The FAA report you provide is erroneous and misleading. First off, it points to Flight 800 (Twice).......it is using in effect, it's OWN destruction as a means of discovering it's own destruction! Not logical. As you will see below the "other" plane mentioned was a 737 not a 747, (admittedly similar, but NOT the same)....the incident took place in Manila. There is SIGNIFICANT debate as to whether the CWT exploded at all!........So, now IF we can even count the Manila 737 incident, we have ONE explosion in a CWT NOT 2!........Personally, and by a review of the available data, I don't think we have ANY!.........The other report you reference, prepared in 1958 was analyzing, wing tank explosions caused by lightning which PENETRATED the tanks, ie: actually blew a HOLE in them. (The fuel being used during that time frame WAS quite explosive and bears NO resemblance in ignition characteristics to the JetA on Fl. 800). It was found ignition by other means, ie: tank wall heating was HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. Also your reference to the FQIS seems erroneous. The FQIS was examined and found to be fault free. What the NTSB SPECULATES --- IS NOT --- EVIDENCE. The MSSG report prepared for the NTSB is also another good indication that a CWT explosion WAS NOT the IE in the Fl 800 incident...............That the tank exploded, is not at issue, I believe we all agree on that. It's WHEN it exploded that we disagree. I believe at approx 8,500 ft.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The rulemaking package was prompted by FAA research and surveys of fleet fuel tanks, which revealed previously unforeseen failures could create an ignition source in fuel tanks. FAA also reviewed service histories concerning fuel tank safety. While this study recounts a significant number of fuel tank fires and explosions that occurred since the 1960s, only two are germane to the discussions surrounding TWA 800 -- the May 11, 1990 explosion of a Boeing 737 in the Philippines and TWA 800. The balance were caused by lightning strikes, design and maintenance practices, or improper modification of fuel pumps and involved more flammable fuels than the jet fuels used today.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The results showed that there is a primary hazard whenever there is direct puncture of the fuel-tank wall, whereas the ignition of fuel by hot spots on tank walls due to lightning strikes is unlikely. Punctures of fuel-tank walls by artificial-lightnin discharges produced explosions of the fuel in the mixture range from excessivly lean to rich mixtures.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Previous Damage to Aircraft #17119 Fact: On Good Friday, 1995, the B747 destined to become TWA FL800 (aircraft 17119) was hit by lightning on approach to Rome Airport. The right wing suffered significant metal damage requiring about 25 square feet of right wing tip skin to be replaced. The lightning caused the surge tank fire protection bottles to fire (ironically, a wing tip safety system almost unique to TWA Aircraft designed to stop fire from reaching tanks through wing tip vents.) Lightning also coursed down through the wing and blew the circuit breakers to the wheel brake overheat warning system...
...In the above incident approaching Rome, lightning traversed the #4 reserve tank, the #4 main tank, the #3 main tank and the center wing tank. All were empty or near empty at the time and nothing happened. Lightning represents a multi-thousand fold ignition potential over any conceivable electrical source from aircraft power.
It seems to me people are saying an EMP missile can't take out a 747 because it was designed for missiles. This seems a bit silly to me. It's like saying the Russians' air-to-air missiles couldn't take out KAL 007 or our SM2s couldn't hurt the Iranian airbus.
TJ and John are merely trying to cover up the obvious question: Why did the ntsb not address the EMP missile and provide a defense, any defense? If not, they're still doing a good job of doing so. You're merely saving the ntsb from having to make more silly excuses. No offense, but you're sounding like the ntsb more and more every day.
TJ entered the twa800 discussion by saying, let's forget about the eyewitnesses because we have more than enough other stuff to nail the ntsb. His arguments have gone down hill from there.
If anyone can challenge IAN's EMP theory - feds, antifeds, or those we aren't so sure of - I'm sure he'd like to hear it. But I haven't seen anything.
The fact that IAN brought up the possibility and not the official investigation makes the ntsb suspect from the start. IAN has a theory that explains the facts AS REPORTED by the ntsb satisfactorily; the ntsb does not. If their reported facts are incorrect, that's a different matter. And unrelated to this discussion. If the ntsb defense is 'IAN's wrong because we were lying, ha-ha - so be it. But let them provide excuses for their flawed investigation - not us for them. It is difficult to distinguish all of the comments I've seen so far about IAN's theory from peeing in the wind.
I have always kept an open mind on this one, and my saying we should ignore the witnesses was sarcasm of the most obvious kind. I'm surprised that you of all people would miss that.
My argument going downhill is a matter of perception, I've posted hundreds of entries critical of the official position, and I guess my lapses into frivolity would work against me.
Olsson called the missile possibility 'absurd', and whilst I have a deal of time for the guy, that statement - in my view - was absurd.
If there was no evidence of a missile, or missile-like damage, why did the Navy lock the door for 6 days? Why did they have to deny being in the area? Why a zillion other questions?
I don't believe the CWT spontaneously exploded, not because it can't, but because there is too much else going on during this investigation.
I just find your whole reaction to Ians 'cosy' solution bewildering, because I know that behind your facetiousness, sarcasm and dry humour, you have a brain. Words like 'brilliant' in relation to this new scenario make me wonder if you are being facetious again. I have to admit, you do outwierd me.
I don't know any more whether you're serious or taking the pith in your posts. I know you have an acid and sharp wit - I've been on the end of it - not that I've taken offense.
The witnesses cannot be ignored, I've stated that hundreds of times, it is the only thing which stops me falling for the ntsb solution. I made my wingbox failure explanation before I saw a single official witness statement - as Chris Olsson must have.
I don't think the missile notion is absurd, I believe the witnesses saw the cause of the destruction of twa800 - truly I do. Too many of them are credible, as was reported very early on by official spokesmen. In fact they used the phrase 'extremely, extremely credible'. That's a difficult one to go back on, but the next thing we heard was 'noone with half a brain would be talking about missiles'.
I think that last statement is significant, it was a warning to the officials involved with the government, it said 'We are moving away from the missile idea' just like Kalstrom said to someone at Calverton.
I think we need balanced analysis, get away from the 'conspiracy at any price' mindset which some people seem to have. Ian is hardly the most objective or neutral contributors to this or other government actions - even a Brit can see that, I've spent hours on his site looking at all the stories he covers.
There is no evidence of an EMP weapon, all damage is explainable in any number of ways. How does Ians EMP weapon explain the anomalous ballistic behaviour of some 5 items in the early debris field? Does an EMP weapon hurl pieces of hardware about?
I look at everything, but this is one of the more dubious explanations I've seen. I did however give it some thought, the P3 could well be a target for an EMP weapon, after all, it is a high tech surveillance platform with digital written all over it.
I don't believe there is no evidence of a missile, no entry hole or exit holes. One of the early statements from the investigators used the term 'holes going in, holes going out, holes going every which way'.
That tells me, along with photographs I've seen, that there is ample evidence of something hitting the aircraft, volatile or not.
I believe - I am convinced - that an external force took down '800 - I just don't find this one anything other than a 'Well this kind of weapon would leave what you say is left'. What they say is left is not borne out by the photographic evidence, theirs and Sanders.
I don't buy it, but it doesn't make me - or you, a nasty person.
First off, everyone is entitled to their opinion.....
However, your defense of Ian's theory is at best selective and at worst irrational. To further accuse me of sounding more like the ntsb everyday is......simply put......ludicrous.
My response was to specific points in Ian's postings. I visited his website and viewed the animation. I rebutted his FAA memo and 1958 Lightning tests re: CWT explosions.
You either didn't read my post, or didn't care to deal with what I said.
The FAA memorandum was either written by an idiot, or was deliberately misleading.
The 1958 study ONLY implicated CWT explosions caused by PENETRATION of the lightning THROUGH the aluminum CWT structure. There was NO EVIDENCE of lightning strikes in that study that caused CWT explosions when the lightning DID NOT PENETRATE, ie., RUPTURE the CWT itself........end of story.
Ian has presented NO EVIDENCE of a PENETRATION with his EMP warhead scenario. Rather HE buys into the ntsb explanation..............HIS "spark" however is caused by the detonation of an EMP warhead rather than the ntsb's......we know it happened, we just don't know how.
Sorry, it's flawed, misleading, and in my mind simply WRONG.
BTW Ian has failed to respond to my posting re: the MSSG report. This group report may yet prove to be the achilles heal in the whole damn ntsb scenario, and it's right there in their own study.
FACT: According to the MSSG group report: "The lack of damage to the front sides of the bottles (potable water bottles) indicates that the front spar rotated LESS THAN 10 DEGREES BEFORE the CARGO FLOOR STRUCTURE HAD BEGUN DEPARTING THE AIRPLANE."
IF you believe this, then you MUST have great difficulty saying the CWT explosion was the main causal factor in the Fl 800 disaster. It doesn't matter WHAT caused the CWT to explode, IF you buy into the MSSG report, because IF YOU DO, you MUST have EXTREME difficulty in stating that this explosion also decapitated the aircraft......No, I think the CWT blew up at approx. 8,500 ft...........and I'm leaning towards a missile strike as the IE.
John, it's obvious from your responses that you are attacking, not investigating, the EMP-warhead theory, eager to have it quickly dismissed and taken off the table. It is unreasonable for you to know that an EMP warhead could not induce a spark in a fuel tank via the FQIS. I don't know if it was an EMP warhead, but nothing you've said refutes or reduces the possibility.
The possibility that lightning (external-sourced EMP) could take out a fuel tank by inducing arching inside the tank via the FQIS is accepted. I'll leave it to you to argue why that accepted physics is wrong. About the 1958 study, entry by the FQIS was not one of the means of ignition tested, so it was not excluded.
I simply DO NOT buy the CWT scenario of the NTSB. That being said, I cannot logically support your hypothesis. The ONLY thing your theory does is provide an ignition source causal event, ie., an attempt to identify the "spark" which the NTSB could not identify. You say it was caused by the explosion of an EMP-Warhead, producing a surge thru the FQIS. That IS what you are saying-----correct?
Here's a synopsis of Boeing's opinion re: the FQIS
"Boeing has thoroughly tested the FQIS system as part of the NTSB accident investigation without detecting electrical event conditions that would cause an explosion aboard TWA 800."
"There was no evidence of electrical stress on any components in the recovered indicators. The CWT indicator was disassembled and the components were inspected and analyzed. None of the parts failed due to an electrical stress. In fact, some of the parts were fully operational once the salt contamination was removed."
"From inspections and tests of the flight deck fuel quantity indicators..........there was no evidence of a failure or damage found that would contribute to, or be evidence of, excessive energy being introduced into the center fuel tank of the accident airplane."
NOW if you disagree with that........Please present your EVIDENCE.
John, I notice that you quote sources without providing reference information which is annoying because it prevents me from further examining what you quote. The following photo is included in my report. Internal components of a FQIS probe showed evidence of a surge.
But it's my understanding that an electric spark could be induced at low enough levels to avoid leaving evidence but high enough to ignite the vapors. The variable degrees of voltage an EMP warhead might be able to deliver (based upon its strength, proximity, and myriad other factors) are between zero and levels high enough to burn out everything.
I think my analysis of the small holes by itself presents a strong probable-cause case for CWT ignition. Adding the EMP theory to my investigation is simply a process of covering all possibilities, including the most popular one. If it's possible that the cause was an electrical event, then here's one of the options.
Another route EMP can enter is via vents. I understand F800 may have had technology to prevent lighting from traversing the vents, but I do not know how this technology would interact with classified EMP warhead technologies. I'm also unclear about how the lightning traversed the tanks of the F800 aircraft in an earlier event (what was the source for that quote?). I don't think anyone not privy to classified research can know all the ways such warhead technologies could work, and as such cannot dismiss the possibility.
Your accusation that John is 'attacking' the EMP theory shows just how open you are debate or criticism of your proposals. Like Stan, you treat everyone who attempts to rationalise this latest theory as an attacker, or an NTSB apologist. Stan is a little more amusing and subtle, but it all comes out the same. I wonder what happened to Stan and his contractor goof, do they have training EMP rounds never meant to have motors attached?
The pretty pictures of blackened crimp connectors are no more important or revealing than the evidence of arcing in the wing spars or the emergency lighting looms which traverse the aircraft. This could have been caused at aircraft break-up before the engines and generators had wound down.
Such blackening has been found on aircraft which never blew up, so to point at this as possible evidence for the EMP theory is at best misleading, at worst it shows a lack of understanding or research.
Either way, first you have to prove that an exploding fuel tank could take out a 747 of that vintage - and it needs to be proven for the amount of fuel - and hence available energy in the tank - could do this.
It doesn't matter how many joulles of energy a spark/arc produces, if the available ignitable material is incapable of being brought to the levels of energy required to destroy the aircraft.
This is the first task for the spark/arc/EMP conspiracy whacko's, show that this amount of fuel can cause this level of damage and then destruction.
Until you can do that, you have no case, you are pandering to theoretical and novel explanations. A novel is a work of fiction, just as your latest offering will remain until you stop walking backwards.
Trevor, I think your personal attack on me, accusing me of not being able to accept critique, is wrong. I even critique my own theory in my report -- I don't know if it's true. Where do you critique your theory? Instead it sounds like your more than ready to dismiss any other theory simply because it conflicts with, for example, some information relayed in news accounts that you've interpreted to support your theory.
Furthermore, just because you can toss out a few other ideas about how the damage to the FQIS probe might have been caused does not mean you have proven that it was not caused by EMP and thus that the EMP theory is "misleading." This is like saying theory A is misleading because you just came up with another theory off the top of your head. Unless you can prove that the damage was not caused by a surge, you cannot properly reject the possibility in the way that you have. BTW, what other aircraft had such damage to a FQIS probe where the aircraft did not crash?
Additionally, it's perfectly possible that I have overlooked some material; conversely, there's a lot of material that I have found that no other independent researcher found. Would I go and accuse others in public of a "lack of research" for not finding what I did? Only if I wanted to embarrass another person, and since you accused me of that, this means you want to embarrass me, which is further evidence of an attack on, not investigation of, this matter and on myself by you.
I'm satisfied that a CWT blast was central to the initial break up, but I'm not going to waste my time debating that here, you'll have to wait for the webpage, if I get time to do one on that.
Just what sources have I failed to identify?......Re; the FQIS the information comes from the BOEING Report to the NTSB.
Re: The lightning strike on the Fl. 800 aircraft reported in 1995. The easiest reference is to Cmdr. Donaldson's webpage.
I MUST comment: firstly, no one I believe, least of all myself, is indicating that you have never provided some first rate independent research. However, that isn't in itself any kind of justification for your current theory.
I do believe you are wandering down a path that is clearly unscientific. You want those who disagree with you to prove a surge from an EMP warhead thru the FQIS of Fl. 800 was not the causal event of the CWT explosion. In other words "prove it didn't happen"...or......"prove a negative".....which any researcher will tell you is slow painful death.
YOU have the obligation to demonstrate your theory, or attempt to prove, show, or whatever term you would like to affix, that it has merit.
Yet, you FAIL to address those issues which are bothersome to you. You STILL have not addressed, nor have I noticed has any one else the MSSG sequencing data which I quote. If you read that info. you quickly realize that the NTSB took a GIANT leap of logic in blaming the CWT explosion as the causal event in the breakup of Fl. 800.
The facts are there has NEVER been a thoroughly documented case of a CWT explosion in a Boeing 747. If you buy into the Manila incident, you MAY have 1. Let's for the sake of argument say Manila was caused by a CWT explosion of unknown origin..........Was the aircraft decapitated?.......NO.........In fact it was towed down the runway after the accident........It neither had landing gear damage, broke in half or in ANY way resembled the tangled mess that was Fl. 800.
You ignore the evidence I presented re: The EXTREMELY unlikely event that the systems you point to would be, could be, affected by your EMP warhead.......All the while leaving those systems, Navigational for instance apparently unscathed. No wiping of data off the recorders, either FDR or CVR. The majority of the systems in question were analog rather than digital which is much more susceptible to EMI interference....You also (and so has the NTSB) FAILED to show in ANY test that the nearly empty CWT of a 747 can in fact be made to EXPLODE by the application of a "spark"...........The properties of JetA1 simply point against such a scenario.
But I agree on one thing, we're not going to solve the debate in this forum.
John, I have not ignored those points, I even mention many of them in my report before you ever commented. The fact that most of the systems on F800 were analog means they could survive EMP. Navigational systems and radios can survive an EMP attack. Your implication that they cannot is contrary to the expert data I have on EMP and aircraft. Your implication that you know what a classified EMP-warhead attack would look like is arguing from ignorance. Nobody can even predict exactly what damage patterns a lightning strike will cause. I don't know exactly what an EMP attack would look like, but based on what is known, such would very likely involve electronics problems similar to those that are the center piece of the official story. You also declare that F800's navigational systems survived. What is your source for that?
>>Trevor, I think your personal attack on me, accusing me of not being able to accept critique, is wrong. I even critique my own theory in my report -- I don't know if it's true. Where do you critique your theory? Instead it sounds like your more than ready to dismiss any other theory simply because it conflicts with, for example, some information relayed in news accounts that you've interpreted to support your theory. <<
Ian, let's get something straight before we go any further, I have spent hours on your website, and I would not 'attack' you personally, least not so far. I have the greatest of respect for you personally, if not for this latest theory. Please don't read 'personal' into criticism of your proposals.
Just what theory do you think I'm pushing? As far as I know, I have no theory, just a bunch of data which still doesn't add up. I critique everything I read, and expect others to do the same for anything I propose.
I wonder what it is you miss when you read my posts, because John has just compared analogue systems to digital systems - as I did from the start. EMP weapons are not designed to inflict damage on 30-year old technology - and I seriously doubt that they could.
What is it that concerns me about your latest proposal? The fact that you are trying to fit a jigsaw piece into the wrong jigsaw. There is nothing which might be construed as an entry exit/hole, no evidence of explosives found?
All of those statements are false, and yet you have chosen to find a solution which fits those untruths - it bewilders me Ian, it really does.
Why would you try to fit the crime to the fiction? Maybe Stan is right, maybe you are kidding or calling their bluff, but if you are serious then you have a real problem.
This is not a personal attack, believe me, I have no wish to attack you, but this EMP thing is either an attempt to wind up the NTSB as Stan seems to think, or it's a joke - which Stan would also applaud.
As a serious proposal it plays into the hands of those who want this to die a natural death.
Trevor, seem to believe you're an expert on classified EMP warheads, but I don't think so. You claim "EMP weapons are not designed to inflict damage on 30-year old technology." Really, can you quote even one source for that claim?
The text "EMP Interactions," which I reference in my report focuses on the effects of EMP on aircraft, and it makes no such claim. The text states, as I note in my report, that modern digital circuits "tend to be more susceptible to transients than the older analog circuits." To say that you tend to be more susceptible to catching a cold is not to say nobody else ever catches a cold. So your implication that having mostly analog circuits would render an aircraft 100% protected from all classified EMP warheads is not only a preposterous arguement from ignorance, it's just plan wrong.
I'm an electronics engineer, I don't get my expertise or experience of EMC/EMI/EMP from the internet. In the UK we have to prove our products can survive a predefined level of susceptibility, so you're not talking to an amateur on the subject.
Your challenge is lame, where are my sources/links? I am my source/link, I could ask you the same - in fact I have asked you to give us evidence that an EMP warhead can take out the systems of a 70's built 747.
I wouldn't expect you to be able to answer that, any more than you can name the shaped charge that punched a hole in the concrete bunker at Waco.
Calling out the government for decisions they've made is one thing, taking on technical issues you know nothing about is another.
No offense, but an attitude does not imply expertise on any subject. I'm not the first person to pick you up on this, I suggest you stick to slagging the decisions, rather than fighting corners you've never been in - and know nothing about.
You may get the support of equally unqualified attitude chasers, but that is all you have. From what I've seen, you've already had to.......
Trevor, your input on this matter amounts to personal attacks and the insertion of false information.
There's no reason to believe aircraft from the 1970s are immune from EMP. The text "EMP Interactions" is written for all non-shielded aircraft (shielded aircraft are specifically designed to withstand EMP). You're saying that you know more about EMP than the EMP expert who wrote that text, I don't buy it.
The first copyright of the text is 1986 (the same was republished in 1995), and it says, as we observed, that the new electronics make the systems "more susceptible." Apparently you do not understand that this means pervious systems are susceptible, but with the new electronics aircraft are made more susceptible.
Trevor, why don't you contact the publishers, Taylor & Francis, and tell then that their text is misleading and that you, being an EMP expert, know that all aircraft built in the 1970s are 100% immune from EMP, and you know this so well that you need no supporting documentation? Here's their feedback page:
Trevor, if all aircraft built in the 1970s or before were immune from EMP attacks, why did Boeing build an aircraft, the E-4B, in 1975 specially designed to withstand EMP? If what you claim were true, they could have saved their money and simply used their commerical 747s without making modifications.
Trevor, why don't you contact Boeing and inform them that you are an EMP expert and that their building of a special EMP-shielded aircraft in 1975 was a terrible mistake, since all their commerical 747s at that time were already shielded, which you know, because you're an expert?
Ian, Ian, calm down, you may burst a blood vessel!
I've never claimed to be an EXPERT in anything, I said I knew about. If this is the way you conduct your research, by putting words in the mouths of others, it's no wonder that..........(We'll leave it at that).
You've still to convince me that these weapons can induce over 400V into a 747 CWT, and yet to address the conclusion that the fuel quantity and type in that tank was capable of doing the damage it did.
I repeat, until someone proves that:
The type and quantity of fuel in that tank could be induced to cause the damage seen. Bill Donaldson spent a deal of time trying to prove it couldn't - what is your take on that Ian?
I don't care if Tesla grids were involved, if the fuel can't do that, your theory is a personal attack on those who say it can't. (Using your own standards of personal attack - ie someone is questioning your 'reasoning'.)
I can find books that are adamant that I can call up Lucifer if I say certain words in a certain sequence, but I don't believe it.
Chill, I am noone, you are the important one around here, being as you're so famous and all that.
Address the fuel flammability question, a detonator is no good without something to detonate. Just like a jigsaw can't be finished unless ALL the pieces fit.
Get someone to explain it for you Ian, you seem to have difficulty joining the dots. Maybe your sense of self-importance has over-ridden your ability to reason.
Personal attacks are a forte of mine, believe me, you haven't come close to receiving one. Flavo(u)r of the month with you I may not be, but I think I can live with that.
I must agree with Trevor on this one. You seem to have quite a "knack" for putting words into people's mouths. I do believe Trevor indicated the fact that it was extremely unlikely your EMP scenario was accurate. I didn't see him stating anywhere that, emphatically an EMP weapon could not POSSIBLY bring down a 747.
His points were similar to mine, re: analog vs digital, etc.
In any event, even though I said I wouldn't......I hope to post a substantive rebuttal to your hypothesis shortly.
My comments or responses are for Ian, he seems to be on the attack at the moment, whilst accusing me of being the attacker. I'm beginning to wonder whether the hours I spent trawling his journal was wasted time - that this guy is not what I thought he was.
If you can't handle a challenge Ian, I suggest you get a day job, one that leaves you well away from the customers. I'm disappointed, it seems you get upset when people don't swallow what you propose.
Bloody h*ll, Ian, I might as well get in there too.
Up till now, Goddard, like Tom Shoemaker, Tom Stalcap, Mike Rivero, and Jim Sanders, was a name to point to as a definitive authority when the subject of the shootdown of TWA Flight 800 was broached.
I have defended you when others cast aspersions on your work due to your earlier, well-publisized recanting of your position re: TWA800, and subsequent recanting of your recant.
Now I am very disappointed in the direction you have taken, and the tone of your rhetoric in response to honest critique, and can see no way I can support the direction, nor the attitude.
I will now relegate you to that special place "INVESTIGATORS WITH AN AGENDA", currently inhabited by Hull, Donaldson, John Barry Smith et.al.
Your website, like theirs, will continue to be useful, but your credibility will no longer be taken for granted: And I really hate that ...
Trevor said: "I'm an electronics engineer, I don't get my expertise or experience of EMC/EMI/EMP from the internet." Emphasis added.
Then Trevor said: "I've never claimed to be an EXPERT in anything, I said I knew about." Then he accuses me of putting the "expert" word in his mouth. Well lets consult a reference, Merriam Webster:
Webster's dictionary: "Expertise 1 : expert opinion or commentary 2 : the skill of an expert"
Trevor claimed to be a professional in the field and to have "expertise" as a result of professional experience -- a de facto claim of being an expert. So the accusation against me, that I put the "expert" word in Trevor's mouth, is false.
I have been sussed, found out, humiliated, beaten, bested, ah who cares.......
Expertise in this country means experience of, area of knowledge, Webster can kiss can arse - and my ass.
Ian, you are way too defensive on this, paranoid even, accusing people of personal attacks for questioning your latest 'theory' borders on the strange.
To be honest, that 'nobody' Anjin has put into words what I have been trying to say, is he attacking you on a personal level too?
While we're at it, just whose EMP missile was this, since the Navy conspiracy is not your patch - or area of expertise - any more?
Have terrorists become more sophisticated lately, that they understand how to take out a 747 just by shorting a car battery in the vicinity?
Since this weapon left no evidence of a missile, just what were those foreign bodies embedded in the occupants of the aircraft? 100% of the cockpit crew, 57% (or thereabouts) of another section, and over 50% of yet another. (You can find this on the ntsb CD, but the graphics are unreadable, the numbers can just be made out. This is the medical attachments.)
Are EMP weapons designed to embed bits the length of a 747? Just how does an EMP weapon bend all those 1" toggle switches in the cockpit?
Does JetA really detonate like a high explosive?
Does the guy you borrowed the horse off know that you've been attaching stilts to its legs?
Apologies for the inexorable fall into drivel, it must be something I saw.
Thanks guys, you really shouldn't have bothered, but I love you too.
Current Topic - IAN: You are misreading the data................
