MovieChat Forums > TWA Flight 800 (2013) Discussion > Seriously..outside explosion?

Seriously..outside explosion?


If an explosion occurred outside the plane, wouldn't one expect to find evidence of shrapnel all over the surface of the plane? Not just explosive residue, but solid, substantial pieces of the missile embedded into the skin of the plane? And if the explosion was strong enough to tear apart the left wing, then why didn't it also tear apart the left side of the fuselage? Everyone knows that the wing is made of much stronger materials than the fuselage. Also, if it did just explode and burst the left wing like this show speculates, then why didn't the voice recorder end with the pilots shouting something like "What was that?"..."Hang on!!"..."800 going down!", or something other than..."climb thrust. climb to one five thousand. power's set." They were in the process of climbing from 13K feet to 15K feet in altitude. Powering up the engines when ...silence.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

Uh, okay. Hasbara douchebag.

reply

Since you were obviously sucked in by this nonsense, why don't you debate my conclusions? Debris traveling at Mach 4? Why wasn't there any signs of shrapnel? Was the missile made of cardboard? World Trade Center #7? Really? I think you need a new tinfoil hat.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

Whatever, Hasbara dude.

The debris caught by radar was characterized by *no less* than a moving target exceeding ~Mach 4 (~3000 mi/h), which could NOT POSSIBLY have come from anything other than a high-velocity or high-explosive interaction with the airplane fuselage.

Try again.

reply

Try again? Why repeat myself. If there was debris traveling at Mach 4, then where is the debris that should have struck the plane? Enough debris to bring down the plane. There is only one person saying that the radar is showing objects moving faster than Mach 4. The idiot who made the movie. Ever here of false echoes? Of course not. Because you're a complete bonehead just like the guy on the show. If there was an air-burst just outside the aircraft, residue from the explosives would have been embedded into the aluminum skin of the aircraft. Not just parts per million, but substantial amounts covering the entire left side of the aircraft.

Watch the show? Yeah, I just post random crap on IMDb about a show I never watched. Douche. They "claim" they weren't allowed to test items. I suppose you believed the Mermaid show too. lol.

It premiered on EPIX at 8pm Eastern on Wed. the 17th.

What does my signature mean? It was a rant from someone similar to you. Senile.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

Okay, whatever, man.

I find it interesting that you use multiple ad hominem attacks such as "Senile", which points to a dadaist description of peanut-butter sandwiches trapped in an image as opposed to text, and "I suppose you believed the Mermaid show too", when I have not only NOT seen any installment of said manufactured "saga", but have no knowledge about it whatsoever.

These tactics are the last recourse of what we call "The Loser": I.e., he who fails utterly to make an argument based on the facts, but must attack based upon the superficial.

In the realm of facts, it is not merely one person looking at the radar returns -- it is multiple qualified investigators, and they are not looking at the velocity of the returns, but the distance of the returns themselves given their timestamp, which, given the coherence of the returns, cannot be explained by "false echoes".

Moreover, the fitting of the curve of the aircraft trajectory to the observed radar data does not fit the bogus "fuselage climb" scenario, but the "straight into the drink" scenario, voiding any "fuselage climb" scenario that could be used (albeit with complete inconsistency against the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw multiple "flares" or rockets rise from the horizon) to purport an "aflame rising fuselage" as the source of these observations.

Seriously, who is paying you to post here? Cass Sunstein? Henry Kissinger?

Feh.

reply

People who scream "ad hominem" are the true losers. I didn't attack you because I ran out of facts. In fact, I didn't really attack you. I just pointed out the obvious. No one else, in this show or anywhere else, corroborated the findings that this show portrays as facts. If you actually watched the show, you would have realized that there were 755 eye-witnesses to the crash. And how many were on the show? 10? Maybe less? One guy even said he viewed what appeared to be a missile, rising up from behind a house. If you looked at where he was standing, the height of said house, there is no way he could say for sure that it came from the ground. By the time he saw it, the object would have been at an altitude of 10Kft or higher. The other guy was standing on a football field and told the investigators that everything he saw took place between the uprights on the goal post. They knew where he was standing, the line of site, the location of the crash and proved there was no way a missile, traveling from the ground, covering a distance of 7 miles and to an altitude of 2.5mi would have been visible "between the goal posts". But a plane exploding in mid-air and crashing into the ocean would have. Oh, and another thing, how can they have radar of the explosion debris, but not of the actual missile? And yes, even though missiles have a small cross-section, they still appear on radar. Another interesting tidbit would be the range of the proposed missile. Multiple times throughout this show, they showed images of MANPADS. It has an effective range of about 4mi. If it was fired from a ship, then it would have been possible. But most of the "missile" eye-witnesses said the streak originated from shore. One guy even said it traveled out ahead of the aircraft, turned back toward it, overshot the plane, turned sharply left near the plane and then exploded. That one would have traveled 10+ miles to accomplish that. And because you had so many different descriptions of the same event, the only way the producers of this show could rationalize it, was to come up with the "3 missile" theory. 1 from shore. 1 from a ship and 1 from the ocean. A submarine maybe? lol. With all these missiles flying around, I'm sure one of the many radar installations in the immediate area would have picked up something.

I did accomplish one thing though. I got you to submit more posts in 24 hours than you have in the entire 12 years you've been on IMDb.

And since you think "I" wrote what's in my signature and don't quite understand that it's a screenshot of somebody's post, just proves that you're bonkers.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

So... WTF is this NLP *beep* from "wild_cobra" supposed to be?

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

So... how is it that this anti-factual diatribe was posted before the first showing of the documentary even appeared?

reply

Did you even watch the documentary? They tried to have pieces of the plane tested, the FBI wouldn't allow them to do it independently. Then the pieces they wanted tested disappeared.

reply

Oh Capn Morgan,

Clearly you're not going along with the hypnotic "nothing to see here, move along, these aren't the droids you're looking for" meme that you're supposed to be channeling when you watch this film.

reply

[deleted]

it's called military redundancy...to "make sure" that's why they drop 5000 pound bombs on sites where 500 pound bombs would most likely be enough...over kill...plus all 3 missiles were launched before the first hit

The Arizona Music Show
http://www.ArizonaMusicShow.com

reply

I haven't seen it but I won't ever buy a missile strike from a US Navy ship. Too many people and I don't care what anyone says, you wouldn't be able to keep a whole US Navy ship quiet on shooting down a civilian aircraft. You would have to have the silence and cooperation of the entire crew which is IMPOSSIBLE.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0182769/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

reply

Your post has so many holes and misguided rants in it that it's too comical to even dissect

You are an uneducated fool.

reply

You won't debate, because you can't. Please try. I enjoy debunking fools like you.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

Traces of explosives chemicals PETN and RDX and nitroglycerine were found in the cabin wreckage. YES, we know that a bomb-sniffing K-9 exercise was performed onboard "a 747" (no specific tail number) while TWA 800 was on the ground at St. Louis, HOWEVER, it is unlikely that it was performed onboard TWA 800 because the flight crew would have already been aboard preparing for the next flight when the exercise was performed (according to the times noted on the K-9 handling officer's own documentation).

The explosion did not originate in the center wing tank. The aircraft was brought down by a missile, probably a proximity device. The only question that remains, in my mind anyway, is whether it was brought down by the US Navy or by a terrorist attack.

________________________________
You have my word as an inveterate cheat.

reply

Traces of explosives chemicals....


That's PPM.(i.e. parts per million) If anything containing explosives, detonated anywhere near the plane, there would be residue embedded into the aluminum skin and structure of the plane. I was in the military and dealt with explosives. Believe me when I say, a 10 year old would be able to look at the wreckage and determine if explosives were used.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

No, it's PETN (Pentaerythritol tetranitrate), and there was a splash trail containing nitrate leading over the wing.

Again, no evidence was ever presented of how the center wing tank exploded. All we have is a theory. It may well be that the aircraft was destroyed by some catastrophic failure in the electrical system and tank. I don't think so.

If you haven't seen the movie, I recommend you give it a look.

________________________________
You have my word as an inveterate cheat.

reply

No, it's PETN (Pentaerythritol tetranitrate),


*facepalm*. PPM(i.e. parts per million) is a measurement, not a name of an explosive.

All we have is a theory.


That's right. Center wing tank explosion AND the idiots thinking a missile caused the explosion are both theories. Occam's razor. Google it.

If you haven't seen the movie, I recommend you give it a look.


I created this thread, on the day the movie premiered. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have problems understanding the English language.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

So we're just going to discount all of the people who actually saw a missile like object heading towards the plane and just say...agree with the ludicrous explanation from the CIA/FBI.

Okay.

www.jkleeberg.com

reply

The OP of this thread may have some valid points, but the way in which he name calls and attacks others only serves to discredit him. Seriously, if your argument is totally cohesive, why is it necessary to degrade other people? The way in which some people conduct themselves on imdb is way beyond the boundaries of acceptable social norms.

Lie still. I've never done this before; and there will
be blood.

reply

Any name calling or attacks in my 1st post? Nope.

2nd post in this thread: Uh, okay. Hasbara douchebag.

Once someone attacks another, they are fair game for insults and ridicule. Why? Because it's a form of discipline. If someone acts like an idiot, you let them know. Hopefully, one of 2 things occur. They realize they're an idiot an try to educate themselves, or they just accept that they're beyond help and shut-up.

but the way in which he name calls and attacks others only serves to discredit him
No matter how many times a person uses this form of verbal discipline, facts will always be facts. You cannot discredit yourself if you speak the truth. They are not "valid points", they are facts. That is why no one has been accused of using a missile, or any other external device, to bring this plane down. Even if someone developed an "ice bullet", something that creates damage but leaves no trace of itself in the aftermath, there are still ways to determine if it was internal or external. Shock waves. An external shock wave strong enough to detach the wing from the fuselage would have left immeasurable amounts of evidence to support that conclusion.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

When did I suggest that your name-calling was limited to your retaliation against the first person who responded to your post? It's certainly not; you've insulted every person who disagrees with you. Furthermore, the tone of all of your posts reeks of "I know....and you don't. Therefore, you are stupid."

My previous post was not meant as verbal discipline. Discipline is designed to change people's behavior. I was just pointing out that once a person uses these sort of tactics to "discuss" something, all they really manage to do is disgust me. I mean , what's the point of having a discussion with someone who supposedly knows it all? It's a total turn-off.


Lie still. I've never done this before; and there will
be blood.

reply

When did I suggest that your name-calling was limited to your retaliation against the first person who responded to your post

No one suggested anything. The 2nd poster(d00gie_B) called me a douchebag. He was now open for attack. Then shobomil attacked me and I also responded accordingly. I insulted no one else, including you.
you've insulted every person who disagrees with you.

No, I have not. I only berate those who insult me first. It's all there in black and white.


As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry. It's your opinion about how my posts "sound" to you, and I respect that.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

the edit feature on IMDB is marvelous huh?

The Arizona Music Show
http://www.ArizonaMusicShow.com

reply

Who edited their post?

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

[deleted]