20150819 - Bill Birnes and Jim Sanders - Live Chat Thread

[Uncle Duke]

I have not looked at the video yet.  I heard it described and it does not sound like it will have any impact. I did a lot  of research on this myself all those years ago, like I have done with all potential conspiracies against the American people since the early 1980's.  I was fairly certain it was a U.S. Navy missile pretty much since it happened.  There is no way to prove the video one way or the other.  Folks can argue amongst themselves over the video, but it's all pointless to me.  There were so many witnesses on the news the day it happened clearly saying they saw a missile.  The next day the missile story was almost completely dead in the mainstream news. It was if someone turned a switch.  After all we heard the first day about a missile it made no sense the MSM would suddenly place the subject off limits unless they were ordered to do so.  Combine that with the story my brother-in-law told me, that he and a friend both saw the missile and the explosion of the plane. They contacted the FBI and the FBI could not have cared less.  I briefly considered it might have been a terrorist attack, but if it had been I am certain they would have said so. At the time the government was looking for reasons to blame terrorist for anything. Also, as I recall, not one terrorist group ever claimed responsibility, which is something they would most certainly do. It was clear from many reports early on that the FBI had the planes debris under strict quarantine. There were numerous reports they would not let anyone official look at it. We also quickly learned that there was a large Navy exercise off the coast of Montauk the same day.

On the subject of the Navy exercises in the area. There are many stupid comments here about a lone Navy Sub, as if that was the only Navy vessel in the area. I'll get back to the sub.  The fact is that the U.S. Navy was holding a large exercise that remains a secret to this day.  What we do know about the exercise is that at about the same time that TWA-800 was taking off, a few miles away from the crash site an area of 8,000 square miles had just been designated as off-limits for the exercise. TWA-800 was just two minutes or so from flying into that off limits area when it was shot down.   The only other thing we know about the exercise is that aircraft, ships, and at least one submarine was involved. the rest is secret.  I remember reading a post from a sailor (claimed) who said they were using drones in the exercise that night.  This would imply the possibility of missile testing.  I also recall a very solid news story reported by a Southampton (Long Island) newspaper in which they reported that a local resident had received a fax intended for the FBI office.  The residents fax number was nearly identical to the FBI's fax number.  The fax indicated the FBI was researching whether some of the debris found was part of a common Navy aerial  drone used for target practice.  This is something I am sure you can find online.  If not, message me and I am sure I can find it in my archives.

OK, more about the submarine. You should read this more recent story about a Naval Academy graduate who claims to have a White House source that witnessed the Navy shoot down TWA-800 from the White House situation room of all places. He said they were monitoring an advanced missile test taking place in the Atlantic off the coast of Long Island.  Believe it or not, he says they were watching a secret missile test for a new submarine based anti-aircraft missile for use in Seawolf class submarines.  He said that once fired there was no longer any control of the missile. Go to the following link and read the rest. It sounds damned incriminating to me. http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-u-s-navy-coming-clean-on-twa-800/

There is no smoking gun that proves what happened.  I am certain it was a missile. For reasons stated I think the Navy missile is a much better fit than the terrorist missile.  It was not hard to put the pieces together.  To me there was very little doubt about what happened, even before the recent sub missile story and Art's show last night.

What I find most baffling is just how difficult it is for many people to accept that their own government and institutions like the MSM could so blatantly lie to them and not have their best interest at heart.  I have seen some people dealing with other 'conspiracies' who had finally realized they had been lied to, and then weeks later they had done a complete flip and denied everything they understood prior.  It is just too horrible for many people to accept that very bad people control theirs and their country's destiny.  If these people ever realize that TWA-800 is only the tiniest tip of a massive iceberg they are going to be in for a shock. Most haven't got a clue about the reality they live in.  Even many who consider themselves 'conspiracy theorists' and who are largely open to reality are in for a shock if and when they realize the scope of the lies.

Interesting couple of posts.  We can compare experience and disagree/debate until the cows come home, but one thing I know for sure, there was no SAM system capable of underwater launch, top secret or otherwise, on the Seawolf or any other USN submarine.  My source is a classmate and close friend of forty years who was a senior weapons integration engineer at Electric Boat who worked on every sub program the company had for over thirty years.  After hearing Sanders make this claim a few years back, I asked him point blank about such a system having existed and got an immediate and resounding "No".  Now had such a missile system existed, my friend would have simply told me he couldn't talk about it and that would have been the end of the conversation.  No disrespect to you, but I trust someone I've long known and respected over an anonymous source cited in an article from a fringe news organization's website.

I am glad I read the article, however, as it does clear up at least one of Sanders' iterative versions of what happened to Flt 800.  Appears to me he bought Cashill's "graduate" story hook, line, and sinker.  Timing is just about right as well, I heard him make the claim no more than a couple years ago on C2C, and the WND article was from 2013.  Would still like to know what happened to the suicide biz jet full of terrorists, the original story Sanders told involving a USN shoot down.

We do agree the a/c was taken out by a missile, but I think it was a MANPAD fired by terrorists.  It's happened both before and after TWA 800, so we know such weapons have been accessible to terrorists.  I also believe the cover-up was more for economic, as opposed to strictly political, reasons.  I think the feeling was if the truth was revealed, the airline industry would have all but folded and taken the economy with it.  9/11 showed such fears were not totally unfounded.

[DanTSX]

I may be wrong, but to my knowledge the US military DOES NOT have any lethal system,  rocket, missile, gun, tank, drone, artillery,  sub based missile or any other type of weapon that fires without the final "fire" command coming from a human and without a human input and approval to fire. Even new systems this is a no change game ender for all weapons approvals. There is nothing fire and forget without a live person "pushing the button."

CWIS will fire without human input depending on the mode.

You won't cause it to fire unless you are an incoming missile though.

[DanTSX]

Interesting couple of posts.  We can compare experience and disagree/debate until the cows come home, but one thing I know for sure, there was no SAM system capable of underwater launch, top secret or otherwise, on the Seawolf or any other USN submarine.  My source is a classmate and close friend of forty years who was a senior weapons integration engineer at Electric Boat who worked on every sub program the company had for over thirty years.  After hearing Sanders make this claim a few years back, I asked him point blank about such a system having existed and got an immediate and resounding "No".  Now had such a missile system existed, my friend would have simply told me he couldn't talk about it and that would have been the end of the conversation.  No disrespect to you, but I trust someone I've long known and respected over an anonymous source cited in an article from a fringe news organization's website.

I am glad I read the article, however, as it does clear up at least one of Sanders' iterative versions of what happened to Flt 800.  Appears to me he bought Cashill's "graduate" story hook, line, and sinker.  Timing is just about right as well, I heard him make the claim no more than a couple years ago on C2C, and the WND article was from 2013.  Would still like to know what happened to the suicide biz jet full of terrorists, the original story Sanders told involving a USN shoot down.

We do agree the a/c was taken out by a missile, but I think it was a MANPAD fired by terrorists.  It's happened both before and after TWA 800, so we know such weapons have been accessible to terrorists.  I also believe the cover-up was more for economic, as opposed to strictly political, reasons.  I think the feeling was if the truth was revealed, the airline industry would have all but folded and taken the economy with it.  9/11 showed such fears were not totally unfounded.

Pretty sure Seawolf was still in General Dynamics dry dock at the time....

I was on LI sound via New London Harbor that day (passing right by GD's big green assembly hall and docks).  I can't remember what subs were in at the time exactly, up but I don't think Seawolf launched until after that. 


No US sub can launch anti air missiles while submerged.  I think some israeli subs have that capability from shallow depths, but only at low targets like a snooping helicopter.

[GravitySucks]

cause NCIS wouldnt give Ziva back

s
eaxctly

[Mebee]

I have not looked at the video yet.  I heard it described and it does not sound like it will have any impact. I did a lot  of research on this myself all those years ago, like I have done with all potential conspiracies against the American people since the early 1980's.  I was fairly certain it was a U.S. Navy missile pretty much since it happened.  There is no way to prove the video one way or the other.  Folks can argue amongst themselves over the video, but it's all pointless to me.  There were so many witnesses on the news the day it happened clearly saying they saw a missile.

(snip)

I think the video goes a long way toward showing the type of "evidence" utilized by those who's agenda it is to promote their own conspiracy theory. It doesn't appear to show, AT ALL, what they say and think it obviously shows. Telling, that.

[Mebee]

ArJuna, this is very well thought out and wise.  The video is very much secondary and periphreal to the TWA-800 story and the larger picture beyond that.

Art's guests promoted that vid as being absolutely central and apparently the best evidence available. As someone else said, I think it's only evidence of the conspiracy industry in action. Having personally taken the time to look into a couple of major conspiracy theories over the years, those being "Planet X" and "Chemtrails", I have come to know just how utterly replete with stanky crapola and devoid of all factual reality they can be.

[indigoo]

Have you ever heard a Bill and Nancy show?  That's kind of how it works, even when they're sitting 'round the kitchen table, as I imagine.  This was largely a guest-specific issue.  But I like hearing them in spite of it.

I've heard so many podcasts with multiple chairs, and eventually, I dropped the ones where people just didn't GET IT. It is extremely frustrating and people on podcasts do it so frequently. It's different with Art because of the 'format' so to speak, but having two guests on at once is just a bit too much. I feel it kills the flow. GIS show is sounding a lot better in this regard...

[ArJuna]

Art's guests promoted that vid as being absolutely central and apparently the best evidence available. As someone else said, I think it's only evidence of the conspiracy industry in action. Having personally taken the time to look into a couple of major conspiracy theories over the years, those being "Planet X" and "Chemtrails", I have come to know just how utterly replete with stanky crapola and devoid of all factual reality they can be.

Chemtrails, devoid of all factual reality???  Are you being serious?

In 1994 an old friend from high school called me me after doing some lab testing on a residue he saw deposited on cars and other surfaces after these planes flew overhead with trails that we all clearly agreed and knew were NOT contrails.  We had each been noticing these new phenomena for a few years. He in Florida, and me in Virginia  I  spent an enormous amount of time in the wilderness in the 70's and 80's.  I absolutely knew I was seeing something new in the sky.  My friend was the first person who tuned me in to barium sulphate and other toxic metals/salts seemingly coming from these strange trails/clouds.

A couple years ago I was sitting on the throne and I picked up my wife's Harvard magazine and read the following article.  It spells out exactly what we have been seeing in the chemtrails. http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/07/buffering-the-sun

If you think the sky has always appeared the way it does today, rarely ever as blue as it used to be, very rarely ever as clear as it used to be, then I feel sad for you.  It used to be a more beautiful sky.  This layer of clouds that clearly forms in the wake of these jets spraying the sky is not a normal thing. We never saw these before about 1990. 

Again, since 1975 I've been an avid mountaineer, backpacker, camper, kayaker, amateur astronomer, and I was a Navy Air Search Radar Electronics Engineer.  I spent a lot of time looking at the sky.  To me contrails and chemtrails are very, very different. I never could comprehend how anyone did not see the distinction clearly.

The samples taken from chemtrail spraying contain toxic metals in the form of nano-sized particles. This means they are so small they have no trouble crossing the blood-brain barrier in the body. They are easily absorbed.  These metals/salts are known to effectively suppress the immune system.  One of the more interesting claims about the effects on mammals, including ourselves, is that these organic phosphates react with proteins producing prions.  Of course these self-propagating infections cause BSE "mad cow" in cows, and the Human form CJD.  It seems we're maybe being intentionally poisoned from the sky. 

They are real. On this fact I see no room for argument.  What we need to be doing is starting a public debate to find out who is doing it and why.  That anyone can begin spraying anything on us, let alone toxins without our having any say in the matter is another clear example of an out of control government. In other words. a tyranny.

If I were you I would reconsider my position on this subject.  I couldn't understand how anyone did not see the difference between contrails and chemtrails 20+ years ago, but today I can see how younger people might have a problem since the sky has always been like this for them. I can tell you with the greatest confidence you are wrong in your assessment on this matter.

[Mebee]

Chemtrails, devoid of all factual reality???  Are you being serious?

Quite

In 1994 an old friend from high school called me me after doing some lab testing on a residue he saw deposited on cars and other surfaces after these planes flew overhead with trails that we all clearly agreed and knew were NOT contrails. 

1) You and your friend's "clear agreement" is not valid evidence that what you saw were not normal contrails.
2) Nothing being "sprayed" from planes at some 30,000 feet overhead would have reached the sky anywhere near where you were standing, due to normal atmospheric winds. Therefor, what you found "deposited on cars" was not related to the planes you saw. Your failure to understand that is most telling. Your comment is a good example of the fallacies driving people's belief in "chemtrails".

We had each been noticing these new phenomena for a few years.

There is nothing "new" about persistent contrails, other than their frequency, driven by a massive increase in commercial aviation, higher flight altitudes and the advent of more efficient jet engines.

I absolutely knew I was seeing something new in the sky.

Based on what? Your "knowing-ness" is not evidence.

  My friend was the first person who tuned me in to barium sulphate and other toxic metals/salts seemingly coming from these strange trails/clouds.

"Seemingly coming" from the trails, because? What was supposedly "strange" about the clouds?

A couple years ago I was sitting on the throne and I picked up my wife's Harvard magazine and read the following article.  It spells out exactly what we have been seeing in the chemtrails. http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/07/buffering-the-sun

Sorry? 'Seeing"? You can "SEE" chemicals in trails in the sky? Somehow I doubt that. You are jumping to wild conclusions.

If you think the sky has always appeared the way it does today, rarely ever as blue as it used to be, very rarely ever as clear as it used to be, then I feel sad for you. 

I see clear blue skies all the time. See here: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-sky-was-bluer.t494/

It used to be a more beautiful sky.  This layer of clouds that clearly forms in the wake of these jets spraying the sky is not a normal thing. We never saw these before about 1990. 

Absolutely false. "Contrail cirrus" is not new. Just because YOU didn't notice something, doesn't mean it didn't exist. The same conditions which are conducive for contrail formation are those which preceed weather fronts and are conducive to cirrus cloud formation. Contrails ARE cirrus clouds and can persist and spread when conditions are right. This has not changed over the decades.

  To me contrails and chemtrails are very, very different. I never could comprehend how anyone did not see the distinction clearly.

Describe the supposed difference. Your lack of comprehension is not evidence.

The samples taken from chemtrail spraying contain toxic metals in the form of nano-sized particles.

Sorry? When were samples taken directly from a trail which showed that? Citation please. Your lack of supplying this will be an admission that none exists, which is actually the case. NO such test results from tests of actual trails exist, yet you believe they do. Telling, that.

This means they are so small they have no trouble crossing the blood-brain barrier in the body. They are easily absorbed.  These metals/salts are known to effectively suppress the immune system.  One of the more interesting claims about the effects on mammals, including ourselves, is that these organic phosphates react with proteins producing prions.  Of course these self-propagating infections cause BSE "mad cow" in cows, and the Human form CJD.  It seems we're maybe being intentionally poisoned from the sky. 

Have any evidence to support any of that? I know.... you are going to quote people like Russel Blaylock. First, you might go back and support your claim that such things were found in the trails we see in the sky. Since you can't DO that, your subsequent claims about their effects are, well... moot.

They are real. On this fact I see no room for argument.

Right.... who can possibly argue with that? Oh wait... see above.

What we need to be doing is starting a public debate to find out who is doing it and why. 

Ahem.... you failed to prove that it IS happening, nor has anyone else... EVER. Again... where and when was this in-situ testing done? You forgot to say.

That anyone can begin spraying anything on us, let alone toxins without our having any say in the matter is another clear example of an out of control government. In other words. a tyranny.

See above. You are claiming such exists based solely on your personal opinion that the sky and clouds look, er.... wrong.

If I were you I would reconsider my position on this subject.

Based on what? You have provided absolutely nothing which would lead me to do that.

I couldn't understand how anyone did not see the difference between contrails and chemtrails 20+ years ago, but today I can see how younger people might have a problem since the sky has always been like this for them. I can tell you with the greatest confidence you are wrong in your assessment on this matter.

I am not "younger people". Your confidence is based on the usual litany of false notions touted by chemtrail believers.... yawn. Sorry, but your confidence is not evidence. Kindly take time to answer the points and questions posed above.

[ZomZom]

I've heard so many podcasts with multiple chairs, and eventually, I dropped the ones where people just didn't GET IT. It is extremely frustrating and people on podcasts do it so frequently. It's different with Art because of the 'format' so to speak, but having two guests on at once is just a bit too much. I feel it kills the flow. GIS show is sounding a lot better in this regard...

I think the heart of the problem is a technical one.  Not all connections allow full duplex and are instead half duplex, meaning you can't hear what is being said by the other person while you talk.

[nika01]

Quite

Thank god there are other rational human beings taking apart these ridiculous claims. Well done Mebee. I never understood how anyone could be ignorant enough to believe the whole chemtrail nonsense.

[Mebee]

Thank god there are other rational human beings taking apart these ridiculous claims. Well done Mebee. I never understood how anyone could be ignorant enough to believe the whole chemtrail nonsense.

Confirmation bias driven by a deep, abiding belief in conspiracy.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Confirmation bias driven by a deep, abiding belief in conspiracy.

Thanks Mebee.  I was going to respond to the chemtrail poster, but my attempts to address this subject in the past have only been met with contempt.  You've done a far better job of challenging the lack of real evidence point by point than I could have.

[epieye]

Maybe, but I know what I saw.

[Mebee]

Maybe, but I know what I saw.

Heh. Last retreat of chemtrail believers. Ignore all facts and science and claim that basically just because you can SEE them, they are "chemtrails".

I noted a typo in my long post I said that something "sprayed" at some 30,000 feet overhead would not reach the "sky" anywhere near where he was standing. Of course, I meant reach the GROUND anywhere near where he was standing. It is a common fallacy of chemtrail believers to say that they felt the effects on a "heavy spray day" from planes they saw but, as I stated, nothing originating from planes at contrail altitudes could possibly have reached the ground within several hundred miles.

[Mebee]

Thanks Mebee.  I was going to respond to the chemtrail poster, but my attempts to address this subject in the past have only been met with contempt.  You've done a far better job of challenging the lack of real evidence point by point than I could have.

Such attempts are usually only meant with contempt, but it's not for the 'true believers' that I go to the trouble. They are generally a lost cause. It's for those who are on the fence or seeing 'chemmie' propaganda for the first time that I take time point out the many, many fallacies in their story.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Such attempts are usually only meant with contempt, but it's not for the 'true believers' that I go to the trouble. They are generally a lost cause. It's for those who are on the fence or seeing 'chemmie' propaganda for the first time that I take time point out the many, many fallacies in their story.

Heh.  I grew up watching the skies in throughout the 70s and 80s, pursued pilot training in the armed forces (although didn't make the cut), and studied mechanical engineering with my area of interest being fluid dynamics and particularly gas-turbine engines.  I have to bite my tongue a little when I see discussions on chemtrails, but I'm still not effective at addressing impassioned views on the subject.  I really think it's a gift to be able to speak objectively and convincingly when someone gives a list of strongly-stated subjective arguments.

[Mebee]

Heh.  I grew up watching the skies in throughout the 70s and 80s, pursued pilot training in the armed forces (although didn't make the cut), and studied mechanical engineering with my area of interest being fluid dynamics and particularly gas-turbine engines.  I have to bite my tongue a little when I see discussions on chemtrails, but I'm still not effective at addressing impassioned views on the subject.  I really think it's a gift to be able to speak objectively and convincingly when someone gives a list of strongly-stated subjective arguments.

You have to know what their arguments are, and how they morph over time and contradict each other. You have to know details like that, originating with claims by Russ Tanner and then spread wide via Dane Wigington, they mostly all now believe that modern jet engines can't produce contrails. What can you say to an absurd claim like that? contrailscience.com is helpfull for earlier stuff and metabunk.org tries to keep up with the latest malarkey. Here's a thread on the high bypass engines claim:  https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-high-bypass-turbofans-do-not-make-contrails-actually-they-make-more.t3187/

[Uncle Duke]

Such attempts are usually only meant with contempt, but it's not for the 'true believers' that I go to the trouble. They are generally a lost cause. It's for those who are on the fence or seeing 'chemmie' propaganda for the first time that I take time point out the many, many fallacies in their story.

Welcome to the club, but you're not a full fledged member until some of the lunatic fringe types here accuse you of being a black ops plant or disinformation agent for the military industrial complex.  My efforts along those lines have dealt primarily with military related topics and UFOs.

I usually don't deal with the chemtrail crowd, but several years ago I happened to be listening to a local radio talk show featuring a guest ranting about chemtrails.  He offered proof of the spraying in the form of a photo on his website he claimed had been given to him by an anonymous "insider" turned patriotic whistleblower.  Hearing his description of the photo I was pretty sure all he had was a picture of an airliner jettisoning fuel in flight.  This I easily confirmed by going to his site and looking at the photo.  I called the show to identify what was taking place in the photo and explain landing weights and fuel dumping, but was immediately branded as "one of them" and sent packing.  The best part was the guest then explaining he was quite familiar with commercial aviation, he was a very high air milage member of several airline frequent flier programs and he'd never seen an airliner dump fuel.  The host agreed with him, and on they went to the next caller.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

You have to know what their arguments are, and how they morph over time and contradict each other. You have to know details like that, originating with claims by Russ Tanner and then spread wide via Dane Wigington, they mostly all now believe that modern jet engines can't produce contrails. What can you say to an absurd claim like that? contrailscience.com is helpfull for earlier stuff and metabunk.org tries to keep up with the latest malarkey. Here's a thread on the high bypass engines claim:  https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-high-bypass-turbofans-do-not-make-contrails-actually-they-make-more.t3187/

Right!  They really boosted the bypass ratios in order to go to a two engine configuration for the 777, which has the effect of making it more likely to precipitate out ice crystals.  Thanks for the link.

[Mebee]

Welcome to the club, but you're not a full fledged member until some of the lunatic fringe types here accuse you of being a black ops plant or disinformation agent for the military industrial complex. 

Couldn't even guess at how many times I've been called a "shill" or "troll" or "paid government agent", etc, etc, etc, beginning way back when I spent time debunking Nancy Lieder and the "Planet X" crowd. I think Nancy may have originated the entire concept of people being paid to post dissenting opinions on the internet.

[VtaGeezer]

Haven't been around lately, but I couldn't resist posting on Sanders' Flt 800 allegations.  He weaves his whole story around a secret Navy test of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) off Long Island and a sub-launched anti-air missile.  As it happens, I was involved in CEC integration engineering in the late 90s-00s, and with testing of Navy systems since the late 80s.
- CEC integrates the AAW sensors and weapons on multiple surface and air platforms. It doesn't launch anything. Its test would not require launching a $400K missile (SM2). 
- It was not and is not installed on any subs; it would be ballast. 
- As others have reported, the US Navy (nor anyone else) has ever had a submerged-launch AAW missile.
- CEC was not then or now, as alleged, a super secret program.
- It was not a "trillion dollar" program (actually dirt cheap compared to AEGIS, AADC or other recent Navy combat systems).
- It was not on some last-ditch deadline for authorization; it was fully and openly budgeted the early '90s and had been for years, and by '96 was being incorporated into the fleet.

Those are just the more glaring problems with the story.  There's a litany of other more nuanced things.  Neither Birnes or Sanders showed me anything but very superficial knowledge of the military side of their story, upon which the whole thing hangs.  A good investigative reporter or author would have pretty good knowledge of details going down several layers. I heard only a thin veneer of superficial info stacked around Sander's still unverified thermite allegations to sell books.

[albrecht]

Haven't been around lately, but I couldn't resist posting on Sanders' Flt 800 allegations.  He weaves his whole story around a secret Navy test of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) off Long Island and a sub-launched anti-air missile.  As it happens, I was involved in CEC integration engineering in the late 90s-00s, and with testing of Navy systems since the late 80s.
- CEC integrates the AAW sensors and weapons on multiple surface and air platforms. It doesn't launch anything. Its test would not require launching a $400K missile (SM2). 
- It was not and is not installed on any subs; it would be ballast. 
- As others have reported, the US Navy (nor anyone else) has ever had a submerged-launch AAW missile.
- CEC was not then or now, as alleged, a super secret program.
- It was not a "trillion dollar" program (actually dirt cheap compared to AEGIS, AADC or other recent Navy combat systems).
- It was not on some last-ditch deadline for authorization; it was fully and openly budgeted the early '90s and had been for years, and by '96 was being incorporated into the fleet.

Those are just the more glaring problems with the story.  There's a litany of other more nuanced things.  Neither Birnes or Sanders showed me anything but very superficial knowledge of the military side of their story, upon which the whole thing hangs.  A good investigative reporter or author would have pretty good knowledge of details going down several layers. I heard only a thin veneer of superficial info stacked around Sander's still unverified thermite allegations to sell books.

Interesting. I'm still open to theories about TWA-800 and there would be national security, economic, and/or political reasons for a innocuous, though tragic, equipment malfunction as the "cause." But it would have been good to have an airplane and Naval expert on. And any time the theory starts going to "thermite" (and "thermate") it quickly raises my eyebrows, this magical material seems to end up being the in too many grand conspiracy theories.

[nika01]

The single, most damning aspect that points directly to a coverup is the fact that the entire 747 fleet was not grounded.

[VtaGeezer]

Interesting. I'm still open to theories about TWA-800 and there would be national security, economic, and/or political reasons for a innocuous, though tragic, equipment malfunction as the "cause." But it would have been good to have an airplane and Naval expert on. And any time the theory starts going to "thermite" (and "thermate") it quickly raises my eyebrows, this magical material seems to end up being the in too many grand conspiracy theories.

Thermite is a lo-tech pyrotechnic/incendiary compound and its presence in an AA warhead or solid rocket fuel would be puzzling unless intended for anti-dirigible warfare.

[albrecht]

Thermite is a lo-tech pyrotechnic/incendiary compound and its presence in an AA warhead or solid rocket fuel would be puzzling unless intended for anti-dirigible warfare.

I'm aware it is real stuff but it seems to be a favorite of the conspiracy crowd and so when it pops up so often it raises a flag (not false flag  ) to me. Not that I don't believe in conspiracies- they happen every day and are prosecuted in court rooms across the land on a daily basis. I still have questions over TWA-800 but would like some real experts involved. It does cause me a bit of wonder why similar aircraft of same mfg (or others with same type of design) weren't grounded, but there was re-wiring and design changes mandated and lack of grounding might have just been "they didn't know what caused it until years later." Eye-witnesses (to just about anything) are notoriously unreliable though there are some questions there in my mind also. Also, were there actual tests of the theory/conclusion (fuel/air mixture exploding etc) of ACTUAL fuel/air and conditions, I only see "computer modeling" and a real test done- but using a propane/air mixture (this airplane didn't run on propane and different hydrocarbons have different flash and fire points.)

[wr250]

I'm aware it is real stuff but it seems to be a favorite of the conspiracy crowd and so when it pops up so often it raises a flag (not false flag  ) to me. Not that I don't believe in conspiracies- they happen every day and are prosecuted in court rooms across the land on a daily basis. I still have questions over TWA-800 but would like some real experts involved. It does cause me a bit of wonder why similar aircraft of same mfg (or others with same type of design) weren't grounded, but there was re-wiring and design changes mandated and lack of grounding might have just been "they didn't know what caused it until years later." Eye-witnesses (to just about anything) are notoriously unreliable though there are some questions there in my mind also. Also, were there actual tests of the theory/conclusion (fuel/air mixture exploding etc) of ACTUAL fuel/air and conditions, I only see "computer modeling" and a real test done- but using a propane/air mixture (this airplane didn't run on propane and different hydrocarbons have different flash and fire points.)

as i understand i, the airplanes fuel system was a sealed system. thusly  a spark in the fuel tank will not ignite the fumes, as there will be very little to no oxygen in the fuel tank, only fumes.
if it were possible for that to cause an explosion, 90% of the following GM vehicles should have blown up/burst into flames:
94 -1999  s10 blazer/pickups sonoma/jimmy w/vortec engines.
96-2000 chevy/gmc gasoline pickups (all)
96-2000 chev/gmc suburban

this is due to to small wire gauge being used inside the fuel tank to supply the fuel pump with power. generally this leads to the insulation melting off followed by arcing between the fuel pump leads.. new fuel pumps were supplied with new wiring harnesses, often the same or smaller gauge (i dont know why, it makes no sense to me).

[albrecht]

as i understand i, the airplanes fuel system was a sealed system. thusly  a spark in the fuel tank will not ignite the fumes, as there will be very little to no oxygen in the fuel tank, only fumes.
if it were possible for that to cause an explosion, 90% of the following GM vehicles should have blown up/burst into flames:
94 -1999  s10 blazer/pickups sonoma/jimmy w/vortec engines.
96-2000 chevy/gmc gasoline pickups (all)
96-2000 chev/gmc suburban

this is due to to small wire gauge being used inside the fuel tank to supply the fuel pump with power. generally this leads to the insulation melting off followed by arcing between the fuel pump leads.. new fuel pumps were supplied with new wiring harnesses, often the same or smaller gauge (i dont know why, it makes no sense to me).

And that the fuel jets use is less volatile than the vehicles you mention (closer to kerosene than to gasoline.) And I still see pickups sometimes with a rag or makeshift cap when gas cap was lost. Scary actually, but saw one the other day. And no fire (yet) and gasoline is much more inflammable than kerosene/jet-fuel in normal conditions.

[Lord Grantham]

And that the fuel jets use is less volatile than the vehicles you mention (closer to kerosene than to gasoline.) And I still see pickups sometimes with a rag or makeshift cap when gas cap was lost. Scary actually, but saw one the other day. And no fire (yet) and gasoline is much more inflammable than kerosene/jet-fuel in normal conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8mD2hsxrhQ

[wr250]

And that the fuel jets use is less volatile than the vehicles you mention (closer to kerosene than to gasoline.) And I still see pickups sometimes with a rag or makeshift cap when gas cap was lost. Scary actually, but saw one the other day. And no fire (yet) and gasoline is much more inflammable than kerosene/jet-fuel in normal conditions.

and im not talking about the harness from the frame to the fuel tank ,which was recalled and replaced with heavier gauge wiring (but the in tank wiring was the same gauge as the original external wiring, and it was not recalled, so not replaced).  im talking about the in tank wiring from the top of the fuel pump module to the fuel pump (all in the fuel tank).