wing tank, right?As to why cover up a missile? Here's one theory. What would have happened to our aviation industry if the govt came out and said, "...yes, a missile in the hands of a terrorist, took down a 747 on departure and killed 230 passengers". Feel secure? Ready to fly again? Remember what 9/11 did to aviation for the first few years? In 1996, those fears were just as real as the reality of post 9/11.Finally what do you know of FIRO (flight 800 org) that allows you to disparage them for asking for donations? Have you read their research? Can you counter it? Do you have valid arguments, or are you satisfied to simply pursue an ad hominem approach, as you have so glibly done here with me? Best,bt

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>"as to the physics of accident, i will simply rely on the>NTSB as they are the experts on this">>If the NTSB are the experts, then why did the CIA claim to>produce the theory/video, only years later to be revealed (by>exhaustive FOIA inquiries) that in fact, Zoom-Climb is a>product of the NSA?the NTSB signed off on it on their report. do you now simply discredit EVERYTHING they do now?>The bigger riddle is what were our national security agencies>doing in the thick of this. Aircraft incident investigations>and causative analysis are not in their charter. Period. >Investigate and validate/discount external/terrorist>ties...sure. Beyond that, no way. That is the charter of the>NTSB, no one else. News reports and internal govt documents>clearly demonstrate that the NTSB was usurped and hijacked by>the FBI/CIA/NSA. Why? Can you tell me? No you cant, and>that is one of the reasons why this controversy exists to this>day, because even our govt wont give us the answers to this>one basic question. Classified they claim. What's to>classify? This was an explosion in the center wing tank,>right?the government likes secrets even when secrets are not needed. it's a bureaucracy that likes things that bureaucracies like, ie layers upon layers of paperwork.>As to why cover up a missile? Here's one theory. What would>have happened to our aviation industry if the govt came out>and said, "...yes, a missile in the hands of a terrorist, took>down a 747 on departure and killed 230 passengers". Feel>secure? Ready to fly again? Remember what 9/11 did to>aviation for the first few years? In 1996, those fears were>just as real as the reality of post 9/11.again a BOMB BLEW UP A 747 earlier in the decade YET PEOPLE STILL FLEW WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE. 9/11 CRASHED 4 AIRPLANES IN ONE DAY, yet people flew on and on and on (it is widely accepted, other than the 9/11 conspiracy nutjobs, that terrorists did this). terrorists hijack a 767 and run out of fuel and crash in the ocean caught on video, yet we still fly. the original WTC bomber bombs a 747 in asia with a bomb, yet we still fly.people still fly after 9/11 and immediately after 9/11. missiles were shot at Israeli airliners in Africa, yet they still fly. people still need to get from A to B. the aviation industry was in trouble BEFORE 9/11 and simply used the lag in airtravel as their excuse to cover their own mistakes.>Finally what do you know of FIRO (flight 800 org) that allows>you to disparage them for asking for donations? Have you read>their research? Can you counter it? Do you have valid>arguments, or are you satisfied to simply pursue an ad hominem>approach, as you have so glibly done here with me? again you FAIL to address the fact that they (I am lumping all twa800 "factseekers" into this since they all link each others website) purposely MISUSE radar images as their "proof" of a missile and using the LA/CA Alert LABEL on the ARTS IIIa terminal as verification of an actual LA/CA ALERT (which would have been displayed not only beneath the label but also on the data tags of the affected flights). is that reason enough? they also link AA587 on these websites. they link 9/11 conspiracies on some of these websites. is that not a valid reason?the fact that they ask for donations tells me plenty. they are no different than oral roberts asking for money on a weekly basis.

[bob.bernstein 0]

how bout tackling the idea that independant engineering analysis demonstrates the zoomclimb to be impossible?The discussion gets simpler...we ignore the emotions of why, who, where.Stay with the engineering. Bob

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>how bout tackling the idea that independant engineering>analysis demonstrates the zoomclimb to be impossible?>>The discussion gets simpler...we ignore the emotions of why,>who, where.>>Stay with the engineering. Bob,What independent engineering analysis? I google "Zoom Climb engineering analysis" and I get a couple websites:http://www.scientificblogging.com/johnfior...ible_zoom_climbhttp://twa800.com/lahr/lahr-10-31-06.htmhttp://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kovach/061228http://raylahr.entryhost.com/updates.htmThis independent analysis is being done by someone promoting a theory of a missile shooting the airliner down. Is that independent?Look at how high a fully loaded Beech 1900 with a severe aft CG and little elevator control to limit the nose angle got before it stalled in CLT (1,150' agl). This is with very little forward momentum, unlike TWA 800. Who knows? I am not an engineer and have no fluid dynamics programs, etc like those who discredit the zoom climb have.To me the zoom climb is irrelevant. What caused the explosion is the relevance. The zoom climb doubters doubt the zoom climb because they see it as an explanation for what the NTSB says happened. IT DOES NOT MEAN THE AIRCRAFT WAS HIT BY A MISSILE if the zoom climb did not happen. The government has detailed the magic bullet theory in the kennedy assasination (it's zoom climb), but still it is NOT THE CENTRAL POINT: that being who shot kennedy (what blew up on twa800).Engineers for years stated a total hydraulic failure on a DC10 was imposible. Sioux City proved them wrong. Real life events sometimes befuddle engineers who like things in their preconceived order and world of data.So I take it you ignore the facts that they purposely misuse photographs of radar images to further their point? That's called propaganda.