There has been insignificant response from either the fed view or antifed view to the issues Ian brought up about the ntsb missile visibility study and EMP.
Ian's work greatly advances all theories not in agreement with the official position. An absence of discussion can prove only one thing - the anti-feds are lightweights and, as far as logic and reason are concerned, counterproductive.
Silence simply makes matters worse for all. It's concurrence with the fed position and rejection of their own.
I think only IAN and Greg have come to grips with the Eglin test data v. fed conclusions about that test data. This is fourth grade science. All missile types should resolve this item in their minds before proceeding. All antifed non-missile types need to do the same thing. The basis for showing a missile went up or did not go up is right there using fourth grade science. This is step one. If a missile did not go up, that eliminates missile theories. If the ntsb can defend the test data, they've eliminated missile types. Have they? If a missile did go up, and I think one would have to be braindead not to think so, based on the test data and eyewitness crash reports, that eliminates the fed position and all other non-missile theories.
Ignoring IAN is simply an admission you have no case, just like the ntsb.
If I had absolute certainty on my 'contractor test goof' I would completely approach proving it by supporting the analysis of IAN's EMP Theory. The Stinger types should do the same. Our 'agendas' are dead in the water, IAN's EMP is not. The scientific method dictates that the ntsb accept the EMP theory or admit they were lying about not finding a missile or physical evidence of one. They haven't even looked at IAN's EMP theory, obviously the leading theory based on what facts we have. And the antifeds are afraid to look at it. They're letting the ntsb win by remaining silent.
The only conclusion I can reach is nobody is convinced of their own theory and is afraid to investigate what they have because it may prove them wrong. This is not science.
No one has enough self-respect or confidence to challenge the ntsb solution, people who are lying and/or can't find their ass with both hands. In other words, lightweights.
John, I like your cautious approach to your book, but I think it will die unless you look at what info is available. There isn't enough data out there to ignore any of it.
I would postulate, based on my admittedly small knowledge base re: EMP that the systems targeted by an EMP-Warhead would probably be directed towards a missiles Navigation system. There was NO such indication in reference to Flight 800. Quite to the contrary, the theory rests on a "surge" through control system wiring ie: fuel system as being caused by an EMP-warhead. Below you will find some significant information which would tend to buttress the belief that any EMP-warhead being developed would probably be targeting a (missiles, aircraft, helicopter) Navigation Avionics systems rather than it's control systems.
Aircraft control systems are located entirely within the aircraft and are shielded from absolutely any signals not coming from one of their own devices; they are also not radio-based, but are based entirely on electrical signals conducted through wires as are most computer networks (in the future, maybe also light signals conducted through glass-fibre cables).
Navigation avionics, on the other hand, must have some designed sensitivity to environmental radio signals in order to perform their function. ...............
The antennas of radio-based avionics may be affected by [electromagnetic] field intensities of only microvolts per meter. But being outside the aircraft, the antennas get some protective attenuation from the fuselage of radiation originating inside the aircraft. Non-radio systems generally have higher signal levels, and so are less susceptible to low levels of interference.
Navigation systems are particularly vulnerable for two reasons:
they have parts devised to detect and act on signals coming from `outside';
radio-based systems are particularly susceptible to low levels of interference.
The hull of a metal aircraft forms an effective electromagnetic boundary between the outside and the inside of an aircraft. Electromagnetic signals find it hard to get in, or to get out. That is why the navigation and radio antennae on an aircraft need to be placed outside the aircraft hull. But while outside they must be sensitive, the navigation electronics inside the hull can be in principle just as well and securely shielded as control avionics, because there is no reason at all for navigation systems to be sensitive to electromagnetic signals coming from inside the aircraft -- indeed, very good reasons for these systems to be very insensitive, namely, that there is lots of other electronics working there as well.
I appreciate your comments. I am not quite sure at this point that there will in fact be a book. I am working towards what seems MAY culminate in a book on Flight 800. However, my main goal at this point is to elicite support for a Congressional investigation.
Believe me, I am not ignoring ANY evidence that I know of. Right now, I'm scrutinizing everything I can get my hands on. It's just a very time consuming process.
"this study recounts a significant number of fuel tank fires and explosions that occurred since the 1960s... The balance were caused by lightning strikes..."
Me again: while the fuel today is less flammiable, nobody would say the potention for a lightning-induced fuel-tank bast has been terminated, and an MHD-EMP warhead is essentially a "lightning warhead." The potential for lightning to explode aircraft fuel vapors is long known. Here's a military text on the matter from 1958. Do some searches on "lightning strikes" and fuel quantity indicator systems "FQIS." The route of EMP vulnerability for the fuel tank is the FQIS, so this system is not inherently shielded from EMP. Flight 800 is essentially a diagnosed lighting strike, but the only lighting appears to have been attached to the rocket dozens of people saw take down jet.
