Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TWA-800...again.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    See them now?


    I acknowledge that there are extremely valid doubts about a missile theory.

    Such as no evidence whatsoever.
    You missed the all important bottom line:

    Originally posted by Me
    ...keep throwing gasoline at the doubters about how you overwhelmingly agree with the official report...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #92
      I think it's not so much a matter of "agree" in this case. It is a matter of whether you believe that the whole investigation was a giant conspiracy fabricated by hundreds of persons of the NTSB, FBI, CIA, POTUS, Boeing, TWA, and likely several independent laboratories that performed tests and research for the NTSB.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        I think it's not so much a matter of "agree" in this case. It is a matter of whether you believe that the whole investigation was a giant conspiracy fabricated by hundreds of persons of the NTSB, FBI, CIA, POTUS, Boeing, TWA, and likely several independent laboratories that performed tests and research for the NTSB.
        Sigh, that is a strawman and a false extreme. Only a vast conspiracy requires that. Suppression of a just a little bit of evidence (a piece of shrapnel, or entry hole and radar recording) would more than suffice to engage all those people you noted in a legitimate study and belief, while hiding the truth. Only a few people need be involved.

        I think it unlikely, because I believe even 10 people is too many to hold such a secret, but it is not anywhere near as far-fetched as you outline above.

        This type of argument on its own is almost as bad (but not quite) as the things you complain about.

        Comment


        • #94
          Maybe, anyway my point is that it is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the analysis and conclusions of the report. At least it is not for me.

          I have disagreed more than once with an NSTB report, but always my disagreement was with the analysis based on the factual information, or the conclusions derived from the analysis. never with the factual information itself, if only because I cannot have access the the evidence myself to see if it accurately described in the report or not.

          I've disagreed with the NTSB in the Colgan crash, where they reached to the conclusion that the pilot didn't react as if it was a tail stall. Based on the same information presented in the report plus my understanding on tail stalls, I think that it is possible that the pilot wrongly thought that he was experiencing a tail stall, and then reacted wrongly with a technique that was not appropriate even in a tail stall.

          I've not only disagreed but I know that the NTSB was wrong in two GA accident report where they cited the loss of speed caused by the pilot's decision to turn downwind. The pilot did turn downwind, but I know (and any NTSB investigator should also know) enough aerodynamics and physics to know that that doesn't cause a loss of speed. Yes, the pilot did turn downwind, the plane did lose speed, and it did stall and crashed, or at least that's what the NTSB described as factual information and I have no reason to doubt it. But the "downwind" part was not the cause of the loss of speed.

          However, in the TWA 800 NTSB's accident report what's in dispute, it seems to me, is not the analysis and conclusion based on the factual information, but the factual information itself. Moreover, it's not just whether it is accurate or contains some mistakes, but if it was intentionally manipulated, with parts being maliciously suppressed and parts being maliciously fabricated.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment

          Working...
          X