JAMES SANDERS' NEW TWA 800 BOOK
fr...@my-deja.com
investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-evidence.htm
Gavin Phillips.
www.altered-evidence.com/index.htm
I’m a retired police officer and investigative journalist. For almost
fifteen years I have used the skills learned on the job in Southern
California law enforcement to investigate wrongdoing within the federal
government. This is my fourth book related to that subject.
July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800, a 747 with 230 passengers and
crew, crashed less than ten miles south of Long Island. All 230
onboard died.
During the first hours after the crash the airwaves were filled with
eyewitness accounts of a missile streaking up into the air and a plane
falling into the water.
Within two months the New York Times was carrying Flight 800 stories
that sounded more like FBI propaganda than journalism. And NBC evening
news became the preferred method by which the NTSB began to spin a
story around a mysterious mechanical event.
Reporters began telling me about stories questioning the official
government line being spiked. Stories about Navy divers removing
highly sensitive debris from the ocean floor within forty-eight hours
after the crash. Stories about military officers admitting off the
record that a major “screw-up” had caused the crash. Stories about
Navy sources telling of a large concentration of Navy ships south of
Long Island, the launch of a drone and “friendly fire.”
I eventually developed sources within government and the Flight 800
investigation. A stream of documents – and forensic evidence – became
available establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that obstruction of
justice was ongoing at the senior levels of those within government
that controlled the investigation.
I wrote a book entitled The Downing of TWA Flight 800. Released in
April 1997, it provided the American public with a view of the TWA
Flight 800 investigation never before seen.
Government documents used to write the book revealed a much different
initiating event than the government’s version. These documents said
FAA radar technicians saw a missile on the radar and immediately
notified the White House. The documents also said there was damage to
the recovered debris consistent with a missile warhead explosion in the
center-wing-tank (CWT).
The documents said there was an initial, narrow area of damage that
crossed the 747 in the area immediately in front of the CWT, generally
in a right-to-left direction. My best source inside the investigation
said there was a reddish-orange residue trail in this exact area.
Eventually, he obtained two small samples of the residue and I had them
tested. They were consistent with the residue from a solid fuel
missile. Further investigation, after The Downing of TWA Flight 800
was published, established that more than 98% of the residue’s volume
was consistent with an explosive event.
The government counterattacked, saying the residue was glue. After
months of ducking and dodging, trying not to name the glue, the NTSB
said the residue was 3M, 1357 HP Adhesive. They pointed to NASA
Chemist Charles Bassett as the scientist who confirmed this fact.
I obtained a notarized affidavit from Charles Bassett. His written
statement debunks the government’s glue allegation. But I did not stop
there. A sample of 3M 1357 HP Adhesive was tested by Florida State
University (FSU) and compared to my residue’s elemental analysis. FSU
confirmed beyond any doubt that the government lied about my residue
being 3M glue.
Then, Dr. Merritt Birky, the NTSB bureaucrat in charge of the Flight
800 Fire & Explosion team, admitted that the government never tested my
residue. Why? He indicated the government was afraid of the results.
By this time you can almost visualize the Justice Department swooping
down and hauling away the responsible miscreants through a frenzied
throng of media. Unfortunately, the Justice Department, including the
FBI, was involved in this scheme to obstruct justice and rewrite the
history of TWA Flight 800. They were not going to investigate and
imprison themselves.
Three months after The Downing of TWA Flight 800 was published, the
head of the National Transportation Safety Board, Jim Hall, under oath,
before Congress, admitted the NTSB had essentially removed “mechanical”
as a possible cause of the downing of Flight 800:
Congressman TRAFFICANT: I would just like the panelists to answer my
questions yes or no. If you can’t, just say you can’t answer it.
First question, Mr. Hall. Hypotheses and theories and opinion, not a
fact, correct? Hypothesis is theory, correct?
NTSB Chairman Jim Hall: Yes.
TRAFFICANT: To this point, has any physical evidence [surfaced],
conclusive forensic evidence, to prove it was a mechanical failure that
caused the explosion of the center fuel tank? Yes or no.
HALL: We’re looking at that.
TRAFFICANT: I want a one [word] answer. I know it is tough at this
point.
HALL: No.
The NTSB exhaustively searched for a politically correct “mechanical”
answer. Forty million dollars later the answer is still “No.”
The book you are about to read reveals what really happens in America
when powerful interests are threatened by aggressive journalism – when
the politically correct answer is exposed as fraudulent.
The same bureaucrats within the FBI and Justice Department I was
investigating used the awesome power with which they were entrusted to
harass, intimidate and persecute my wife and me. They were imperiled
by my investigation.
The Justice Department turned my wife into a hostage to their demands
on April 19, 1997. In a face-to-face confrontation with the FBI and
Justice Department, they said they would “target” and indict my wife if
she did not assist them in their investigation of me. She refused and
we were both indicted for conspiring with a source inside the TWA
Flight 800 investigation to obtain additional evidence of their
lawlessness.
We were arrested, bound and dragged through throngs of reporters. My
phone and financial records were seized in violation of Justice
Department rules, regulations and case law. My computer was seized
without a warrant. Major media was silent.
When the government demanded that the First Amendment be excised from
the trial, major media was silent. When the judge agreed, major media
was silent. When the government’s star witness failed to perform on
the stand as the government said he would, the New York Times printed a
story misrepresenting what was said under oath.
We were convicted of conspiring with a source to obtain additional
evidence of government wrongdoing. The case is being appealed.
If we lose the appeal, federal case law will allow the wife of any
journalist to be made the target of a federal investigation, even in
the absence of any evidence, real or imagined, upon which to justify
the targeting. But major media remains silent.
If I lose my appeal, federal case law will establish conspiracy as a
legal tool to inhibit aggressive investigation of government
lawlessness. But major media remains silent.
If you have seen anything about this case in major media reports, it
has been the government’s version of the truth, devoid of balance. My
side of the story has not been revealed – until now.
In spite of the best efforts of those placed at risk by my
investigation, I have obtained compelling evidence of government’s
motivation to illegally use its power to neutralize my investigation of
their lawlessness.
The reason for the government’s shrill, vindictive attack on me
and my wife becomes apparent as you read the following chapters. Less
apparent is the motivation for major media to cooperate with powerful
interests rather than pursuing balanced journalism.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Eugene Griessel
>"Altered Evidence" is James Sanders' new book about his continuing
>investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
>available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-evidence.htm
>Gavin Phillips.
Why did he not rather call it "Altered Story - So I Can Make Lots
More Bucks Rehashing A Load Of Codswallop"?
Eugene L Griessel eug...@dynagen.co.za
www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm
Thought for the day .......
Civilization: Stone age => Bronze age => Iron age => Garbage.
ppgo...@rocketmail.com
eug...@dynagen.co.za wrote:
> fr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >"Altered Evidence" is James Sanders' new book about his continuing
> >investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
> >available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-
evidence.htm
When Sanders writes a book explaining how to correlate
a missile theory with the physical evidence, to wit:
The reconstructed wreckage, and the story it tells ....
I will listen to him. The wreckage is the elephant
that won't leave the tent. The story it tells is
clear and unambiguous. Sanders is entertaining,
but he is writing a story about a different case
than the one represented by the wreckage.
I wouldn't care if every seat in the airplane
were actually made of missile propellant. No
ordnance detonation ocurred in the airplane that
is sitting in the hangar. End of story.
Sanders is either a con artist, or else he is
obsessed and cannot see the simple truth.
Either way, he isn't selling me any books.
Laurence Doering
>"Altered Evidence" is James Sanders' new book about his continuing
>investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
>available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-evidence.htm
>Gavin Phillips.
>
>www.altered-evidence.com/index.htm
So, um, has Sanders learned how to properly convert between Greenwich
Mean Time and Eastern Daylight Time for his new book, or does he
still think EDT is GMT+5?
ljd
David P Benjamin
EST, AND EDT, TOO??????
--
David
Bertie the Bunyip
the Gods"
I'll never buy a book at an airport again.
--
Bertie the Bunyip
AAS 001 AAS founder
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
please don't make fun of my typing, I'm sensitive.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
"English is my second language. I don't have a first"
-Kurt Vonnegut-
OPIEOPIEOPIEOPIEOPIEOPIEOPIEOPIEOPIEOPIEOPIEOPIEOPIE
"If you gotta tell 'em who you are, you ain't"
--Gregory Peck--
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________|
"Flaming AAS proudly since 1998"
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The path to wisdom is littered with beer bottles.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
And I wonder, I waaah waaah waaah waaaah woooonder.
Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:
>In article <8211tt$o16$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <fr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>"Altered Evidence" is James Sanders' new book about his continuing
>>investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
>>available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-evidence.htm
>>Gavin Phillips.
>>
>>www.altered-evidence.com/index.htm
>
>So, um, has Sanders learned how to properly convert between Greenwich
>Mean Time and Eastern Daylight Time for his new book, or does he
>still think EDT is GMT+5?
It is if the sun in your universe rises in the west.
John Mazor
<38441005...@news1.mweb.co.za>...
>fr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>"Altered Evidence" is James Sanders' new book about his continuing
>>investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
>>available for download at
www.altered-evidence.com/altered-evidence.htm
>>Gavin Phillips.
>
>More Bucks Rehashing A Load Of Codswallop"?
LOL. But then, most hack writers never scrupled over selling the same
whine in new bottles.
By the way, there's another book coming out in February by a former
CNN reporter.
Laurence Doering
Bertie the Bunyip <bertie...@usenet-performance-art.org> wrote:
>On 30 Nov 1999 13:40:25 -0500, l...@mail.bcpl.net (Laurence Doering)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <8211tt$o16$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <fr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
>>>available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-evidence.htm
>>>Gavin Phillips.
>>>
>>>www.altered-evidence.com/index.htm
>>
>>Mean Time and Eastern Daylight Time for his new book, or does he
>>still think EDT is GMT+5?
>
>It is if the sun in your universe rises in the west.
Aw jeez. Of course I meant GMT-5. Whack whack whack whack.
ljd
CJS
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> Now you've done it. You've destroyed all my faith in "The Chariots of
> the Gods"
Even from those nice men in the robes?
Cheers...Craig
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly
useless information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by
people who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:
>
>
>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> Now you've done it. You've destroyed all my faith in "The Chariots of
>> the Gods"
>
>Even from those nice men in the robes?
All arrested for flashing.
Hugh Dickson
> "Altered Evidence" is James Sanders' new book about his continuing
> investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
> available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-evidence.htm
> Gavin Phillips.
Aloha, 3M 1357 adhesive is a widely used "glue" used
throughout aircraft interiors for things like attaching velcro,
as a wall paper paste, etc. Therefore you would expect
to find "rocket fuel" residue throughtout ALL of the aircraft
cabin?
Whatta crock of SHIT! I only used 1357 for twenty
years butt I might be wrong.
Hugh
Greg
> When Sanders writes a book explaining how to correlate
> a missile theory with the physical evidence, to wit:
> The reconstructed wreckage, and the story it tells ....
> I will listen to him.
When he proves that the government has lied over and over
again (e.g.- FSU confirmed beyond any doubt that the
government lied about my residue being 3M glue), I think
you would do good to look for yourself and not rely on NTSB
reports. If they cannot do something as simple as prove
the material is or is not glue, how on earth can you believe
any of their SCIENTIFIC investigations? That is the part
that has me completely stumped.
> The wreckage is the elephant that won't leave the tent.
But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
certain you are looking at the right elephant?
> The story it tells is clear and unambiguous.
The story of a coverup and any NTSB report that supports
the lies- it must be questioned extensively. But you and your
friends don't want to do that- how odd.
> Sanders is entertaining,
You mean independently investigating the government.
> but he is writing a story about a different case
> than the one represented by the wreckage.
Assuming you have all the wreckage in hand. Quit
being so damn sure of yourself, will you.
> I wouldn't care if every seat in the airplane
> were actually made of missile propellant. No
> ordnance detonation ocurred in the airplane that
> is sitting in the hangar.
But then it would point to an inert missile, now wouldn't it?
Oh well...
--
The only vote that you waste is the one you never wanted to make.
RICO- we were told it was a necessary surrender of our civil liberties.
Asset Forfeiture- the latest inevitable result of RICO.
http://www.ciphermax.com/book
Greg
> By the way, there's another book coming out in February by a former
> CNN reporter.
Let me guess. It is entitled: Why you should love your president and
trust the government, no matter how many of you citizens they kill in
cold blood. Ya, I thought so.
--
The only vote that you waste is the one you never wanted to make.
RICO- we were told it was a necessary surrender of our civil liberties.
Asset Forfeiture- the latest inevitable result of RICO.
http://www.ciphermax.com/book
la...@my-deja.com
Greg <ciph...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
> certain you are looking at the right elephant?
>
You mean like the lies Sanders continues to repeat
concerning the warning area being active when the
NOTAM in his own (first) book even shows that it
wasn't?
> But then it would point to an inert missile, now wouldn't it?
>
No, it wouldn't. I only points to the lengths Sanders
will go to sell books, or that you would go to avoid
admitting that you've never been able to overcome
the hard physical evidence presented to you in this
group.
--
Les Aker
la...@my-dejanews.com
Bertie the Bunyip
>
> That is the part
>that has me completely stumped.
Quite an accomplishment in itself.
Bertie the Bunyip
>
>> By the way, there's another book coming out in February by a former
>> CNN reporter.
>
>Let me guess. It is entitled: Why you should love your president and
>trust the government, no matter how many of you citizens they kill in
>cold blood. Ya, I thought so.
Better yet.
pgooding
Greg wrote in message <821ren$bq5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> When Sanders writes a book explaining how to correlate
>> a missile theory with the physical evidence, to wit:
>> The reconstructed wreckage, and the story it tells ....
>> I will listen to him.
>
>When he proves that the government has lied over and over
>again (e.g.- FSU confirmed beyond any doubt that the
>government lied about my residue being 3M glue), I think
>you would do good to look for yourself and not rely on NTSB
>reports
I've been reading them for 35 years (andmore if you count CAB
reports). I have never seen any evidence that NTSB has falsified
anything, during which time they have investigated thousands
of accidents on land, sea and air. Until I see evidence that they
have, your assertion fails any test of reasonableness.
Keith Willshaw
Greg wrote in message <821ren$bq5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> When Sanders writes a book explaining how to correlate
>> a missile theory with the physical evidence, to wit:
>> The reconstructed wreckage, and the story it tells ....
>> I will listen to him.
>
>When he proves that the government has lied over and over
>again (e.g.- FSU confirmed beyond any doubt that the
>government lied about my residue being 3M glue), I think
>you would do good to look for yourself and not rely on NTSB
>the material is or is not glue, how on earth can you believe
>that has me completely stumped.
>
The lie is to state that Dr Basset said it was not 3M glue.
His report states that the residue was consistent with 3M
glue. Sanders , Rivero and others leaped on this and declared
it proved that it wasn't 3M glue because he didn't say it was
3M glue
In fact any anyaltical scientist will only EVER say that the
test was consistent with the sample because that is all science
allows.
Moreover Sanders et al then asked if the test results were
consistent with his own botched test.
Since his test wasn an elemental analysis and the NTSB test
used Chromatography its like asking is the weight of this sample blue
At this point Sanders lost ANY residual chance of impressing
the scientific and engineering community.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
Greg wrote in message <821rhu$bqj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> By the way, there's another book coming out in February by a former
>> CNN reporter.
>
>Let me guess. It is entitled: Why you should love your president and
>trust the government, no matter how many of you citizens they kill in
>cold blood. Ya, I thought so.
>
>
YOU Cretin . This is not about US politics , I and many others
here are NOT US citizens and don't give a shit who is President
It's about science and engineering which I DO care about
All your heroes , Goddard , Rivero , Sanders et al are
proven liars and frauds with ZERO credibility amongst
scientists and engineers. One look at their work destroys
their credibility utterly. Why do you think they ran from
this forum.
Go back to alt.conspiracy were no-one worries about
evidence and truth is an alien concept.
Keith
Ralph Nesbitt
Greg <ciph...@my-deja.com> wrote in part in message
news:821ren$bq5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > The wreckage is the elephant that won't leave the tent.
>
> certain you are looking at the right elephant?
--------------------------------
Are you implying the remains exhibted by NTSB are not the remains of the
actual TWA 800 A/C.
Ralph Nesbitt
Some one said: To those for whom the bell has rung, may it never ring again.
Greg
> > > The wreckage is the elephant that won't leave the tent.
> > But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
> > certain you are looking at the right elephant?
> Are you implying the remains exhibted by NTSB are not the
> remains of the actual TWA 800 A/C.
No not me. The unusual actions of the navy divers imply
that the possibility exists.
--
The only vote that you waste is the one you never wanted to make.
RICO- we were told it was a necessary surrender of our civil liberties.
Asset Forfeiture- the latest inevitable result of RICO.
http://www.ciphermax.com/book
Greg
> Why do you think they ran from this forum.
Well, I cannot speak for them, but I can surmise upon my
own personal experience (did I thank you for asking?) that
the absolute closed mindedness on the parts of those who
seek scientific truth so dogmattically that they adamently
ignore the obvious evidence of government coverup activities.
In a word, boredom. Boredom of talking about all the evidence,
not just the ones that agree with the government line. Like
the MANY unusual behaviors of the government that NO ONE has
made a compelling case for (not for one of them). Boredom.
--
The only vote that you waste is the one you never wanted to make.
RICO- we were told it was a necessary surrender of our civil liberties.
Asset Forfeiture- the latest inevitable result of RICO.
http://www.ciphermax.com/book
Rob Robertson
fr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> "Altered Evidence" is James Sanders' new book about his continuing
> investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
> available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-evidence.htm
> Gavin Phillips.
>
> http://www.altered-evidence.com/index.htm
la...@my-deja.com
Greg <ciph...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> In a word, boredom. Boredom of talking about all the evidence,
> not just the ones that agree with the government line.
>
There's a word for someone who drops a lit match
into a container of room temperature kerosene and
when it doesn't explode attempts to say that it
won't when heated and in an aerosol. And the word
isn't boredom.
--
Les Aker
la...@my-dejanews.com
Paul J. Adam
deja.com> writes
>
>> When Sanders writes a book explaining how to correlate
>> a missile theory with the physical evidence, to wit:
>> The reconstructed wreckage, and the story it tells ....
>> I will listen to him.
>When he proves that the government has lied over and over
>again (e.g.- FSU confirmed beyond any doubt that the
>government lied about my residue being 3M glue),
False. The analysis showed the "red residue" was consistent with a 3M
contact adhesive. Could the exact grade and production lot be
determined to give a more precise answer? Possibly... but why?
The key point, which Sanders et al flee from, is that it was confirmed
that Sanders had no "solid propellant residue". As far as can be told
from the elemental analysis, Sanders managed to get a sample of
seabed mud analysed.
>I think
>you would do good to look for yourself and not rely on NTSB
>reports. If they cannot do something as simple as prove
>the material is or is not glue,
They weren't asked to prove that the material was or was not glue.
They were asked to prove whether it was or was not rocket
propellant or some residue thereof. Sanders and his supporters,
caught in a lie, want to direct attention away from that issue.
>> The wreckage is the elephant that won't leave the tent.
>
>But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
>certain you are looking at the right elephant?
So where's Sanders' sample? Oh, it was destroyed? How convenient.
>
>> The story it tells is clear and unambiguous.
>
>The story of a coverup and any NTSB report that supports
>the lies- it must be questioned extensively.
Quite so.
>But you and your
>friends don't want to do that- how odd.
I'm perfectly willing to listen to scientific evidence. The trouble is, I
get very little. Can you explain to me what Sanders' residue _was?_
>> Sanders is entertaining,
>
>You mean independently investigating the government.
Personally I think he's one of the best things the coverup could hope
for.
>> but he is writing a story about a different case
>> than the one represented by the wreckage.
>
>Assuming you have all the wreckage in hand. Quit
>being so damn sure of yourself, will you.
Whereas you have... what? Eyewitnesses of dubious provenance,
contradictory theories, and no tangible evidence?
Prove that the "missile theory" is not actually the coverup, Greg. Why
is your nebulous swirl of conspiracy worthy of less detailed scrutiny?
>> I wouldn't care if every seat in the airplane
>> were actually made of missile propellant. No
>> ordnance detonation ocurred in the airplane that
>> is sitting in the hangar.
>
>But then it would point to an inert missile, now wouldn't it?
Which apparently passed through the cabin. It must have done, to
leave a trail of seabed mud^H^H^H^H rocket fuel residue. How,
though, could it cause the catastrophic destruction of the aircraft by
doing this? Aircraft have survived far worse and come home.
Why, Rivero even purported to show us the pictures of entry and exit
points... while someone else produced a missile that had passed
through the exact same spots but in the opposite direction.
Were they spreading disinformation? If not, why did you not argue
against them?
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
CJS
Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> Greg wrote in message <821ren$bq5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >> When Sanders writes a book explaining how to correlate
> >> a missile theory with the physical evidence, to wit:
> >> The reconstructed wreckage, and the story it tells ....
> >> I will listen to him.
> >
> >When he proves that the government has lied over and over
> >again (e.g.- FSU confirmed beyond any doubt that the
> >government lied about my residue being 3M glue), I think
> >you would do good to look for yourself and not rely on NTSB
> >reports. If they cannot do something as simple as prove
> >the material is or is not glue, how on earth can you believe
> >any of their SCIENTIFIC investigations? That is the part
> >that has me completely stumped.
> >
>
> The lie is to state that Dr Basset said it was not 3M glue.
>
> His report states that the residue was consistent with 3M
> glue. Sanders , Rivero and others leaped on this and declared
> it proved that it wasn't 3M glue because he didn't say it was
> 3M glue
I was really hoping Dr. George would jump in on this.
He wrote a pretty good explanation of this some time
ago.
CJS
Greg wrote:
>
> > > > The wreckage is the elephant that won't leave the tent.
> > > But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
> > > certain you are looking at the right elephant?
>
> > Are you implying the remains exhibted by NTSB are not the
> > remains of the actual TWA 800 A/C.
>
> No not me. The unusual actions of the navy divers imply
> that the possibility exists.
Oh, God. Are we back on the theory (I'll be nice and
call it that) that Navy divers were sorting out missile
debris from the crash site?
Keith Willshaw
Greg wrote in message <8246lk$24l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> Why do you think they ran from this forum.
>
>Well, I cannot speak for them, but I can surmise upon my
>own personal experience (did I thank you for asking?) that
>the absolute closed mindedness on the parts of those who
>seek scientific truth so dogmattically that they adamently
>ignore the obvious evidence of government coverup activities.
>
What Science and what truth have they or you EVER brought
to bear on this subject.
Those who START from the premise that the Guvmint did it
ignore ALL evidence to the contrary and distort or plain make up
evidence are the ones with closed minds
>
>In a word, boredom. Boredom of talking about all the evidence,
>not just the ones that agree with the government line. Like
>the MANY unusual behaviors of the government that NO ONE has
>made a compelling case for (not for one of them). Boredom.
>
The compelling Case has been made
You and they just don't wnt to hear it
Keith
Paul J. Adam
deja.com> writes
>> Why do you think they ran from this forum.
>
>Well, I cannot speak for them, but I can surmise upon my
>own personal experience (did I thank you for asking?) that
>the absolute closed mindedness on the parts of those who
>seek scientific truth so dogmattically that they adamently
>ignore the obvious evidence of government coverup activities.
"Obvious evidence" including hundreds of CIA agents coming forth
with faked "eyewitness statements", Greg?
Did that possibility never cross your mind?
Once you play the "coverup" card, then all bets are off and _no_
evidence can be trusted.
Paul Gooding
>
>Well, I cannot speak for them, but I can surmise upon my
>own personal experience (did I thank you for asking?) that
>the absolute closed mindedness on the parts of those who
>seek scientific truth so dogmattically that they adamently
>ignore the obvious evidence of government coverup activities.
>
>not just the ones that agree with the government line. Like
>the MANY unusual behaviors of the government that NO ONE has
>made a compelling case for (not for one of them). Boredom.
That's a lie, and you are a liar. The evidence that counts is
the wreckage in the hangar. That evidence tells us what
happened to the airplane, and it also tells us what did not
happen to it. Unless you can successfully challenge
either the legitmacy of that evidence, or the conclusions
that have been drawn from it -- neither of which I have seen
you do --- then your assertion, above, is nothing but
rhetoric and lies.
Your earlier assertions that "odd behavior" or whatever you
call it, on the part of Navy recovery operations, does not make
a case which is sufficient to overturn the conclusions drawn
so far. That's why the aviation community has drawn the
conclusions it has, no other reason. Your assertion that
those of us who support the view I am stating here are
"closed minded" cannot be supported in fact; another
rhetorical lie on your part. You are the one who is close-
minded. You are the one who entered this newsgroup some
weeks ago stating that you would not read the NTSB
papers on the accident. How the hell do you argue that
someone else is close-minded after doing that?
Greg, you are nothing but a piece of shit troll. Begone,
and go fuck yourself.
Joe Long
Greg wrote in message <821ren$bq5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
<snip>
>When he proves that the government has lied over and over
>again (e.g.- FSU confirmed beyond any doubt that the
>government lied about my residue being 3M glue), I think
>you would do good to look for yourself and not rely on NTSB
>reports. If they cannot do something as simple as prove
>the material is or is not glue, how on earth can you believe
>any of their SCIENTIFIC investigations? That is the part
>that has me completely stumped.
Greg - believe me when I tell you that these boys don't believe this
shit for one minute. They know as well as Sanders what brought down
F800... these boys have an agenda here on usenet to attack anyone who
comes to bear the truth about F800.
Look at the amount of attention this one post gets and how mush each and
everyone of these boys attempts to discredit Sanders and anyone who
questions the official reports. The same tactics used against the
eyewitnesses by the CIA nad NTSB... each of which made a video that
states the eyewitnesses could not have seen what they saw... I see a
pattern here and so does all the rest of the regulars who search for
truth rather than buy into all that the official stories by the NTSB.
These boys are here for a purpose... don't ever even kid or question
yourself about this little fact...
>
>> The wreckage is the elephant that won't leave the tent.
>
>But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
>certain you are looking at the right elephant?
They know the truth - they spread the lie and they attempt to kill the
messenger.
>> The story it tells is clear and unambiguous.
>
>The story of a coverup and any NTSB report that supports
>the lies- it must be questioned extensively. But you and your
>friends don't want to do that- how odd.
Not odd at all... it is after all, why they are here.
>> Sanders is entertaining,
>
>You mean independently investigating the government.
>
>> but he is writing a story about a different case
>> than the one represented by the wreckage.
>
>Assuming you have all the wreckage in hand. Quit
>being so damn sure of yourself, will you.
It's what they're paid to do Greg.
>> I wouldn't care if every seat in the airplane
>> were actually made of missile propellant. No
>> ordnance detonation ocurred in the airplane that
>> is sitting in the hangar.
>
>But then it would point to an inert missile, now wouldn't it?
Yes - but they will never ever admit that. They won't even acknowledge a
simple proven truth. If you don't believe me... post a simple truth and
watch them dodge it like old seasoned veterans. I cite a post a month
or so back I was posting in attempt to do just this... admit a simple
logic that in order to know what is in a specific contrail - air testing
must be done. I wasn't validating chemtrails - simply stating that
simple logic. One person, Andrew, validated this... the rest ridiculed
and avoided addressing this... this is how you can tell who is real here
and who is here for purposes other than addressing truth.
>Oh well...
>--
>The only vote that you waste is the one you never wanted to make.
>RICO- we were told it was a necessary surrender of our civil liberties.
>Asset Forfeiture- the latest inevitable result of RICO.
>http://www.ciphermax.com/book
>
jgl
.
they're coming for our guns
they won't succeed - but they will come
Ron Hepler
The Toadies are shouting you down in unison.
They know that you are on Glideslope.
Their job is to assassinate the Truth.
Keep on Thinking Free.
Ron
Greg wrote in message <8246lk$24l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> Why do you think they ran from this forum.
>
>Well, I cannot speak for them, but I can surmise upon my
>own personal experience (did I thank you for asking?) that
>the absolute closed mindedness on the parts of those who
>seek scientific truth so dogmattically that they adamently
>ignore the obvious evidence of government coverup activities.
>
>In a word, boredom. Boredom of talking about all the evidence,
>not just the ones that agree with the government line. Like
>the MANY unusual behaviors of the government that NO ONE has
>made a compelling case for (not for one of them). Boredom.
>
>--
>The only vote that you waste is the one you never wanted to make.
>RICO- we were told it was a necessary surrender of our civil liberties.
>Asset Forfeiture- the latest inevitable result of RICO.
>http://www.ciphermax.com/book
>
>
horn...@my-deja.com
eug...@dynagen.co.za wrote:
> fr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >"Altered Evidence" is James Sanders' new book about his continuing
> >investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
> >available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-
evidence.htm
> >Gavin Phillips.
>
> More Bucks Rehashing A Load Of Codswallop"?
>
> Eugene L Griessel eug...@dynagen.co.za
What an asshole! Stan
>
> www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
> SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm
>
> Thought for the day .......
>
> Civilization: Stone age => Bronze age => Iron age => Garbage.
horn...@my-deja.com
ppgo...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> In article <38441005...@news1.mweb.co.za>,
> eug...@dynagen.co.za wrote:
> > fr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >"Altered Evidence" is James Sanders' new book about his continuing
> > >investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
> > >available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-
> evidence.htm
>
> a missile theory with the physical evidence, to wit:
> The reconstructed wreckage, and the story it tells ....
> I will listen to him.
The investigation and wreckage is corrupted. The physical evidence the
feds haven't destroyed is meaningless. Get serious.
The wreckage is the elephant
> that won't leave the tent. The story it tells is
> clear and unambiguous.
The wreckage evidence not destroyed is meaningless. Altered evidence
tells no story.
Sanders is entertaining,
> but he is writing a story about a different case
> than the one represented by the wreckage.
The fed version of the wreckage and evidence, sure. Personally, I think
he sucks as a writer. The truth is so boring.
> I wouldn't care if every seat in the airplane
> were actually made of missile propellant. No
> ordnance detonation ocurred in the airplane that
> is sitting in the hangar.
That is correct, PP. As Sanders has always insisted, it was a
telemetry round (no warhead) that punched a hole in TWA 800. His story
will prevail (now that I straightened him out).
End of story.
Sanders is a Gervais, like Donaldson, who will not let his criminal
escape. The feds made the mistake of pissing him off.
> Sanders is either a con artist, or else he is
> obsessed and cannot see the simple truth.
> Either way, he isn't selling me any books.
I didn't even know you could read. His last book was on Cassete for
people like you. Jim, I recommend you come out with a picture book (
or coloring book) for people like PP. There are no simple truths in
this coverup.
I believe Jim is right; the evidence is overwhelming. But what do I
know? I'll do whatever ADM Moorer tells me to. Subject to revision, of
course. Stan
horn...@my-deja.com
> >
> > But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
> > certain you are looking at the right elephant?
> >
>
> concerning the warning area being active when the
> NOTAM in his own (first) book even shows that it
> wasn't?
A missile can be shot down on the way to the wargame zone, Les. The
time is meaningless. FIRO clearly showed over 30 ships headed for the
war game zone. This smoke and screen bit will not wash. I doubt you
can say he is repeating lies. I can't (yet).
>
> > But then it would point to an inert missile, now wouldn't it?
> >
>
> No, it wouldn't.
Actually, it would.
I only points to the lengths Sanders
> will go to sell books, or that you would go to avoid
> admitting that you've never been able to overcome
> the hard physical evidence presented to you in this
> group.
The coverup cannot overcome the whislteblowers, in my opinion. One
would think the force in charge of the evidence could do better.
horn...@my-deja.com
> I've been reading them for 35 years (andmore if you count CAB
> reports). I have never seen any evidence that NTSB has falsified
> anything, during which time they have investigated thousands
> of accidents on land, sea and air. Until I see evidence that they
> have, your assertion fails any test of reasonableness.
PP, you can't find two balls within all of NTSB to rub together on TWA
800. But, thanks for the entertainment. Stan
horn...@my-deja.com
"Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>
> The lie is to state that Dr Basset said it was not 3M glue.
>
> His report states that the residue was consistent with 3M
> glue. Sanders , Rivero and others leaped on this and declared
> it proved that it wasn't 3M glue because he didn't say it was
> 3M glue
He stated that?
>
> In fact any anyaltical scientist will only EVER say that the
> test was consistent with the sample because that is all science
> allows.
>
> Moreover Sanders et al then asked if the test results were
> consistent with his own botched test.
Botched? I feel he did the best he could. He gave it to 60 Minutes to
confirm. Sanders was naive, in my opinion, but botched nothing. The
criminal is CBS here.
>
> Since his test wasn an elemental analysis and the NTSB test
> used Chromatography its like asking is the weight of this sample blue
Bullshit.
>
> At this point Sanders lost ANY residual chance of impressing
> the scientific and engineering community.
He impressed the hell out of the real scientific and engineering
community! Stan
horn...@my-deja.com
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <821ren$bq5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Greg <ciphermax@my-
> deja.com> writes> False. The analysis showed the "red residue" was
consistent with a 3M
> contact adhesive. Could the exact grade and production lot be
> determined to give a more precise answer? Possibly... but why?
>
> The key point, which Sanders et al flee from, is that it was confirmed
> that Sanders had no "solid propellant residue". As far as can be told
> from the elemental analysis, Sanders managed to get a sample of
> seabed mud analysed.
Paul, the official current position is that it is glue, not mud. I
can't believe a UK type would question the official US truth. I still
recommend sinking that little island as a public service.
> So where's Sanders' sample? Oh, it was destroyed? How convenient.
His backup sample was given to 60 Minutes to test as a control. They
gave it to the FBI without testing it. How convenient! There was only
a ton of it left for the FBI to hide. :-) Hell, they even lost the
dumpster they hid it in. I think it was left by a
Thiokol MK 104 rocket motor, but what do I know?
> I'm perfectly willing to listen to scientific evidence. The trouble
is, I
> get very little.
I haven't seen any!
Can you explain to me what Sanders' residue _was?_
Whatever it was, the FBI went to great lengths to destroy the ton of
the stuff still in the hangar. :-) You just said it was mud.
> Personally I think he's one of the best things the coverup could hope
> for.
I disagree.
> >But then it would point to an inert missile, now wouldn't it?
Right.
>
> Which apparently passed through the cabin.
Under it, according to the book.
It must have done, to
> leave a trail of seabed mud^H^H^H^H rocket fuel residue. How,
> though, could it cause the catastrophic destruction of the aircraft by
> doing this? Aircraft have survived far worse and come home.
Personally, I feel the bullet would've done the dirty deed. I don't
recall a 747 surviving an intert standard before. Stan
horn...@my-deja.com
"Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> Greg wrote in message <821rhu$bqj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >> By the way, there's another book coming out in February by a former
> >> CNN reporter.
> >
> >Let me guess. It is entitled: Why you should love your president and
> >trust the government, no matter how many of you citizens they kill in
> >cold blood. Ya, I thought so.
> >
> >
> >--
>
> YOU Cretin . This is not about US politics , I and many others
> here are NOT US citizens and don't give a shit who is President
>
> It's about science and engineering which I DO care about
What an asshole! Stan
horn...@my-deja.com
l...@mail.bcpl.net (Laurence Doering) wrote:
> In article <8211tt$o16$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <fr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >"Altered Evidence" is James Sanders' new book about his continuing
> >investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
> >available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-
evidence.htm
> >
> >www.altered-evidence.com/index.htm
>
> So, um, has Sanders learned how to properly convert between Greenwich
> Mean Time and Eastern Daylight Time for his new book, or does he
> still think EDT is GMT+5?
He'll nail the navy on TWA 800. His only opposition are idiots like
you. :-) Stan
>
> ljd
horn...@my-deja.com
ben...@mail.auburn.edu (David P Benjamin) wrote:
> DOES HE EXPLAIN WHY HE CAN"T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ZULU,
> EST, AND EDT, TOO??????
>
> --
> David
All he is sure of, I feel, is that an inert standard
did it. Fortunately, that's enough. Stan
horn...@my-deja.com
Hugh Dickson <hnl...@pixi.com> wrote:
> fr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > "Altered Evidence" is James Sanders' new book about his continuing
> > investigation into TWA 800. Below is the introduction which is
> > available for download at www.altered-evidence.com/altered-
evidence.htm
> > Gavin Phillips.
>
> throughout aircraft interiors for things like attaching velcro,
> as a wall paper paste, etc. Therefore you would expect
> to find "rocket fuel" residue throughtout ALL of the aircraft
> cabin?
>
> Whatta crock of SHIT! I only used 1357 for twenty
> years butt I might be wrong.
Hugh, some truths we hold to be self-evident (where'd I read that?) like
yours - and the government lying about TWA 800. Odd the stuff only made
a deposit where the MK 104 Motor went thru. :-) Stan
Bertie the Bunyip
>
>> Why do you think they ran from this forum.
>
>Well, I cannot speak for them, but I can surmise upon my
>own personal experience (did I thank you for asking?) that
>the absolute closed mindedness on the parts of those who
>seek scientific truth so dogmattically that they adamently
>ignore the obvious evidence of government coverup activities.
>
>In a word, boredom. Boredom of talking about all the evidence,
>not just the ones that agree with the government line. Like
>the MANY unusual behaviors of the government that NO ONE has
>made a compelling case for (not for one of them). Boredom.
Yeah, that must be it. What else could it be?
Bertie
Paul Gooding
horn...@my-deja.com wrote in message <824gor$9d4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
.
>
>I believe Jim is right; the evidence is overwhelming. But what do I
>know? I'll do whatever ADM Moorer tells me to. Subject to revision, of
>course. Stan
Apparently not oeverwhelming enough to convince any
signifigant chunk of the aviation community. Sorry,
thanks for playing. I'll look forward to his Egyptair
book.
Paul Gooding
horn...@my-deja.com wrote in message <824kpl$c8t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Paul, the official current position is that it is glue, not mud. I
>can't believe a UK type would question the official US truth. I still
>recommend sinking that little island as a public service.
Can't you get anything right? The only "official position"
I have ever seen is that is was "consistent with" the adhesive,
not that it "was" adhesive. Big difference. Without being
able to make these distinctions, you are just making noise.
No?
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>
>
>Well, I cannot speak for them, but I can surmise upon my
>own personal experience (did I thank you for asking?) that
>the absolute closed mindedness on the parts of those who
>seek scientific truth so dogmattically that they adamently
>ignore the obvious evidence of government coverup activities.
>
knock the messenger but we've been knocking your idiotic message for so long
here that I've finally lost it with you. Please, either open your eyes and see
the very obvious message of what happened to 800 or spout your crud on some
other ng. What a fool you must be to believe this 'shootdown' crap, surely to
god you don't go around your friends, and worse, your relatives spouting this
childish drivel do you?...shame shame...my god man, where's your common
sense?...what an absolute idiot you must be.
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada
Eugene Griessel
>
>> Why do you think they ran from this forum.
>
>Well, I cannot speak for them, but I can surmise upon my
>own personal experience (did I thank you for asking?) that
>the absolute closed mindedness on the parts of those who
>seek scientific truth so dogmattically that they adamently
>ignore the obvious evidence of government coverup activities.
Please, please, please, please - show us some of this "evidence".
Undisputed, provable, genuine, non-sucked out-of-the-thumb, plain,
unchallengable, stand-up-to-scrutiny, evidence. It would be so
deliciously refreshing. All we get is small-town gossip parading as
"obvious evidence". Most of it contradictory, purveyed by people who
have not a passing acquaintance with truth, fact or natural law.
Pretty please - just one piece?
Eugene L Griessel eug...@dynagen.co.za
Eugene Griessel
>In article <821h00$41h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ppgo...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>> In article <38441005...@news1.mweb.co.za>,
>> eug...@dynagen.co.za wrote:
>> > fr...@my-deja.com wrote:
Stan if you can't even get your headers right - not a single word I
have written exists in this post - why in hell should I believe your
fanatical burbling - something you have done here for years without
ever bringing any evidence whatsoever to the table to support it. You
might as well say you believe in pixies and have incontrovertible
proof they do - just we should not really ask for it. I've said it
before - and I say it again - you are nothing but a giant troll. You
would have to be to show the persistence you undoubtedly have.
Eugene Griessel
>He'll nail the navy on TWA 800. His only opposition are idiots like
>you. :-) Stan
Yea - I cannot wait. In 4 years all his done is create sturm und
drang in his own little sandbox. Taking in obvious suckers like you
who cannot distinguish between fact and fiction - and are willing to
ignore his obvious and provable errors with comments like "it does not
matter". Lemme tell you something - if a witness lies to the jury,
just once, the rest of that witnesses' evidence becomes of doubtful
value. Think about it. Sanders makes 7 statements on page 1 of his
original book that are obvious provable lies. Which means I did not
read beyond chapter 3 because if I want fantasy there are other
authors who do it a lot better and with more flair and elan.
KRC
On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 00:53:19 GMT, Greg <ciph...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> By the way, there's another book coming out in February by a former
>> CNN reporter.
>
>Let me guess. It is entitled: Why you should love your president and
>trust the government, no matter how many of you citizens they kill in
>cold blood. Ya, I thought so.
No, it's called "Greg is a Stupid Shit That Will Believe Anything
That Agrees With His Forgone Conclusions"... Give it up, man,
anything Sanders has to say should definitely be looked upon with a
jaundiced eye. His "investigative journalism" days were spent with
the tabloid show "Inside Edition" - a very credible news organization,
kind of like the Weekly World News. Yeah, I'd trust a guy whose
entire journalistic career consisted of searching through Brad Pitt's
trash for some sort of "story" or hiding in the bushes at Madonna's
house hoping to grab a few shots of her in her underwear - not that we
haven't seen enough of that already...
KRC
KRC
On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 22:15:21 GMT, Greg <ciph...@my-deja.com> wrote:
--cut--
>Well, I cannot speak for them, but I can surmise upon my
>own personal experience (did I thank you for asking?) that
>the absolute closed mindedness on the parts of those who
>seek scientific truth so dogmattically that they adamently
>ignore the obvious evidence of government coverup activities.
Nope, they were exposed for the fucking liars they are, and that was
too much for them. Guys like Rivero, Goddard, S%hne*der, Dipshit
Dave, etc. thrive on the attention they get from people buying their
snake oil. When they are asked for evidence of their assertions, they
have - without fail - run away and never try to back up their bullshit
accusations. You've been on this NG long enough that unless you are
really stupid, you would've notice this. Or, perhaps you don't want
to acknowledge the fact that the missile crowd cannot and will not
back up their assertions with evidence? Of course, the fact that
there is no evidence to back up their assertions could be a
hinderance... And speaking of putting up or shutting up - didn't I
ask you to cite some evidence of a cover-up?
>In a word, boredom. Boredom of talking about all the evidence,
>not just the ones that agree with the government line. Like
>the MANY unusual behaviors of the government that NO ONE has
>made a compelling case for (not for one of them). Boredom.
Cite, cite, and cite. I'm also recalling telling you to fuck off if
you could not cite any evidence of your accusations. The regulars
here have heard every goddamn conspiracy theory since July 17, 1996 -
sorry if we're a bit pissy when morons like you show up three years
after the fact and start spewing the same tired bullshit over and over
with no evidence to support it and no desire to even try and support
it. You're not telling us anything we have not heard before at least
100 times. You have been asked to cite evidence supporting your
opinion, and have consistently failed. I'll ask you once more to do
so, and if you cannot - leave this group and go huddle in the Y2K
bunker with Dipshit Dave, Randy, and all your other buddies.
KRC
KRC
On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 03:01:58 GMT, la...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <821ren$bq5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Greg <ciph...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
>> certain you are looking at the right elephant?
>>
>
>You mean like the lies Sanders continues to repeat
>concerning the warning area being active when the
>NOTAM in his own (first) book even shows that it
>wasn't?
And even the presence of the warning area isn't that important, IMO.
It wasn't something set up just on July 17, 1996 - W-107 is a
well-known area, and has been known to pilots for decades. Hell, I
have a 1966 Jeppesen chart of the northeast U.S. that clearly shows
W-107 off the Long Island coast. Pilots used to the area (like TWA
747 pilots, Greg) know that it's there and know when it's active and
when it's not. Sanders is full of shit - how about the "object" in
front of TWA 800's blip on the radar screen? Sanders claims it was a
missile when, in reality, it was the damn line linking the blip to
the aircraft's information on the radar. Sheesh, Greg, if you believe
Sanders you must also think the National Inquirer is the pinnacle of
American journalism.
KRC
KRC
On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 22:10:13 GMT, Greg <ciph...@my-deja.com> wrote:
--cut--
>No not me. The unusual actions of the navy divers imply
>that the possibility exists.
Oh, please, Greg - let's hear the "ten windows on the upper fuselage
proves that the wreckage was tampered with" angle - my loon mallet is
getting dusty. Or, even better, how about the Tarver "the airframes
were switched" arguement. Come on, let's hear it!
KRC
KRC
On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 16:35:14 -0600, CJS <cshi...@grEymills.com>
wrote:
--cut--
>Oh, God. Are we back on the theory (I'll be nice and
>call it that) that Navy divers were sorting out missile
>debris from the crash site?
I was hoping for the "ten windows" arguement, but the wreckage
sorting one is good as well.
KRC
Paul Gooding
horn...@my-deja.com wrote in message <824hjl$a4s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>PP, you can't find two balls within all of NTSB to rub together on TWA
>800. But, thanks for the entertainment.
Let's see, that would include the TWA people, the Boeing
people, the military people, the engine mfg people, the various
technicians, scientists and investigators, amongst the hundreds
of participants and all the parties ... no balls. Only you,
Stan, who uses "hornytown" as a handle, has the balls.
Yes, Stan, it's a powerful case you make. No reasonable
person could fail to see its powerful message. Namely,
that you are full of shit.
Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:
>Greg,
>The Toadies are shouting you down in unison.
>They know that you are on Glideslope.
>Their job is to assassinate the Truth.
Bwaaaaaawhawhawhawhawhawhahw!
Sometimes there's no runway at the end of a glideslope!
Bertie
Keith Willshaw
>> The key point, which Sanders et al flee from, is that it was confirmed
>> that Sanders had no "solid propellant residue". As far as can be told
>> from the elemental analysis, Sanders managed to get a sample of
>> seabed mud analysed.
>
>Paul, the official current position is that it is glue, not mud. I
>can't believe a UK type would question the official US truth. I still
>recommend sinking that little island as a public service.
>
WRONG
The Sample analysed by the Official lab was consistent with a type of
3m Glue used on the seats.
The results of Sanders analsys was consistent with sea floor mud.
But then he used the WRONG technique.
>> So where's Sanders' sample? Oh, it was destroyed? How convenient.
>
>His backup sample was given to 60 Minutes to test as a control. They
>gave it to the FBI without testing it. How convenient! There was only
>a ton of it left for the FBI to hide. :-) Hell, they even lost the
>dumpster they hid it in. I think it was left by a
>Thiokol MK 104 rocket motor, but what do I know?
>
Gee 60 minutes is such a well known laborartory too.
Their analytical skills are in wide demand the world over
>> I'm perfectly willing to listen to scientific evidence. The trouble
>is, I
>> get very little.
>
>I haven't seen any!
>
> Can you explain to me what Sanders' residue _was?_
>
Yes but more to the point I can tell you what it was NOT
It was NOT a residue of Aluminum Perchlorate Rocket Fuel
since it contained only traces of Aluminum , NO Chlorine
, No Oxygen and none of the binders that hold it together
<Rest of rubbish snipped>
Keith
Keith Willshaw
horn...@my-deja.com wrote in message <824l8l$cjp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <822jqv$kr6$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
>>
>> It's about science and engineering which I DO care about
>
>What an asshole! Stan
>
Stan's standard response to a post he can't refute
Keith
Keith Willshaw
Ron Hepler wrote in message
<05911346BACCB206.A4F61127...@lp.airnews.net>...
>Greg,
>The Toadies are shouting you down in unison.
>They know that you are on Glideslope.
>Their job is to assassinate the Truth.
>
>Ron
The only toadies around here are morons like you
worshipping the great god "Conspiracy".
Keith
Greg
> > > > > The wreckage is the elephant that won't leave the tent.
> > > > But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
> > > > certain you are looking at the right elephant?
> > > remains of the actual TWA 800 A/C.
> > No not me. The unusual actions of the navy divers imply
> > that the possibility exists.
> call it that) that Navy divers were sorting out missile
> debris from the crash site?
Get a grip. We have never left that issue. It was never
resolved. In my debate with Paul, for example, we stopped
the debate at the point of whether divers could see well
enough under water to identify hard evidence by visual
inspection. Paul firmly believed they could not and I
am convinced they could. I base my beliefs on my own
experiences under water and on those of divers I personally
know who dive regularly in the SF bay are which is some of
the merkiest water I know of.
--
The only vote that you waste is the one you never wanted to make.
RICO- we were told it was a necessary surrender of our civil liberties.
Asset Forfeiture- the latest inevitable result of RICO.
http://www.ciphermax.com/book
Greg
> >> but he is writing a story about a different case
> >> than the one represented by the wreckage.
> >Assuming you have all the wreckage in hand. Quit
> >being so damn sure of yourself, will you.
> Whereas you have... what? Eyewitnesses of dubious provenance,
> contradictory theories, and no tangible evidence?
>
> Prove that the "missile theory" is not actually the coverup,
> Greg. Why is your nebulous swirl of conspiracy worthy
> of less detailed scrutiny?
Such a theory fails to address or explain the government's actions.
Greg
> Greg - believe me when I tell you that these boys don't
> believe this shit for one minute. They know as well as
> Sanders what brought down F800... these boys have an
> agenda here on usenet to attack anyone who
> comes to bear the truth about F800.
But what of others who visit here?
Greg
> Those who START from the premise that the Guvmint did it
> ignore ALL evidence to the contrary and distort or plain make up
> evidence are the ones with closed minds
I keep telling you you must get a better keyboard!
> The compelling Case has been made
I think we went over this already, but I presume you simply
refuse to disagree with others.
Greg
> Once you play the "coverup" card, then all bets are off and _no_
> evidence can be trusted.
Of course. Your statement is obvious. But it does not negate
what I said or the fact that the 800 investigation is full of
coverup actions on the part of the government.
Greg
> >> Why do you think they ran from this forum.
> >
> >own personal experience (did I thank you for asking?) that
> >the absolute closed mindedness on the parts of those who
> >seek scientific truth so dogmattically that they adamently
> >ignore the obvious evidence of government coverup activities.
> >
> >not just the ones that agree with the government line. Like
> >the MANY unusual behaviors of the government that NO ONE has
> >made a compelling case for (not for one of them). Boredom.
>
Wrong answer- try again.
> The evidence that counts is the wreckage in the hangar.
But you cannot prove that it was all the evidence brought up.
> Unless you can successfully challenge either the legitmacy
> of that evidence,
The actions of the government have comprimised the evidence.
It's legitimacy does not need to be challenged any further.
In a court of law, this would lead many to reasonably doubt
the case being made based upon the evidence.
> You are the one who is close- minded.
I am the one who is open minded to factor into the investigation
the actions of the government. You refuse to do this. You
will take any lie that the government hands you as long as
they label it NTSB. Don't go calling me names now...
> You are the one who entered this newsgroup some
> weeks ago stating that you would not read the NTSB
> papers on the accident. How the hell do you argue that
> someone else is close-minded after doing that?
I have been asking myself the same about those who are closed
minded about the government actions as well. That is how I
came up with BOREDOM.
>
> Greg, you are nothing but a piece of shit troll. Begone,
> and go fuck yourself.
Oh, Paul, what I wrong in saying you were civil? Perhaps I
was a liar after all. But I cannot let go of the obvious facts
that are simply ignored by the "scientific" community at a.d.a.
Greg
> Please, please, please, please - show us some of this "evidence".
Do a power search (like I did) on 800.
Eugene Griessel
>What an asshole! Stan
But we all know you are an asshole Stan. The evidence is the heap of
ordure and flatus you have dumped on this newsgroup for some years
now. Not only are you an asshole, you are a severly diarrhoetic one
as well. So just FOAD.
Mike Schneider `
> Those who START from the premise that the Guvmint did it
> ignore ALL evidence to the contrary and distort or plain make up
> evidence are the ones with closed minds
Those who START from the premise that the Govmint didn't do it
ignore ALL evidence to the contrary and distort or plain make up
evidence are the ones with closed minds.
Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
"My favorite president is Washington, because he's been dead the longest."
-- Rob Robertson
FAILURE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST: http://www.swlink.com/~hoboh/
Mike Schneider `
WIllshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Mike Schneider ` <who...@crow.com> wrote in message
>
> > "Keith I-believe-the-CIA's-video Willshaw" wrote:
>
> First off the cheap crack is more a reflection of you than me
> The CIA video has NOTHING to do with the NTSB investigation
"The left hand has NOTHING to do with the right hand."
> It's a self seeking piece of PR Fluff intended to boost their image
> in the run up to budget time.
You saying you don't believe the CIA's video?
Out with it.
> > > Those who START from the premise that the Guvmint did it
> > > ignore ALL evidence to the contrary and distort or plain make up
> > > evidence are the ones with closed minds
> >
> > Those who START from the premise that the Govmint didn't do it
> > ignore ALL evidence to the contrary and distort or plain make up
> > evidence are the ones with closed minds.
>
> Show some evidence Mikey and we'll talk about it
What is your criteria for "evidence"?
Can their exist such a thing as "evidence", defined by you, which has
not had a government stamp of approval?
> The last crap you attempted to produce was your claim
> that Sanders sample was evidence of Aluminum perchlorate
> Rocket Fuel even though it contained only traces of Aluminum ,
> and NO Chlorine or Oxygen.
Wrong, bitch. You have me confused with someone else.
tew
> In article <825tsk$ts$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>, "Keith
> WIllshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Show some evidence Mikey and we'll talk about it
>
>
> What is your criteria for "evidence"?
>
> Can their exist such a thing as "evidence", defined by you, which has
> not had a government stamp of approval?
>
>
> > The last crap you attempted to produce was your claim
> > that Sanders sample was evidence of Aluminum perchlorate
> > Rocket Fuel even though it contained only traces of Aluminum ,
> > and NO Chlorine or Oxygen.
>
>
> Wrong, bitch. You have me confused with someone else.
>
>
I haven't seen anything remotely like evidence from your posts Mike. The
last time asked you for evidence (where is your evidence that a 747 without
a bnose would be ripped apart from the air pressure of the slipstream) you
were conspicuous in your absence.
So what is your take on TWA800 Mike? What do YOU think happened?
What do you think you government has lied about in this case?
Who stands to gain most out of casting doubt on the NTSB verdict?
I have a sort of pathetic grudging admiration for you Mike. You remind me of
a hopeless old man in a bar who keeps starting the same fight, keeps getting
the crap kicked out of him by the more sober patrons, but is too stupid to
stop fighting or to leave, so he keeps on getting back up, only to be
sparked out again before throwing one decent punch.
(Little hint on interpreting this metaphor - substitute facts for punches,
and sobriety for credibilty)
Bertie the Bunyip
Bertie
On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 09:13:48 -0600, who...@crow.com (Mike Schneider `)
wrote:
>In article <825tsk$ts$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>, "Keith
>WIllshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Schneider ` <who...@crow.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > "Keith I-believe-the-CIA's-video Willshaw" wrote:
>>
>> First off the cheap crack is more a reflection of you than me
>> The CIA video has NOTHING to do with the NTSB investigation
>
>
> "The left hand has NOTHING to do with the right hand."
>
>
>> It's a self seeking piece of PR Fluff intended to boost their image
>> in the run up to budget time.
>
>
> You saying you don't believe the CIA's video?
>
> Out with it.
>
>
>> > > Those who START from the premise that the Guvmint did it
>> > > ignore ALL evidence to the contrary and distort or plain make up
>> > > evidence are the ones with closed minds
>> >
>> > Those who START from the premise that the Govmint didn't do it
>> > ignore ALL evidence to the contrary and distort or plain make up
>> > evidence are the ones with closed minds.
>>
>> Show some evidence Mikey and we'll talk about it
>
>
> What is your criteria for "evidence"?
>
> Can their exist such a thing as "evidence", defined by you, which has
>not had a government stamp of approval?
>
>
>> The last crap you attempted to produce was your claim
>> that Sanders sample was evidence of Aluminum perchlorate
>> Rocket Fuel even though it contained only traces of Aluminum ,
>> and NO Chlorine or Oxygen.
>
>
> Wrong, bitch. You have me confused with someone else.
>
>
Ralph Nesbitt
Greg <ciph...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8246c1$20p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > > The wreckage is the elephant that won't leave the tent.
> > > But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
> > > certain you are looking at the right elephant?
>
> > Are you implying the remains exhibted by NTSB are not the
> > remains of the actual TWA 800 A/C.
>
> No not me. The unusual actions of the navy divers imply
> that the possibility exists.
>
-----------------------
And just what are these so called "Unusual Actions of the Navy Divers" you
allege/keep hinting at/aluding to? In detail and specifics please.
Ralph Nesbitt
Some one said: To those for whom the bell has rung, may it never ring again.
Ralph Nesbitt
Paul Gooding <paul.g...@gte.net> wrote in part in message
news:ogi14.852$US6....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>
> Greg, you are nothing but a piece of shit troll. Begone,
> and go fuck yourself.
-------
Instead of closing with directions for activities the troll may consider
pleasant/enjoyable; would you consider the following "A more appropriate
state for the troll to exist in".
"May you have but one more Sexual experience in your life time, this
experience to be a totaly Unsatisfying Failure."
Keith WIllshaw
> In article <825tsk$ts$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>, "Keith
> WIllshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> You saying you don't believe the CIA's video?
>
> Out with it.
>
>
Correct
>
>
> > The last crap you attempted to produce was your claim
> > that Sanders sample was evidence of Aluminum perchlorate
> > Rocket Fuel even though it contained only traces of Aluminum ,
> > and NO Chlorine or Oxygen.
>
>
> Wrong, bitch. You have me confused with someone else.
>
>
No Mikey there is no confusion in my mind about this
from www.deja.com
<start of quote>
Subject: Re: TWA 800 - The CIA Lied
Date: 1999/08/14
Author: Mike Schneider <ho...@screaminjesus.com>
To accomplish this, Stacey gave the samples to investigative journalist
James Sanders, who was investigating the downing of Flight 800 at the
request of his wife's co-workers at TWA, who were equally frustrated and
angered at the official obfuscations.
The results of the analysis done by West Coast Analytical revealed an
elemental composition consistent with the combustion products of an aluminum
and perchlorate solid fuel rocket engine. James Sanders, quoted in the
Riverside Press-Enterprise by reporter David Hendrix, broke the story of the
missile fuel.
<end of quote>
Keith
Keith WIllshaw
>
>
> > The compelling Case has been made
>
> I think we went over this already, but I presume you simply
> refuse to disagree with others.
>
>
No I simply refuse to ignore the facts
Keith
Eugene Griessel
>Get a grip. We have never left that issue. It was never
>resolved. In my debate with Paul, for example, we stopped
>the debate at the point of whether divers could see well
>enough under water to identify hard evidence by visual
>inspection. Paul firmly believed they could not and I
>am convinced they could. I base my beliefs on my own
>experiences under water and on those of divers I personally
>know who dive regularly in the SF bay are which is some of
>the merkiest water I know of.
Diving in 100 - 120 foot open waters is possibly a leetle more complex
than a 1 decompression dive out in the bay. It's also nice and cold
down there. Nope - I know many professional deep sea oil rig divers
and clearance divers - and they tell me it would be extremely
difficult to distinguish parts of a missile at those depths. These
are men with thousands of hours work at depths in excess of 100 feet -
and their experience ranges from the north sea through to the
antarctic. It's difficult enough distinguishing the parts of a
missile from those of a drone out on the test range, on land. You
have a small fragile item that's suffered an explosion - and usually
a fuel explosion too if there was any left. It then fell to the
ground further aiding disintegration. And water can be as hard as
earth when you hit it from 13000 feet.
If it was, as Our Prophet Donaldson claims - and he is an honest man,
a Stinger or variant thereof, the wrecakage would total a few pounds
at most - a lot of the weight of a missile is propellant - and I would
give a team of divers virtually no chance of finding the remains of
the missile or distinguishing bits of wreckage that look like they
have been hit by a missile from those that look like they have
suffered damage from an exploding fuel tank. Have you ever actually
seen any aircraft that have crashed? Twisted bits of aluminium
everywhere. You are trying to intimate that a few dozen navy divers
could, in the time available, sort the sheep from the goats - plus
raise all that wreckage. This demonstrates that you probably have
little actual experience of salvage diving.
This sort of thing only happens in the movies.
(My diving experience is many years behind and I never went deeper
than 90 feet, but I have, in a professional capacity spent a number of
hours below ship's hulls inspecting various engineering fittings. And
that's quite often hard enough!)
Keith WIllshaw
>
>
> Get a grip. We have never left that issue. It was never
> resolved. In my debate with Paul, for example, we stopped
> the debate at the point of whether divers could see well
> enough under water to identify hard evidence by visual
> inspection. Paul firmly believed they could not and I
> am convinced they could. I base my beliefs on my own
> experiences under water and on those of divers I personally
> know who dive regularly in the SF bay are which is some of
> the merkiest water I know of.
>
So lets get down to cases Greg
You presumably believe that the Evil Guvmint swapped
the pieces retrieved from the sea bed with bits they
had prepared especially for this occassion
How did they do this ?
Do they have secret hanger full of disassembled aircraft of various
types just in case ?
How did they get all those tons of material in situ ?
How did they match the torn edges of real wreckage with
the torn edges of fake wreckage ?
How did they handle the mismatch in the maintenance paperwork
with the part nos substituted ?
How many THOUSANDS of people would this coverup
include ?
How did they fake the radar records for several different
stations ?
How come an organisation this efficient couldn't silence
one talkative White House Intern ?
Keith
Paul Gooding
Greg wrote in message <8264r1$dun$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Get a grip. We have never left that issue. It was never
>resolved. In my debate with Paul, for example, we stopped
>the debate at the point of whether divers could see well
>enough under water to identify hard evidence by visual
>inspection. Paul firmly believed they could not and I
>am convinced they could. I base my beliefs on my own
>experiences under water and on those of divers I personally
>know who dive regularly in the SF bay are which is some of
>the merkiest water I know of.
Your proposed scenario is beyond a stretch, it is in the realm
of the bizarre. You are misrepresenting me. I probably agreed
that it is theorietically possible for the divers to do what you
suggest. I never agreed that it lived in the realm of reasonable
liklihood. Don't brush off this point ... it is crucial. Reasonableness
is what this is all about. It is not reasonable to conclude that
something theoretically possible, but unlikely and bizarre,
actually happened, unless there is some evidence that it did.
There is no such evidence. That line, between evidence and
conclusions on the one hand, and no evidence and speculation
on the other hand, is the line that separates us, and no other.
It is not about politics, philosophy, government, religion, whether
I like you or you like me. It is about reasonable conclusions based
on evidence. Without good, verifiable evidence that the divers
concealed or manipulated the wreckage, I cannot conclude that
they did and I cannot conclude that you are right.
You might disagree, but it is to your peril. You place yourself
in a nether-world of, to be frank, idiots and lunatics who will believe
anything. That's reality, whether you like it or not. And if you
continue to beat this dead horse, you are going to get scorn,
reproach and ridicule, which you deserve. Then if you continue,
you place yourself into the realm of the fanatic who won't shut up.
It's your choice, and it appears to me that you don't give much
of a damn, you just want to keep barking at the moon.
CJS
Greg wrote:
>
> > Once you play the "coverup" card, then all bets are off and _no_
> > evidence can be trusted.
>
> Of course. Your statement is obvious. But it does not negate
> what I said or the fact that the 800 investigation is full of
> coverup actions on the part of the government.
LIKE WHAT? You keep throwing out this phrase, yet you
never respond to the challenges to elucidate the
point. All we get is some nonsense about Navy divers.
...Craig
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly
useless information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by
people who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
CJS
horn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <822jiu$am5$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> > At this point Sanders lost ANY residual chance of impressing
> > the scientific and engineering community.
>
> He impressed the hell out of the real scientific and engineering
> community! Stan
Um, Stan, you mis-spelled "amused".
CJS
Greg wrote:
>
> > Please, please, please, please - show us some of this "evidence".
>
> Do a power search (like I did) on 800.
Bzzzzzzt.
Wimpout response.
Searching is fine to gain a broad perspective, but all
the "evidence" we've seen has been wild claims. Try
listing a few pieces of evidence here.
CJS
Greg wrote:
>
> > > > > > The wreckage is the elephant that won't leave the tent.
> > > > > But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
> > > > > certain you are looking at the right elephant?
> > > > Are you implying the remains exhibted by NTSB are not the
> > > > remains of the actual TWA 800 A/C.
> > > No not me. The unusual actions of the navy divers imply
> > > that the possibility exists.
> > Oh, God. Are we back on the theory (I'll be nice and
> > call it that) that Navy divers were sorting out missile
> > debris from the crash site?
>
> Get a grip. We have never left that issue. It was never
> resolved. In my debate with Paul, for example, we stopped
> the debate at the point of whether divers could see well
> enough under water to identify hard evidence by visual
> inspection. Paul firmly believed they could not and I
> am convinced they could. I base my beliefs on my own
> experiences under water and on those of divers I personally
> know who dive regularly in the SF bay are which is some of
> the merkiest water I know of.
Hmmm...How many scuba hours have you logged, Greg? Or
are you basing this on snorkling in the Holiday Inn
pool?
The point which we have made over and over and over and
over and over is that no one - trained SEAL or
otherwise - can tell missile damage from rupture
damage. It simply can't be done. The debris couldn't
be sorted visually at the surface, let alone in
bad-visibility water. Please explain how anyone could
have sorted the damage out? How does one determine
fracture causation without the proper equipment?
Hmmm???
CJS
Ron Hepler wrote:
>
> Greg,
> The Toadies are shouting you down in unison.
> They know that you are on Glideslope.
> Their job is to assassinate the Truth.
I think it was Mike Porter who, in a Harvard Business
Review article, coined the phrase "Glideslope to
Oblivion".
CJS
Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
>
> Greg <ciph...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8246c1$20p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > > > The wreckage is the elephant that won't leave the tent.
> > > > But with all the lies, how on earth can you be so damn
> > > > certain you are looking at the right elephant?
> >
> > > Are you implying the remains exhibted by NTSB are not the
> > > remains of the actual TWA 800 A/C.
> >
> > No not me. The unusual actions of the navy divers imply
> > that the possibility exists.
Well, gee, the performed fracture analysis on every
part in order to determine if the damage was caused by
a missile. If so, they hid the part and replaced it
with a fake. If not, they brought it to the surface.
It's easy.
Cheers...Craig
Eugene Griessel
>
>> Please, please, please, please - show us some of this "evidence".
>
>Do a power search (like I did) on 800.
I have been in on this discussion since July 96 - both here and on
sci.mil.naval. I have seen the 'evidence' as it evolved, I have
visited the websites as the happened. I still wait for any evidence
that will stand up in court. Not the rantings of a bunch of
disaffected people with a hidden agenda to hate the government, but
pure evidence that defies contradiction. Show me some. None exists -
and I will bet you a farm in Times Square on that one.
Joe Long
Mike Schneider ` wrote in message ...
>In article <825tsk$ts$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>, "Keith
>WIllshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Schneider ` <who...@crow.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> First off the cheap crack is more a reflection of you than me
>> The CIA video has NOTHING to do with the NTSB investigation
>
Oh, but yes it does... just as the near duplicate NTSB video does - both
were aimed at *discrediting eyewitness accounts* of what they saw that
fateful evening and neither was based on *all* of the facts at hand.
>
> "The left hand has NOTHING to do with the right hand."
Point well taken Mike. All parties are a part of the larger whole in the
investigation. It serves them well as it allows the powers that be to
spread many disinformation stories from supposed legitimate sources.
Here again the disinformation is aimed at the majority of the population
who would never look beyond their television or newspaper for what
happens in our country... they simply believe all they see on the tube
and the powers that be know this fact and rely upon it.
jgl
Paul J. Adam
deja.com> writes
>> The evidence that counts is the wreckage in the hangar.
>
>But you cannot prove that it was all the evidence brought up.
You cannot prove it is not, either. Unless you have something to back
up your assertions, that is all they are.
>> Unless you can successfully challenge either the legitmacy
>> of that evidence,
>
>The actions of the government have comprimised the evidence.
>It's legitimacy does not need to be challenged any further.
>In a court of law, this would lead many to reasonably doubt
>the case being made based upon the evidence.
Take it to court and see how far it gets. Make sure I get a copy of the
transcript, it should be great comedy.
You're the prosecution, Greg. You're the one making the allegations,
you're the one who needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
>> You are the one who is close- minded.
>
>I am the one who is open minded to factor into the investigation
>the actions of the government.
But not sufficiently open-minded to read the NTSB reports before
denouncing them as lies...
>But I cannot let go of the obvious facts
>that are simply ignored by the "scientific" community at a.d.a.
Such as?
Facts I like. Unsupported assertion I do not.
Just as an intellectual exercise, Greg, prove to me beyond all doubt
that Flight 800 was _not_ destroyed by an alien spacecraft and that
the Government are covering _that_ up. Anything you offer as proof,
can be discounted as "part of the coverup": any inconsistencies in my
case, likewise, are only because the government is covering it up.
It's an easy game and anyone can play.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Paul J. Adam
deja.com> writes
>> Please, please, please, please - show us some of this "evidence".
>
>Do a power search (like I did) on 800.
Ah, yes. Was this the "evidence" that proved Mike Rivero's "circling
supersonic SAM"?
The evidence that proved it was a long-range missile shot from the
USS Normandy?
The evidence of a Phoenix missile fired from a P-3 patrol aircraft?
The evidence that "proved" Jet-A is not flammable?
The evidence that showed beyond any doubt that a missile flew
through Flight 800's fuselage leaving a trail of top-secret fuel behind?
There have been so _many_ claims, Greg, and all of them so far have
been examined, and all of them have been found wanting. I didn't see
you helping to sort wheat from chaff. But, did we miss one? What
was it? Point us to the article, remind us, let us see.
John Mazor
>
(snip)
>
>I was really hoping Dr. George would jump in on this.
>He wrote a pretty good explanation of this some time ago.
Ask and ye shall receive... (Where have I heard that lately?)
(Apologies to Dr. B. for taking the liberty of reposting his material.
I held off a day in case you wanted to reply. Yell at me if you have
a problem with this, George.)
<BEGIN REPOSTING>
On 26 Jul 1998 17:43:25 -0700, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero)
wrote:
> In article <pOD+1aA+...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>,
> Paul J. Adam <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <6pfmsb$5fg$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, Michael Rivero
> ><riv...@accessone.com> writes
> >So, it remains the case that Sanders grabbed some fabric and got an
> >elemental analysis of "reddish residue" that bears a close
resemblance
> >to seabed sediment.
> >So what? All it proves is that his "reddish residue" _still_ isn't
> >rocket fuel of any known sort, and that he took no documented
> >precautions to prevent sediment contamination of his "samples".
> What it proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the government
lied
>when it said it's own tests proved that the reddish residue was glue.
Mr. Rivero has interesting standards for proof beyond a shadow of a
doubt.
> Subsequent tests proved that the glue (and for that matter the
>seawater from that area) did not match the elemental analysis of the
>red residue. Now we have a sworn affidavit from the very man the NTSB
>asked to test the reddish residue saying that the results atrributed
>to his tests by the Fire & Explosions Group are a misrepresentation.
Mr. Rivero apparently does not know the difference between seawater
and sediment. He is correct when he states that the "Sanders analysis"
does not watch the composition of seawater, but the comparison he
should be making is to sediment. He should find that the composition
of sediment matches the "Sanders analysis" acceptably well.
In previous post, Mr. Rivero quoted the sworn affidavit of
C.W.Bassett, "the very man the NTSB asked to test the reddish
residue." What he did not emphasize was that this sworn affidavit
appears to have been produced by Sanders' attorney as part of a
pretrial deposition. In such a procedure, Sanders' attorney will be
very careful to ask only questions where the response will tend to
cast doubt on the guilt of his client (if he doesn't Sanders should
get a new attorney). This type of affidavit is not designed to be a
dispassionate statement of "the whole truth;" as I understand it, if
the attorney doesn't raise an issue, it will not be addressed in the
affidavit. Note that Dr. Bassett never speaks to the issue of the
accuracy of the NTSB's representation of his results. I doubt that
it's at issue in the Sanders trial, and I suspect that if Basset had
addressed that issue it probably would have been unfavorable to
Sanders' case.
Here is the text of the affidavit, with some translations and
commentary:
>C.W. BASSETT, having been duly sworn, deposes and says:
> I am a chemist working for NASA, Kennedy Space Center (KSC),
Florida.
> In early 1997, Dr. Merritt Birky, in connection with the NTSB's
>investigation into the cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800
>forwarded to me residue samples identified as being removed from
>seats that were recovered from the airplane's wreckage.
> Dr. Birky requested that I compare the chemical composition of
>those samples to 3M Scotch-grip 1357 HP adhesive.
> This affidavit is submitted to provide a general synopsis, in
>layman's terms, of certain aspects of the laboratory analysis I
>conducted, and general observations regarding the conclusions
>that can and cannot be drawn from them.
> Particularly since this subject entails technical matters of a
>complex nature, this affidavit does not attempt to discuss the
>full scope of the testing or conclusions drawn from it.
Translation: this affidavit is not the whole story, it merely
addresses that facet of the story related to the Sanders' trial.
> The tests performed by me at NASA-KSC on samples Dr. Birky said
>were from rows 17, 19, 24 and 27 of the flight 800 cabin interior
>did not address the issue of origin of any reddish-orange
>residue. The tests I performed for the NTSB cannot answer such a
>question.
Translation: The test I performed was not sufficient to prove exactly
what the substance was.
However, the test performed by Dr. Bassett was sufficient to rule out
"rocket fuel" because the FT-IR spectrum did not match the spectrum
expected for rocket propellant. It was also sufficient to suggest that
the material _was consistent with_ some type of chloroprene adhesive
because the spectrum of the residue matched the spectrum of a control
sample of chloroprene adhesive reasonably well. Notice that Dr.
Bassett does _not_ say that NTSB misrepresented his results (my
supposition is that Sanders' lawyer didn't ask); he is stating the
limitations of the testing that was performed.
It was not crucial to the NTSB investigation to prove the origin of
the "reddish-brown material ." It was crucial for the test to
establish that the characteristics of the material did not match the
characteristics expected for rocket fuel. The test did that reasonably
well; it is not true that "the results attributed to his tests by the
Fire & Explosions Group are a misrepresentation."
> The tests conducted by me at NASA-KSC did not identify specific
>elements, by quantity, within the within the reddish-orange
>residue of the sample submitted to them by Mr. Sanders. At NASA,
>we used Fourier-Transform Infrared ("FT-IR") spectroscopy to
>analyze the reddish colored samples provided by the NTSB. Since
>FT-IR is specifically a technique used fore characterizing by
>functional groups the molecular structure of organic materials,
>we would not be able to corroborate the presence of elemental
>compounds other than by subjective context. FT-IR does not
>objectively identify elemental quantity within a sample, which
>would be a necessary first step in determining 3M Scotch-grip
>1357 adhesive is consistent with the other samples identified by
>specific elements.
> FT-IR analysis alone would not be my choice of tools to
>determine the presence of specific elements. To accurately
>identify, and to quantify, amounts of each constituent, one would
>need to employ a technique specifically designed to provide
>quantitative elemental analysis.
Translation: FT-IR could not say whether or not the material tested by
Dr. Bassett had the same elemental composition as reported by Sanders
in his book.
This is hardly a stunning revelation; I posted on the difference
between FT-IR and elemental analysis in late 1997. I also explained
why FT-IR was a better choice than elemental analysis for trying to
identify an organic material at that time.
> In the course of my testing, I observed the color of 3M
>Scotch-grip 1357 HP adhesive under different conditions. The
>adhesive, when cured, is dark green to olive drab in color.
>Depending on degrees and intervals of elevated temperatures, the
>adhesive progresses towards a darker shade of green and then to
>varying shades of brown, mostly very dark in either case. I did
>not achieve a red coloration during my analysis of the residue.
Translation: I cured the adhesive, and it was a different color from
the residue.
That still does not make the NTSB's statement a misrepresentation. Dr.
Bassett examined freshly cured samples; he did not age the glue by
having airline passengers sit on it for several years and then let it
sit under water on top of brick red sediments for a few weeks.
Conditions like that can change the color of an unsaturated organic
substance like polychloroprene. In any event, it was not that
important to prove what the material was; it was important to prove
what it was not, which the NTSB did reasonably well.
George
<END REPOSTING>
Paul J. Adam
writes
>In article <wtUINXAe...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>,>> The key point, which Sanders et al flee from, is that it was confirmed
>> that Sanders had no "solid propellant residue". As far as can be told
>> from the elemental analysis, Sanders managed to get a sample of
>> seabed mud analysed.
>
>Paul, the official current position is that it is glue, not mud. I
>can't believe a UK type would question the official US truth.
I'm just noddingly familiar with some chemical test techniques. The
NTSB used FT-IR spectroscopy, a precise and accurate method.
Sanders used a crude elemental analysis that appears to have
registered only sediment contaminating the seat sample.
One thing's clear and certain: Sanders doesn't have rocket fuel there.
> I still
>recommend sinking that little island as a public service.
Aw, gee, Stan, and I thought we were friends :(
>> So where's Sanders' sample? Oh, it was destroyed? How convenient.
>
>His backup sample was given to 60 Minutes to test as a control. They
>gave it to the FBI without testing it. How convenient!
So 60 Minutes are in on the conspiracy too? Boy, this spreads wider by
the day.
>There was only
>a ton of it left for the FBI to hide. :-) Hell, they even lost the
>dumpster they hid it in. I think it was left by a
>Thiokol MK 104 rocket motor, but what do I know?
Too big for a Stinger, which is the current theory du jour.
> Can you explain to me what Sanders' residue _was?_
As far as can be told, it was mud.
>> Personally I think he's one of the best things the coverup could hope
>> for.
>
>I disagree.
Why? He's spewing forth such provable nonsense that he discredits
any _real_ investigation. A couple of high-profile oddballs muddy the
waters enough and you can hide all sorts of wrongdoing.
>> Which apparently passed through the cabin.
>
>Under it, according to the book.
So how did the seabed sediment - I mean, rocket fuel residue - get
into the cabin?
> It must have done, to
>> leave a trail of seabed mud^H^H^H^H rocket fuel residue. How,
>> though, could it cause the catastrophic destruction of the aircraft by
>> doing this? Aircraft have survived far worse and come home.
>
>Personally, I feel the bullet would've done the dirty deed. I don't
>recall a 747 surviving an intert standard before.
Far smaller aircraft have survived hits by dud missiles and even by
exploding warshots. Airliners have survived massive structural failures
in flight. But an inert missile passing through the cabin is supposed to
cause the instant and catastrophic destruction of the aircraft?
Nope, sorry, no sale so far.
Paul J. Adam
deja.com writes
>In article <8215mp$8...@mail.bcpl.net>,
> l...@mail.bcpl.net (Laurence Doering) wrote:
>> So, um, has Sanders learned how to properly convert between Greenwich
>> Mean Time and Eastern Daylight Time for his new book, or does he
>> still think EDT is GMT+5?
>
>He'll nail the navy on TWA 800. His only opposition are idiots like
>you. :-)
We've stopped his line of bovine excrement cold for years, looks like
the idiots ain't such idiots...
Paul J. Adam
writes
>In article <822jiu$am5$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> Moreover Sanders et al then asked if the test results were
>> consistent with his own botched test.
>
>Botched? I feel he did the best he could.
No, he didn't, Stan.
>He gave it to 60 Minutes to
>confirm.
That well-known analytical laboratory?
>> Since his test wasn an elemental analysis and the NTSB test
>> used Chromatography its like asking is the weight of this sample blue
>
>Bullshit.
Stan, please, don't go confirming your ignorance. Sanders used basic
elemental analysis on a contaminated sample and registered nothing
more alarming than seabed mud. The NTSB used FT-IR spectroscopy, a
much more appropriate (and, incidentally, nondestructive) test.
To give a toolbox example, Sanders tried to pound in a bolt with a
hammer: the NTSB used a spanner.
>> At this point Sanders lost ANY residual chance of impressing
>> the scientific and engineering community.
>
>He impressed the hell out of the real scientific and engineering
>community!
Only in the sense of "how can anyone go into print with something
_that_ stupid?"
John Mazor
(snip)
>The actions of the government have comprimised the evidence.
>It's legitimacy does not need to be challenged any further.
>In a court of law, this would lead many to reasonably doubt
>the case being made based upon the evidence.
This isn't a trial, dingbat. It's an accident investigation. Apples
and bicycles.
(snip)
>Oh, Paul, what I wrong in saying you were civil? Perhaps I
>was a liar after all. But I cannot let go of the obvious facts
>that are simply ignored by the "scientific" community at a.d.a.
Not ignored. Reviewed and dismissed. Major difference. Do you not
understand that, either?
Keith Willshaw
Joe Long wrote in message ...
>
>
>Oh, but yes it does... just as the near duplicate NTSB video does - both
>were aimed at *discrediting eyewitness accounts* of what they saw that
>fateful evening and neither was based on *all* of the facts at hand.
>
They were attempts at explaining the eyewitness reports.
This was a pointles attempt
Firstly the eyewitness reports are conflicting
Secondly and most importantly they are essentially irrelevant
The wreckage tells the story
A Plane hit by a missile is full of high velocity holes. After
all that's how missile work. The shrapnel from the blast
fragmentation warhead puches holes through the plane
damaging the airframe and wrecking vital systems.
Those tell tale holes ARENT THERE.
What is there is a hole ripped out wards from the Centre
Well tank , damaged structural members around the tank.
That tank turns out to have been full of HOT (more than 140 F)
kerosene vapor.
It don't need Sherlock Holmes to work out what happened.
Why you guys are so keen to get Boeing off the hook I don't
know especially as it has now been revealed they KNEW about
this hazard and fitted suppression systems to the centre
well tank of military 747's after discovering the problem
in an internal hazard study. A hazard study they CONCEALED
from the NTSB
Goddammit there's a real conspiracy out there and you
idiots are chasing wild geese.
Keith
Paul J. Adam
deja.com> writes
>Get a grip. We have never left that issue. It was never
>resolved. In my debate with Paul, for example, we stopped
>the debate at the point of whether divers could see well
>enough under water to identify hard evidence by visual
>inspection. Paul firmly believed they could not and I
>am convinced they could. I base my beliefs on my own
>experiences under water and on those of divers I personally
>know who dive regularly in the SF bay are which is some of
>the merkiest water I know of.
Do they do microscopic fracture analysis while they're down there,
Greg?
FWIW a colleague was diving fairly recently on HMS Hood (the 1893
pre-dreadnought, not the later battlecruiser) in Poole harbour. They
encountered another wreck which they were unable to identify. They
found what might have been a nameplate on the bow, but visibility
was too bad to allow it to be read.
And we're meant to believe that divers can analyse the fracture
patterns on torn metal edges in those conditions? Please, Greg, if you
believe that then I have some national monuments for sale, low
price, buyer to collect.
John Mazor
<826gkj$obt$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>...
>
(snip)
>
>Goddammit there's a real conspiracy out there and you
>idiots are chasing wild geese.
Ducks, Keith. I think the official a.d.a. Bird of the Week is a duck,
as in "walks like, quacks like." Check with D._A._Ling for details.
Paul J. Adam
p.airnews.net>, Ron Hepler <rhe...@airmail.net> writes
>Greg,
>The Toadies are shouting you down in unison.
>They know that you are on Glideslope.
>Their job is to assassinate the Truth.
Tell you what, Ron - try telling the world that L. Ron Hubbard is the
President of the United States of America.
You can find out easily that he isn't, but that's because there's a huge
conspiracy against him.
You can even find claims he's _dead_, but that's also a conspiracy and
a lie.
Anyone can make a claim. Fewer can back it and defend it. And
_that_ is the test.
>Keep on Thinking Free.
Start thinking, full stop.
It's easy and comfortable to swallow whatever conspiracy theory is
popular this week. It's hard work to go look in a book and actually
_research_ and check for yourself.
But believe me, the hard work is worthwhile. Usually you find the
conspiracy theorists are full of shit. But maybe one day you'll find that
they're right.
Could happen.
The best defence any coverup has against that... is a love of
ignorance.
Mike Schneider `
WIllshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Mike Schneider ` <who...@crow.com> wrote in message
> >
> > You saying you don't believe the CIA's video?
>
> Correct
I gather, then, that you must reject (necessarily, if you don't believe
the video) the government's attempt to explain away rising motion of a
bright object as, instead of the missile over a hundred eyewitness
suggest, a noseless burning aircraft climbing thousands of feet.
So what's your explanation to account for rising motion of a bright
object, and what facts is your explanation based upon?
Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
"My favorite president is Washington, because he's been dead the longest."
-- Rob Robertson
FAILURE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST: http://www.swlink.com/~hoboh/
Mike Schneider `
wrote:
> Greg wrote:
> >
> > > Once you play the "coverup" card, then all bets are off and _no_
> > > evidence can be trusted.
> >
> > Of course. Your statement is obvious. But it does not negate
> > what I said or the fact that the 800 investigation is full of
> > coverup actions on the part of the government.
>
> LIKE WHAT? You keep throwing out this phrase, yet you
> never respond to the challenges to elucidate the point.
The lawsuit.
Don't pretend you don't know what I'm referring to.