Speaker 1: This week's episode of Thinking Sideways is not brought to
Speaker 1: you by the murder Mystery retirement home. Instead, it's brought
Speaker 1: to you by your local cat or dog shelter. Are
Speaker 1: you looking for a little furry friend to keep you company?
Speaker 1: And don't be like those other people that go to
Speaker 1: a breed or you know, and get themselves like a
Speaker 1: rottwadoodle or a dober medoodle or a German shepherd medoodle. Now,
Speaker 1: don't do that, go to the pound, go to a shelter.
Speaker 1: There's tons of wonderful animals, cats and dogs who really
Speaker 1: need a home. And some of the best animals I've
Speaker 1: ever met, the greatest dogs and cats came from They
Speaker 1: were just strays who came out of a shelter. So uh.
Speaker 1: And if you already have cat or a dog, or
Speaker 1: you can't have one, you know, you can always donate
Speaker 1: money they need it, or you can donate your time
Speaker 1: and you can meet lots of cool animals and cool
Speaker 1: people too. So hey, do it today or tomorrow's thick sargold? Well,
Speaker 1: hey there, and welcome again to another episode of Thinking Sideways.
Speaker 1: I am Steve, as always joined by and who's not
Speaker 1: sure she's Devin, have you been replaced by a pot person? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I even know what a person is. I do. I
Speaker 1: was actually going to say I think I'm a synth,
Speaker 1: but okay, we're just talking different fandoms. It's fine way
Speaker 1: it happens so much, at least in the movies. Yeah, alright, Well,
Speaker 1: I guess we've we've got a lot to cover ground
Speaker 1: and cover todays we're just we should probably just jump
Speaker 1: into things because as always we've got a mystery and around. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: this week we've got a big mystery, which is the
Speaker 1: crash of t w A flight eight hundred, which I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people probably know about the crash
Speaker 1: and that happened, but maybe not so aware of some
Speaker 1: of the controversy that's surrounds it and all of the
Speaker 1: theories that have spawned out of the It's kind of big.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's big enough that the conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: had their own Wikipedia page. Yes, I have an important question, Um,
Speaker 1: was tw A actually an airlines or was it just
Speaker 1: like the code name they gave every airplane that ever
Speaker 1: had something tragic happened on it because trans World Airline.
Speaker 1: I just feel like, yeah, and I just feel like
Speaker 1: every time I hear you know, prior to these last couple,
Speaker 1: every time it used to be oh yeah, that flights
Speaker 1: t w A whatever that was, it was really tragic,
Speaker 1: and it's just like, well, I really feel like t
Speaker 1: w A something something or you know, letters that are
Speaker 1: almost the same organization. Are the plane that they crashed
Speaker 1: in the original or the second die Hard? Remember the
Speaker 1: second die Hard? There must be it's very similar. That's
Speaker 1: but t w A was big enough, they were, it
Speaker 1: was recognizable, and they do not exist anymore. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: there for a I think they were the biggest airline anywhere.
Speaker 1: They were one of the top, and that would be
Speaker 1: kind of like, you know, the leader and crashes therefore
Speaker 1: also yeah, well let me give a quick little disclaimer here.
Speaker 1: We're gonna call this a disclaimer. We've just talked about
Speaker 1: how big this story is and how many theories are
Speaker 1: out there, and there is a lot a lot of
Speaker 1: content associated with it, and we're not going to be
Speaker 1: able to hit every single point because there is just
Speaker 1: so much. I mean, I've watched multiple documentaries on this already,
Speaker 1: hours and hours worth of time, and we're not going there.
Speaker 1: Of the NTSP report itself, is like, what three hundred
Speaker 1: plus pages. Yeah, I read most of the things. I
Speaker 1: don't know. This script feels like it might be so.
Speaker 1: So my point is in saying that is if this
Speaker 1: is your favorite or pet story, don't get upset if
Speaker 1: we leave something out that you think is extremely important
Speaker 1: or pertinent. You know what you need to do. You
Speaker 1: need to go online and join the discussion, because I
Speaker 1: know there's gonna be a lot of conversation about this
Speaker 1: when this episode drops, and that's going to be the
Speaker 1: place to share it and and have those conversations. Those
Speaker 1: are places like the Facebook, the Reddit, um, Twitter maybe,
Speaker 1: but like it's pretty hard to have. So I would
Speaker 1: say the Facebook group and the Reddit group yea, yep,
Speaker 1: those are totally it. Before I forget, I do want
Speaker 1: to thank both Christie and Megan who suggested this one
Speaker 1: for us. So let's get into the story. Uh. Story
Speaker 1: tastes place on the seventeenth of July when t w
Speaker 1: A Flight eight hundred was scheduled to leave JFK International
Speaker 1: Airport in New York City at seven o'clock at night,
Speaker 1: with its destination being Paris, France. The plane itself was
Speaker 1: a Boeing seven four seven Dash one hundred and at
Speaker 1: that point it had been in service for about twenty
Speaker 1: five years, which honestly isn't that long when you think
Speaker 1: of how many aged seven four seven as there are
Speaker 1: flying around the world right now. Oh yeah, that's still
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, I think it has been over sixteen
Speaker 1: thou flights something like that. Yeah, but yeah, yeah, planes
Speaker 1: aren't like cars. So one thing they're they're better built,
Speaker 1: they're well maintained, better than cars, and so yeah, they'll
Speaker 1: go forever close to Oh yeah, no talking about well built.
Speaker 1: I told you guys, I went into the Boeing factory
Speaker 1: and took the tour and it's amazing the stuff that
Speaker 1: they do. Um. It was incredible to me, just like sidebar,
Speaker 1: how many things you have done? The longer we do this,
Speaker 1: the more I'm like, when does Steve have the time
Speaker 1: to do all this stuff? Okay? Got it? Um. So,
Speaker 1: if you're wondering what a seven four seven Dash one
Speaker 1: looks like, it's pretty easy to tell it's it's a
Speaker 1: jumbo jet, of course, but it's got that funny hump
Speaker 1: at the nose. So the cockpit is in that upper
Speaker 1: section and then the windows run along and all the
Speaker 1: way almost all the way to the tip of the nose.
Speaker 1: So that's kind of an easy you way to identify it.
Speaker 1: The presidential plane is or the presidential Yeah, when the
Speaker 1: presidents in its air Force one technically, but yes, that
Speaker 1: is the plane that they use when he and staff
Speaker 1: are traveling around. Is it the double decker ones? It's
Speaker 1: not truly double decker. I mean it's it's like the
Speaker 1: British Airways one where there's like a little first class
Speaker 1: cabin behind and then it's everybody, all us pleads down below. Correct,
Speaker 1: there's like a yeah when you look at it, there's
Speaker 1: maybe a dozen or so windows up there. Some of
Speaker 1: the later versions they actually elongated the bulbs, you know,
Speaker 1: to where it is a little more double decker you
Speaker 1: looking and more. I just think that's like the British
Speaker 1: Airways from like the early two thousands. Is like what
Speaker 1: I think of when I think of this plane? Got it?
Speaker 1: Got it? You want to see a weird one with
Speaker 1: a bull John Look up pictures. I don't want to
Speaker 1: see anything weird with bull No, no, no, no no. Look
Speaker 1: at the Dreamliner. That plane in the world, the one
Speaker 1: that are not the Dreamliner, it's the what is the
Speaker 1: newest plane that Boeing is. Well, what is that? They
Speaker 1: have a name for the plane that carries the parts
Speaker 1: of the Dreamliners around, and yeah it is. It is
Speaker 1: literally a seven four seven with another seven four seven
Speaker 1: stacked on top of it. Crazy looking. If you want
Speaker 1: to see a weird plane, look that thing up. But
Speaker 1: we were already way off topic. It's gonna be a
Speaker 1: long show, as I said. The plane was scheduled to
Speaker 1: leave JFK at seven o'clock, but it was delayed because
Speaker 1: of mechanical issues with engine number three. It was about
Speaker 1: to explode no, but eventually the ground crew fixed the
Speaker 1: issue and at eight o two pm it was given
Speaker 1: clearance to leave the gate, and at eight nine pm
Speaker 1: t w A Flight eight left the ground. It followed
Speaker 1: its expected flight path by heading briefly south. And if
Speaker 1: you don't know, JFK International Airport is right on the ocean,
Speaker 1: so they almost immediately when they head south, they're out
Speaker 1: over the Atlantic Ocean. So this all takes place over
Speaker 1: the ocean. But they go south very briefly, and then
Speaker 1: they change heading and they go into generally east northeast
Speaker 1: rely trajectory of Long Island. That's actually a flight path
Speaker 1: of eight hunter takes it right past Plumb Island. I
Speaker 1: didn't notice that one. Does it matter which engine is
Speaker 1: engine number three? It does not. That actually doesn't officially
Speaker 1: doesn't play into anything. Yeah, no, totally. Um so the
Speaker 1: but the plane takes off and the flight time lasts
Speaker 1: for about thirteen minutes. Now, it's a nice July evening
Speaker 1: in New York, so of course there's quite a few
Speaker 1: people out and about, and at the time that flight
Speaker 1: eight hundred or two eight hundred is in the air,
Speaker 1: seven or eight hundred people are out and about and
Speaker 1: happy to be looking in the direction of where the
Speaker 1: plane would be flying along the coastline. And these people
Speaker 1: reported that at eight thirty one pm they saw some
Speaker 1: of them, I should say, not all of these people,
Speaker 1: not all, not more like around fifty to a hundred,
Speaker 1: depending on the accountings, but they reported that they saw
Speaker 1: something rising from the horizon on a generally upward trajectory
Speaker 1: exactly like that was the thing. I looked at my
Speaker 1: clock and they were like, it was like eight thirty one.
Speaker 1: You know that it's been pinned down that way. Okay,
Speaker 1: but let's just say a lot of these people, I
Speaker 1: mean some of them were like standing on the beach
Speaker 1: on Long Island. Some of them were like, you know
Speaker 1: way Inland might like, you know, ten miles in that
Speaker 1: kind of thing. So they're all over something rising from
Speaker 1: the horizon is different for for the guy that was
Speaker 1: like a new you know way up in Brooklyn versus
Speaker 1: the guy that was standing on the beach on Long Island.
Speaker 1: That's absolutely credibly different things. Yeah. Yeah, though that that
Speaker 1: does play apart that will actually come on in our
Speaker 1: fairy section. Yeah. Um. Now to to address what Joe
Speaker 1: says in terms of like what these things would look
Speaker 1: like from different perspectives, some of these people said they
Speaker 1: thought it looked like a distress flare. Others said they
Speaker 1: thought it looked like cheap fireworks. Uh, and a number
Speaker 1: of people actually said they thought it looked like a
Speaker 1: missile um flying up into the sky. And they described
Speaker 1: is a bright white light that came up from the
Speaker 1: horizon a light, Yeah, there is a red light. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it changes color, but it again, it went generally upwards
Speaker 1: or in some instances upwards and then kind of at
Speaker 1: a forty five degree angle. So there's a lot of
Speaker 1: it's very loose in terms of exactly what the flight
Speaker 1: path of this supposed object was after a couple of
Speaker 1: seconds of watching this thing fly into the sky, they
Speaker 1: watched it suddenly erupt into a fireball and then plummet
Speaker 1: towards the ocean. And after a couple of seconds that
Speaker 1: fire balls split into two. It split into two pieces,
Speaker 1: and then those pieces continued to fall into the ocean.
Speaker 1: And that, of course was the explosion of t w
Speaker 1: A flight eight hundred, And what they saw was the
Speaker 1: flames and then it's splitting into multiple parts as it crashed. Now,
Speaker 1: the people on the shore, they weren't the only ones
Speaker 1: to see this happen. There were people in boats. I
Speaker 1: would imagine a lot of people saw this happen, the
Speaker 1: actual explosion of the plane, the actual event. There were
Speaker 1: people who were in boats on the water nearby. There's
Speaker 1: also a couple of pilots one I know, there's a
Speaker 1: helicopter pilot from the Coast Guard, and a couple of
Speaker 1: commercial pilots. There's a number of pilots that they reported it.
Speaker 1: But the boaters were nearby and they immediately went to
Speaker 1: the crash site to try to help. They couldn't do
Speaker 1: much though, because the water was literally on fire and
Speaker 1: if you if you go out and google this, you'll
Speaker 1: see the images of pieces of wreckage floating in the water,
Speaker 1: and there's flames all over because the jet fuel that
Speaker 1: was on fire is floating on top of the water.
Speaker 1: And so these guys couldn't get in there to try
Speaker 1: to help survivors, which was their aim, and you know
Speaker 1: understandably that unfortunately. Yeah, actually, but there was a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff floating on the surface, and as you can imagine,
Speaker 1: it wasn't just parts of the plane. It was luggage
Speaker 1: and it was bodies. There were a total of two
Speaker 1: and thirty people on board the aircraft when it went down,
Speaker 1: and none survived. So it's a very catastrophic event. And
Speaker 1: at the time that it happened, this was the second
Speaker 1: worst aircraft accident in US history. Five years no longer,
Speaker 1: is I mean five years later with United Airlines Flight
Speaker 1: one seventy five and American Airlines Fly at eleven again
Speaker 1: five years later at eleven. Those numbers were massively, massively,
Speaker 1: you know, they just went down, They dropped down the
Speaker 1: rankings very quickly. Well, yeah, so they can't they must
Speaker 1: count like the total loss of life in those ones,
Speaker 1: because I'm sure there were more people on the t
Speaker 1: w A flight than there were on either of those
Speaker 1: two planes. Yeah, I don't think those were stuff Those
Speaker 1: were stuff full. But I do believe that it's the total,
Speaker 1: the total disaster. I think it's the way it's described
Speaker 1: that was a pretty bad one. Yeah. Um So, like
Speaker 1: I said, there's people on the water and at that
Speaker 1: point and a massive search and rescue operation is launched,
Speaker 1: an official one, and police and civilian boats are out there.
Speaker 1: Eventually it's military vessels. They're combing the area. At first
Speaker 1: they're looking for survivors. Once they realized that they're not
Speaker 1: going to find in these survivors, they are trying to
Speaker 1: recover both wreckage and the bodies of the people who
Speaker 1: were killed in the accident, plus looting, plus an occasional
Speaker 1: bit of looting. According to Yeah, I can't take full credit,
Speaker 1: it's true. Now, Okay, So here's here's normally how this
Speaker 1: stuff goes down. Is normally, when there's an accident with
Speaker 1: an airplane, the National Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB, which
Speaker 1: was what we're going to call him from here on out,
Speaker 1: they'd comed it out to the scene and they'd investigate
Speaker 1: to determine what happened, and more importantly, how to prevent
Speaker 1: it from happening again. And I feel like a lot
Speaker 1: of people may not really know that the t in
Speaker 1: TSP is out there, but you've seen their handiwork. You've
Speaker 1: seen reconstructed planes after an accident, and they're the guys
Speaker 1: who do that. Giant bottles are Superglue is their friend.
Speaker 1: They put these things back together to figure out what
Speaker 1: went wrong so that it doesn't happen again. It's just
Speaker 1: like a giant model for a kid. Yeah, just got
Speaker 1: blood and stuff on it. But yeah, the wreckage of
Speaker 1: flight eight hunt TTB flight eight hundred, it fell into
Speaker 1: three rather distinct zones. This is the way that they
Speaker 1: categorized it. They were the red, the yellow, and the
Speaker 1: green zones. The red zone is was basically directly underneath
Speaker 1: where the explosion happened. Uh. This and this is important
Speaker 1: if you ever go in and read the documentation from
Speaker 1: the NTSB and their official their final report UM, and
Speaker 1: of course the conspiracy documentaries will make reference to it. Uh.
Speaker 1: The yellow zone was very small and in the god
Speaker 1: it was the eastern corner of the red zone sort
Speaker 1: of that was kind of like in the northeastern corner
Speaker 1: of Yeah, yeah, it's it's kind of hard to tell
Speaker 1: in their little drawing. And then the farthest east would
Speaker 1: be the green zone. It was obviously much farther along
Speaker 1: than either of them. The front of the plane was
Speaker 1: in the red zone, so that's the first zone. A
Speaker 1: little bit more of the plane right around where the
Speaker 1: wings joined the body of the plane, that section that
Speaker 1: was in the yellow zone, and then every think we're there,
Speaker 1: so the tail, the wings, the majority of the fuselage
Speaker 1: of the plane were actually in the green zone. That's
Speaker 1: very counterintuitive to me, isn't it. It is, And we
Speaker 1: will talk about that, Okay, I know, I know, yeah,
Speaker 1: And I want to make sure that I'm pointing that
Speaker 1: out because I don't know that people are necessarily tracking.
Speaker 1: The plane was headed east and but the front of
Speaker 1: the plane landed most westerly, correct, Okay, yeah, most westerly.
Speaker 1: We're pretty sure that's technical term, it's the nautical term.
Speaker 1: So we talked about all those folks that were out
Speaker 1: there and and saw this light come up from the horizon,
Speaker 1: and they saw the explosion, and they were not shy
Speaker 1: about telling the authorities that they had seen something like this,
Speaker 1: and because that shouldn't be happening, and that of course
Speaker 1: got the attention of the U. S. Government, most specifically
Speaker 1: the FBI. The thing is is that this, you know,
Speaker 1: what they describe, makes everybody wonder if this was an
Speaker 1: act of terror, if this plane was brought down intentionally. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I gotta tell you, it was before the
Speaker 1: reports of possible missiles came out. I mean I was
Speaker 1: that night. I was talking to a friend on the
Speaker 1: phone because I was alive when this happened. Believe it
Speaker 1: or not, pus cognizant, but he's like, yeah, turning your TV.
Speaker 1: There's a huge plane crash in New York and I
Speaker 1: turned it on. This has just happened. They got helicopters
Speaker 1: out there kind of there. Just nobody knows what had happened.
Speaker 1: Nobody said anything about missiles. And yeah, still he's said
Speaker 1: to me, terrorism, you know, I mean he was, he
Speaker 1: was dead share at the moment at that time that
Speaker 1: it was terror, which is really funny when you think
Speaker 1: about how you know, that's before the terror alert became
Speaker 1: a thing. But everybody just like, planes don't just come
Speaker 1: down out of the sky, you don't just yeah, they don't.
Speaker 1: Just something had to have caused. So yeah, well there
Speaker 1: and this is not like you know, everybody acts like
Speaker 1: nine eleven. There was no terrorism before then, going to
Speaker 1: say there was the original right then? Right, yeah, that
Speaker 1: was I thought I was taking that, but I could
Speaker 1: be Yeah, I mean around within a year, yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean there there had been a lot of stuff. I
Speaker 1: think the cob terrorists and towers attack in Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: had happened just right before then there and there had
Speaker 1: been there had been a building things like what's his name?
Speaker 1: Who did the Oklahoma City bomb? That had only been
Speaker 1: a couple of years prior. So people immediately when something
Speaker 1: of this scale happens like, that's not normal. Somebody did that?
Speaker 1: Who the hell was it? And that is you know,
Speaker 1: it's consider there looked, it's viewed as terrorism because it is,
Speaker 1: but more importantly, it's considered as a it's crime, and
Speaker 1: the NTSB doesn't have the jurisdiction to investigate a criminal action,
Speaker 1: so the FBI had to come in. But here's the thing.
Speaker 1: The behind therefore, TA is not figuring out what brings
Speaker 1: down planes and reconstructing them. So while there may have
Speaker 1: been a lot of carotterie in the beginning, according to
Speaker 1: some people who were involved, as time wore on, there
Speaker 1: was more and more friction through lack of communication and
Speaker 1: different methods of operation and maybe lack of knowledge of
Speaker 1: what goes on when you reconstruct a plane. Um, so
Speaker 1: they're they're in there. Um. Now here's the thing. This investigation,
Speaker 1: it took a long time. The FBI, they help out.
Speaker 1: It takes about ten months to recover all of the
Speaker 1: bodies and they you know, the ones that weren't on
Speaker 1: the surface, we're about a hundred and fifty feet down.
Speaker 1: And then the the plane itself right that that did
Speaker 1: help out a lot in recovering those bodies. In seven
Speaker 1: the FBI would come out, so this is a year.
Speaker 1: After a year and several months, they would come out
Speaker 1: and say, listen, we couldn't find any sign of foul play,
Speaker 1: so we don't think someone brought the plane down intentionally. So, uh,
Speaker 1: we're closing our investigation. And in TSP, you're on it's
Speaker 1: your show go dance. I mean, you know, it's likely,
Speaker 1: they said, and if you find anything that contradicts that,
Speaker 1: let us know and we'll come back. Maybe they might have,
Speaker 1: but I'm sure if they were like and if you
Speaker 1: find a giant missile hole. Let us know, and we
Speaker 1: will come investigate some more. But right now we don't
Speaker 1: have any proof of that. So we're tired of this.
Speaker 1: We're leaving. You guys are a bunch of nerds who
Speaker 1: are trying to put your thing back together. You do that,
Speaker 1: We're going to go do other stuff. I gotta say,
Speaker 1: you give it to give it. Some of my other
Speaker 1: observations about the FPI ten months is actually a pretty
Speaker 1: brief investigation for those guys. Yeah, really, I'm sure they
Speaker 1: were just tired of fighting Paly quick probably be probably
Speaker 1: a little bit of pressure from the government to to
Speaker 1: probably you know, issue some sort of a fine name,
Speaker 1: to put all these conspiracy stuff stuff to rest. And
Speaker 1: you want that's probably the main reason. You really want
Speaker 1: your citizens to feel safe traveling, especially by air. That's
Speaker 1: a huge, huge portion of the economy. And if people are,
Speaker 1: you know, for a year, sitting there thinking, but every
Speaker 1: plane is getting shot out of the sky, or maybe
Speaker 1: one plane, but it could be the plane I get onto.
Speaker 1: I'm not getting on an airplane anymore. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I didn't bother to do any research into the economic
Speaker 1: impact of this attack. I get really had a dentity,
Speaker 1: but you know what I mean, Like I think after
Speaker 1: nine eleven people stopped taking airplanes for a while because
Speaker 1: they were so scared, you know. So it was just
Speaker 1: kind of I can totally understand why the FBI would
Speaker 1: be like, we gotta get ahead right now. Thanks. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna I'm gonna speed things along here a
Speaker 1: little bit because these investigations are very, very meticulous and
Speaker 1: they take a long time. The NTSB would finally render
Speaker 1: their findings in August of two thousands, so that's like
Speaker 1: four years later. That's a long time, and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of information. Like Joe said earlier, their report on this,
Speaker 1: their final report is over three hundred pages long. There
Speaker 1: was an interim report or two that were put out,
Speaker 1: so there's there's tons of information out there. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try and cook this down to as simple
Speaker 1: and basic or short of time as I can, and
Speaker 1: we're still gonna be here for a while. So here's
Speaker 1: what they say caused the explosion. A faulty wire. Seven
Speaker 1: seven sevens, as with a lot of large aircraft, don't
Speaker 1: carry their fuel in external tanks like you'll see on
Speaker 1: some smaller aircraft. Instead, they stored in the wings and
Speaker 1: a portion of the fuselage underneath where the passengers sit
Speaker 1: the body of the plane. And it's just simple flight economics.
Speaker 1: I mean, you don't ever see jumbo planes like that
Speaker 1: because a big tank causes air drag, which slows you down,
Speaker 1: requires more fuel to get where you're going. So it
Speaker 1: makes just total sense in terms of fuel economy and efficiency. Well,
Speaker 1: you also put it in the wings because that's kind
Speaker 1: of the fulcrum of the plane. That's where it balances,
Speaker 1: so it gives them some rigidity, it helps them out
Speaker 1: that way. Don't put it away in the back because
Speaker 1: as a as a tank empties in your tail becomes light,
Speaker 1: you know, and things like that, and then you gotta
Speaker 1: deal with that, and that causes dragon that you got. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: in the wings. Although I was reading somewhere it sounds
Speaker 1: like they do actually keep some fuel in the tail,
Speaker 1: believe it or not. It was surprising to me. You know,
Speaker 1: it just seems too far away. You could use your
Speaker 1: well they might do it as a trim tank kind
Speaker 1: of situation. Yeah, but you're right, Yeah, gas in the tail, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's too far away. We don't have any kind of
Speaker 1: mechanism to get that back of the plane. Come on, yeah,
Speaker 1: well you're not vacuums. That's why, you know. I mean, okay, okay, okay,
Speaker 1: let's get back on track. So so why is it
Speaker 1: important that I'm telling you about this fuel time? Yeah? Why?
Speaker 1: Well it is because one of the inside of what
Speaker 1: is known as the center wing tank, that's the one
Speaker 1: that's the body of the plane, there is a small
Speaker 1: pump that's, you know, assist in the process of moving
Speaker 1: fuel around. And there isn't much in terms of wiring
Speaker 1: in there, but there was a wire and it appears
Speaker 1: to have caused a short and that wire happened also,
Speaker 1: you know, wires are interconnected everywhere, and one of the
Speaker 1: things they pointed to show that it was probably that
Speaker 1: particular wire is it goes into a bundle that runs
Speaker 1: up into the cockpit and controls the fuel Quantity Indicator system,
Speaker 1: the gas gage. It's they refer to it as the
Speaker 1: f q I S, but it's the gas gage. And
Speaker 1: because the tank wasn't completely full and the short is
Speaker 1: going on, one of the pilots is saying, look at
Speaker 1: these weirdo readings that I'm getting on the gauge for
Speaker 1: the center wing tank. This is just prior minute or
Speaker 1: two prior to the explosion. Um and yeah, and and
Speaker 1: when that spark arked, there was vapor fuel in there,
Speaker 1: so it wasn't the liquid fuel but the vaporized version
Speaker 1: of it, which is which is always flammable. I actually
Speaker 1: watched the thing today, a guy taking jet fuel and
Speaker 1: a lighter and sticking or a match and sticking it
Speaker 1: in the fuel and not igniting, but as soon as
Speaker 1: he missed it across the flame, it just it lit
Speaker 1: right up. And they're saying that what happened is that
Speaker 1: vapor hits that spark that caused the explosion, which ignited
Speaker 1: the about three pounds of liquid fuel that was in
Speaker 1: the center wing tank, and it tore the plane apart
Speaker 1: just in front of the wings. So remember we talked
Speaker 1: about in the red yellow in the green zone. Okay,
Speaker 1: the nose of the front of the plane was ripped
Speaker 1: off in the initial explosion. The following probably second or
Speaker 1: third explosion or you know, portion of that explosion ripped
Speaker 1: off another say, about twenty or thirty foot section of
Speaker 1: the plane that included the shoulders where they join up
Speaker 1: with the plane and some of the landing gear and yeah,
Speaker 1: and well, of course and everything it was in that area,
Speaker 1: but essentially and then this giant ring of fuselage, it's
Speaker 1: just a big ring. And then what the NTSB says happened,
Speaker 1: So it was the nose went down into the yellow
Speaker 1: zone or the red zone, the second that thin that
Speaker 1: portion went down into the yellow zone. And then the
Speaker 1: plane continued to fly for a short time with its
Speaker 1: wings on and eventually crash. And I know that that's
Speaker 1: the crazy thing because a lot of people like that
Speaker 1: that doesn't make any sense. I'm I'm on board with
Speaker 1: this whole you know, the wings floated situation, but I'm not.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how a fire in the wings causes
Speaker 1: an explosion that first tears off the no is and
Speaker 1: then tears off this other people let me, I may
Speaker 1: have glossed over that in the in the wrong in
Speaker 1: a bad way. It's the center wing tank, the part
Speaker 1: of the a tank that is in the body of
Speaker 1: the plane, not in the wings. It connects the two wings,
Speaker 1: so it's the center of the plane. It's between the
Speaker 1: two wings. Center wing tank makes me think it's the
Speaker 1: tank in the middle of you know, so when it's
Speaker 1: in the body of the plane and it explodes. That's
Speaker 1: why it popped the front of the plane off. Okay,
Speaker 1: and it's in the middle of the plane from from
Speaker 1: left or right the full width of it. Think of
Speaker 1: as a unified structured right and everything just one solid
Speaker 1: structure with Yeah, I got it, I just I but
Speaker 1: I still am like not totally it's I mean, it's fine,
Speaker 1: but I don't totally understand how the front two parts
Speaker 1: exploded into like two different things, and why the front
Speaker 1: you know what it's it's all in the way that
Speaker 1: the fuel was and the explosion. It's it's fine. I've
Speaker 1: read it a couple of times. It is still tough
Speaker 1: to figure why. Well, and this is this is where
Speaker 1: you can kind of see why, like people don't believe
Speaker 1: this because it doesn't totally makes sense. I'm sure if
Speaker 1: you are a scientist about something like this or an
Speaker 1: expert in something like this, it does make sense. But
Speaker 1: for like us, you know, Layman, this is like super
Speaker 1: counterintuitive and still kind of like, I mean, I guess
Speaker 1: that makes sense, but only because you said it's super
Speaker 1: science e. So that the thing is is that it
Speaker 1: does it is it does seem a little odd that
Speaker 1: the entire nose of seven forty seven could come off
Speaker 1: because of an explosion in the center wing tank at
Speaker 1: the same time, that wouldn't be explained by the missile
Speaker 1: theory either, which is unless the missile hit, unless it
Speaker 1: was an enormous freaking missile, because everybody's talking about and
Speaker 1: you're jumping a little head on duping ahead. But but yeah, so,
Speaker 1: I mean, actually, it's actually more easily explained by an
Speaker 1: explosion in the center wing tank than although in theory
Speaker 1: you can encompass both those things, the missile and the
Speaker 1: explosion in the center wing tank. So as Joe has
Speaker 1: given away one of our theories, actually multiple theories by
Speaker 1: a missile, I'll keep my favorite theory a secret until later, okay,
Speaker 1: so you can tell me whisper it. Here's the thing.
Speaker 1: The NTSB says that from explosion to final crash, the
Speaker 1: plane was in the air for approximately forty seven to
Speaker 1: fifty four seconds. So explosion happens, that front bit falls off,
Speaker 1: and the plane continues in a forward trajectory. They said
Speaker 1: that it was after three to five seconds after that
Speaker 1: explosion the plane rolled and actually started to climb, so
Speaker 1: it actually went upwards, and according to their analysis, they
Speaker 1: say that it initially was at thirteen thousand, eight hundred
Speaker 1: feet just when the explosion happened, and it climbed to
Speaker 1: somewhere between fifteen to sixteen thousand feet in elevation, which
Speaker 1: is at climb that's three to sixeventy, which is weird.
Speaker 1: But at that point the fire had continued through the plane,
Speaker 1: and you know, then bits of it are falling off,
Speaker 1: and that's why we've got the wreckage spread the way
Speaker 1: that it is over the debris field. So when the
Speaker 1: soaring was happening, this was before the plane broke apart.
Speaker 1: Is that true? No, No, in front of plane comes
Speaker 1: off and then the plane continues to fly and actually
Speaker 1: rolls and goes upwards. I know, I know it sounds weird.
Speaker 1: I was willing to say, well, maybe the pilots were like, wow,
Speaker 1: we're on fire, and I think when they're on fire,
Speaker 1: they're supposed to go up because there's less air, so
Speaker 1: it'll maybe if they're at high enough altitude they can't
Speaker 1: do that to extinguish it. But the pilots were already exposed, right,
Speaker 1: But that's but that was my thought was like, Okay,
Speaker 1: that makes sense that the pilots were like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it was Yeah, it was like, I don't
Speaker 1: think there was fire and then explosion. Yeah, Now it
Speaker 1: was just the the black felage of the airplane somehow
Speaker 1: going like a hundred thousand, undred one thousand to two thousand.
Speaker 1: Let's just round it out that way. Yeah, yeah, and
Speaker 1: we'll get to it because I have some weird quirks
Speaker 1: with it. Um. So the NTSB they say that, listen
Speaker 1: those things that the witnesses saw, you know, that that
Speaker 1: stuff going upwards from the horizon, actually that was the
Speaker 1: plane itself post explosion. And what they say is that
Speaker 1: when the plane exploded, it would have begun to vent
Speaker 1: fuel which was on fire, which would create a white
Speaker 1: cloud behind it. So the people who say they saw
Speaker 1: it come from the horizon, they may have presumed they
Speaker 1: saw it from the horizon, but it may have actually
Speaker 1: been somewhere in the distance and not truly on the horizon.
Speaker 1: And that weird trail that they saw was burning fuel
Speaker 1: that would make that white cloud, and that they would
Speaker 1: watch that rise upwards because the plane is now gaining
Speaker 1: altitude before it then has its final explosion, which is
Speaker 1: then the explosion they see and then they see the
Speaker 1: plane falling and splitting as the fuselage is breaking apart
Speaker 1: in the wings are shearing off. Okay, that's their official
Speaker 1: explanation of what they say people saw. Now I I
Speaker 1: don't know. I mean, it's I understand what Devin is saying,
Speaker 1: because it's just weird that two thirds of the plane
Speaker 1: should continue on. And I know, Joe, you don't think
Speaker 1: it's weird. I'm I'm I'm in the middle of the
Speaker 1: road on this, but it's a it's an amazing series
Speaker 1: of events, and like we said, that's why people don't
Speaker 1: really believe it. It seems just outlandish. One of the
Speaker 1: things that I really haven't seen is that I've seen
Speaker 1: a map of all the locations of the different witness
Speaker 1: side things, and I read all the various numbers of
Speaker 1: people have said, Okay, I think it rose from the horizon,
Speaker 1: and other people have said, well, I think it started
Speaker 1: about halfway up from the horizon. I want to know
Speaker 1: where those people were, because I'm suspecting the guys that
Speaker 1: the people who said I saw it come from the horizon.
Speaker 1: We're probably well inland, and the guys who said they
Speaker 1: saw it started about halfway. We're probably on the beach.
Speaker 1: But I mean, we'd have to know. I mean, and nobody.
Speaker 1: I've never seen any analysis of this. It actually tries
Speaker 1: to break it out by you know, these people were
Speaker 1: way over here and here's where they saw it to originate.
Speaker 1: And I'd like to see that that would be very
Speaker 1: interesting And totally had no idea the government even knows this,
Speaker 1: and hopefully you would think they would have analyzed that
Speaker 1: whole thing because it's a worthwhile piece of information. So
Speaker 1: that's that's the end of this portion of the story.
Speaker 1: By the way, don't worry. They went ahead and they
Speaker 1: fixed in all seven four sevens that wire and potentially
Speaker 1: that explosion happen. Yeah, I think they now now they're
Speaker 1: pumping nitrogen into those banks so that the fuel vapor
Speaker 1: canding night there was no air and well that was
Speaker 1: the thing they were like, listen, it was July, it
Speaker 1: was hot as hell, and they sat on the tarmac
Speaker 1: for an hour, so no wonder there was vapor in that.
Speaker 1: Plus also apparently the center wind tank is over there's
Speaker 1: an air conditioning unit. Yeah, there's a big air conditioning unit.
Speaker 1: This guy and so it's one of the major heat
Speaker 1: sources on the plane. It's a huge heast think, yeah,
Speaker 1: right underneath that tank, and so that's generated tons of
Speaker 1: heat to that. Is that still true as far as
Speaker 1: I was still there. They might have added a little
Speaker 1: layer of insulation or something interesting. I have always felt
Speaker 1: like the air on airplanes makes me feel really really nauseous,
Speaker 1: in the same way that like having my window open
Speaker 1: at a gas station makes me feel really really nauseous.
Speaker 1: And that is maybe now connecting in my brain that
Speaker 1: actually maybe it's because there was maybe a little bit
Speaker 1: of combing. That's actually just the sedative that they pumped
Speaker 1: into the airplane to keep the vaccines. Actually, yeah, I
Speaker 1: think for me, it's just for me, it's kind of
Speaker 1: psychosomatics that realized I'm just breathing in all the filth
Speaker 1: and germs from no it definitely definitely yeah. Okay, well
Speaker 1: that is the end of the story at this point.
Speaker 1: As I said, so we should probably get into theories.
Speaker 1: Let's look at the theories. Let's continue on actually with
Speaker 1: what's from the NTSB, and let's go with the official theory,
Speaker 1: which is it truly was an accident. One of the
Speaker 1: things that the NTSB pointed out to back up their
Speaker 1: findings was the cockpit voice recorder. And I mentioned this
Speaker 1: earlier that the one of the pilots had talked about
Speaker 1: the crazy readings that he was getting on the gauge
Speaker 1: for the center wing tank. So they said, well, look,
Speaker 1: that obviously means that something was going on because the
Speaker 1: gauge was bouncing all around. Another thing that they would
Speaker 1: say is that when they examined the skin of the plane,
Speaker 1: you know, the the outside of the plane, they would
Speaker 1: see no entrance or exit wounds on it, and there
Speaker 1: were no signs of melted metal. And melted metal is
Speaker 1: important because if there's a high explosive that impacts the plane,
Speaker 1: it's going to create very intense heat, which is going
Speaker 1: to melt the skin of the airplane and throw slag everywhere,
Speaker 1: kind of like you know, if you ever see a
Speaker 1: guy arc welding, stuff splatters everywhere, beds all over the place.
Speaker 1: And they said, well you should see that if a
Speaker 1: missile or some kind of high explosive were used on
Speaker 1: the outside to cause it from the exterior of the plane,
Speaker 1: not happening from the inside. Now, what I really want
Speaker 1: to know is what the spirk on Devon's faces, because
Speaker 1: she is holding back really really hard. I just really
Speaker 1: love that they're like, yeah, jet fuel. Jet fuel doesn't
Speaker 1: melt metal like that. It doesn't have it doesn't leave
Speaker 1: the same kind of patterns. It doesn't. I'm just saying.
Speaker 1: All I can say is that I love that the
Speaker 1: t s A was like NTSB was like, uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I know jet fuel, the that melta metal. Okay, that's all.
Speaker 1: That's all I was sarking about. So here's now. Of course,
Speaker 1: in their official explanation, we've talked about this a couple
Speaker 1: of times, is that it seems really weird that this
Speaker 1: plane rose after the explosion. I mean, if you think about,
Speaker 1: you know how we've all made paper airplanes and you
Speaker 1: throw them and they fly straight for a while and
Speaker 1: then they nose dive. But if you cut off the
Speaker 1: front I don't know, quarter or so and then chuck it,
Speaker 1: they should just start spiraling down. You did this. You
Speaker 1: did this in the office, didn't you. But I have
Speaker 1: done this before. I've never done then cut the nose
Speaker 1: off and threw it. Yeah, and was like, ah see,
Speaker 1: that's actually my favorite theory is that it was actually
Speaker 1: just Thor with his hammer an accident just cut it off.
Speaker 1: Slops and that's why it rose, because the hammer was
Speaker 1: still stuck under it and was taking it wherever. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, but I mean we I think we mentioned
Speaker 1: this earlier. The reason that it seems so weird that
Speaker 1: the plane rose is that by taking off the nose
Speaker 1: of the plane, you're moving the center of gravity, which
Speaker 1: should screw it up to a point that it should
Speaker 1: not be able to have lift. But doesn't believe that.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that at all, because moved the center
Speaker 1: of gravity backwards behind the wings drops the tail. I
Speaker 1: guess what. I The reason I say that, though, is
Speaker 1: that if the wings are still chucked full of all
Speaker 1: of that fuel and you move the center of gravity,
Speaker 1: the wings are now the heavy point. They should actually
Speaker 1: tip it forward cause it to lift the wings of
Speaker 1: the fulcrum of the plane without the nose, without the front,
Speaker 1: with the wings of the falcrum. That's what the plane
Speaker 1: balance is on when it's fully assembled. And it's fully assembled, yeah,
Speaker 1: and so you take away that that half on the
Speaker 1: right side of the wings, and then the other half
Speaker 1: goes down. So the point is that the fulcrum can
Speaker 1: never be the heaviest point, right. That's like at the
Speaker 1: falcrum way, so falking can be allied, can be waity,
Speaker 1: so it doesn't matter and so, but and so, because
Speaker 1: it's all it's floating on. When it's floating on, can't
Speaker 1: be the heaviest part ever. But that's that's the thing,
Speaker 1: is that it's just to me, it seems strange that
Speaker 1: I see what you're saying, but trying to remember also
Speaker 1: that there is another reason I don't. It's also it
Speaker 1: also has a hell of a lot, well more than that.
Speaker 1: I mean, they were at about I think thirteen thousand
Speaker 1: feet and they just gotten orders from the tower to
Speaker 1: go to fifteen thousand, and so undoubtedly the pilots and
Speaker 1: you know, goose the gas, they goose the throttles, and
Speaker 1: then the plane blows up. So they're there. You know,
Speaker 1: it's going, it's it's powering up, going faster, and then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, the tail just drops because all
Speaker 1: that weights falling off the front of the plane. And
Speaker 1: so yeah, it's gonna go upwards until it either stalls
Speaker 1: or blows up. Yeah, yeah, I mean, so here's a
Speaker 1: stat that might help. It's still I still struggle with that, Joe,
Speaker 1: But I'm not going to say you're not that you're wrong.
Speaker 1: I don't know, to be quite honest, but I do
Speaker 1: know that the plane they have the ability the seven
Speaker 1: four sevens to rise to climb somewhere between fifties six
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty four hundred feet per minute, which is
Speaker 1: pretty good climb up. And for our folks who work
Speaker 1: on the the Imperial System that we're on the Imperial System,
Speaker 1: it's named after the things. Yeah, I know, I've I've
Speaker 1: brain farted that would be seventeen hundred to fifty meters
Speaker 1: per second or per minute climbing. So I mean, you're right,
Speaker 1: it could have gone up, and it could have continued
Speaker 1: our words like that. There is a huge amount of
Speaker 1: thrust in the in those engines. And yeah, when you
Speaker 1: when you take away that whole nose section, that's a
Speaker 1: lot of weight. Yeah, that's all, you know, a serious
Speaker 1: lot of and all those passengers too, you know, and
Speaker 1: all the luggage and everything else. I mean, all that way,
Speaker 1: it's just gone, you know. And plus the pilot just
Speaker 1: goose throttles. So that the assumption is I don't know
Speaker 1: enough about how planes work with like electronics and bold
Speaker 1: that the throttle would stay open despite the fact that
Speaker 1: the computer that's controlling the throttle may no longer be discomputed. Well,
Speaker 1: that's That's the thing I don't quite get is that
Speaker 1: is that I think that on those planes, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if they use cables or if it's entirely computers,
Speaker 1: wires and everything. I thought that they had backup cables
Speaker 1: and all kinds of things like mechanical hydraulics. I'm not
Speaker 1: willing to venture. I don't. I don't really know, because
Speaker 1: you would think that if the computer stopped communicating with
Speaker 1: the plane, it would it would stop well accelerating. You
Speaker 1: would think that that, you know. But well now at
Speaker 1: the same time, though, I mean, you want the inches
Speaker 1: to keep going no matter what. You don't want the
Speaker 1: engines going, oh well, I'm not detecting the cockpit. I
Speaker 1: think I'll just shut down over the mid Atlantic. You
Speaker 1: don't want them doing that, true, but you don't want
Speaker 1: them going like all right, full steep ahead, or like
Speaker 1: whatever you told me last. But I'm kind of thinking
Speaker 1: that they are probably designed to keep going no matter
Speaker 1: what until until they get though, you know, hey, really
Speaker 1: shut down a verse do something because you can't have
Speaker 1: your interests just aside and hey, absolutely, I guess I
Speaker 1: just think like there, but yeah, I know at all
Speaker 1: in the middle ground that the value or the importance
Speaker 1: of that maybe negligible, because remember, post explosion, we've got
Speaker 1: about forty or fifty seconds of flight time, So it
Speaker 1: could have just been you know, it had begun in
Speaker 1: time and so the inertia carried it. We don't know. Um,
Speaker 1: what we do know is that there is a ton
Speaker 1: of radar evidence available that track the flight. If I
Speaker 1: remember right, it's like three or four at least three
Speaker 1: or four different radar locations were tracking the plane, not
Speaker 1: just JFK, and they seemed okay. So there's a I'm
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk about this a couple of times. But
Speaker 1: there's a documentary that came out in about t w A,
Speaker 1: and it's a bit sensationalist at times, but they make
Speaker 1: a lot about the final moments of the plane and
Speaker 1: the radar information that's out there. But that radar information
Speaker 1: tracks both the plane and then post explosion, some of
Speaker 1: its debris moving forward as it and then plummets down
Speaker 1: into the ocean. Uh So, according to that, it does
Speaker 1: seem to indicate that the plane did indeed climb uh,
Speaker 1: and it it before it eventually would tip back down
Speaker 1: and crash into the ocean. So or well, I mean,
Speaker 1: both those things happen. Both of those things happened, probably
Speaker 1: in that order. But another thing that supports their claim
Speaker 1: is that there were there have been other aircraft that
Speaker 1: were down supposedly because of this same issue or similar
Speaker 1: issues with the center wing tank. UM. The NTSB they
Speaker 1: conducted some tests and they took an old seven forty
Speaker 1: seven and they pumped the center wing tank not full
Speaker 1: of jet fuel, but god it was like propane or
Speaker 1: something was an aerosol fuel and then lit it ignited
Speaker 1: it and it was catastrophic. Did rip that whole poor
Speaker 1: plane apart. Uh. So they were like, well check that out.
Speaker 1: This obviously does very similar damage. There was two other
Speaker 1: flights that they referenced in their report. There's UM which
Speaker 1: it's the Avianca flight two oh three which crashed in nine,
Speaker 1: and then the Philippines Airlines flight one forty three which
Speaker 1: crashed in nine. I will point out it's a little
Speaker 1: odd that I get why they included it. But the
Speaker 1: Avianca flight, the one from nine that was there was
Speaker 1: a bomb that that blew up and it ignited the
Speaker 1: center wing tank, which they said the bomb itself probably
Speaker 1: would not have been enough to take the plane down,
Speaker 1: but because of where it was, it's set the center
Speaker 1: wing tank off and that's what brought the plane. I
Speaker 1: feel like they're test to have, like, listen, we've filled
Speaker 1: it full of propane, which is it's going to ignite,
Speaker 1: and then we ignited it intentionally with the igniter and
Speaker 1: it blew up. Look it blew up. It's kind of
Speaker 1: like those people who are like, this recipe sucked because
Speaker 1: I used peanut butter instead of regular butter, and I
Speaker 1: replaced the oatmeal with regular flour, and it was like,
Speaker 1: it's just I think what they were testing is like
Speaker 1: they wanted to see if if it would blow up
Speaker 1: in this I understand. So we feel this was something
Speaker 1: that's going to explode it it's a tank strong enough
Speaker 1: to hold all that pressure in until it suddenly just
Speaker 1: fails catastrophe. But that's only half of the equation. They're right,
Speaker 1: they also have to prove that that one little fuse
Speaker 1: could wire or whatever could also ignite on However, my well,
Speaker 1: they were pretty sure prior to this that it couldn't
Speaker 1: do that, right, but and so maybe that's the thing,
Speaker 1: is like, that's the part that I feel like, I
Speaker 1: have no doubt that if you put a bomb on
Speaker 1: a fusile or on a fuel tank, it will explode
Speaker 1: a plane. Okay, I'm not questioning that part of it,
Speaker 1: but I am. That's what I'm questioning. And so that's
Speaker 1: my big problem with this and that test they did
Speaker 1: where they're like, yeah, we put a super explosive thing
Speaker 1: in the tank, it exploded, the plane exploded, it's closed.
Speaker 1: That's not the big question that you missed. The point
Speaker 1: is not the explosive, iss the igniter, the method. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and actually the I mean the their theory about that,
Speaker 1: which especially is says there there's a very low voltage
Speaker 1: wire that goes into a sensor in the tank, and
Speaker 1: actually it is designed to be very very low voltage
Speaker 1: for a reason, so it can't spark and plan out.
Speaker 1: But apparently it is part of a larger harness that
Speaker 1: and that included things like it goes back to the
Speaker 1: fuel gage. I think it was also it wasn't the
Speaker 1: cockpit voice recorder also on that same I think it
Speaker 1: was all on the same bundle yet, and they had
Speaker 1: and they were having issues with it also at the
Speaker 1: same time, they were having issues with the fuel gage
Speaker 1: readings and which which made them think they had a
Speaker 1: short somewhere. And so it's actually what it was. The
Speaker 1: thinking is that there was a breaker that should have
Speaker 1: shut off and prevented that that that all that extra
Speaker 1: voltage from that short from getting back into that low
Speaker 1: voltage wire in the tank. And apparently I discovered that
Speaker 1: breaker didn't shut down until kind of later than they
Speaker 1: thought it should have, which is how all that extra
Speaker 1: voltage got in there and sparked created an arc and
Speaker 1: I lit that off. So that's that's the thinging about that.
Speaker 1: I understand that as well. Yeah, I understand that theory,
Speaker 1: but they didn't test that well, that's the thing I
Speaker 1: don't know, did they did they test that theory and
Speaker 1: it doesn't sound like it to me, but probably should have. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I'll be honest, I did I While I
Speaker 1: read a lot of the information that they put out,
Speaker 1: I didn't read at all. I don't think any normal
Speaker 1: human being in the time in the month that I've
Speaker 1: been working on this could have gone through at all.
Speaker 1: It's a lot, yeah, I think, But I think like
Speaker 1: that that the thing where they blew up to seven
Speaker 1: before they seven. I think what they were trying to
Speaker 1: just find out was this, if we if we light
Speaker 1: off the field in this tank, however we do it,
Speaker 1: is it gonna be a catastrophic to blow the nose
Speaker 1: off the plane. And we're agreeing on that. That's why
Speaker 1: they did that particular experience, right, which is fine, we
Speaker 1: are we're arguing that same thing. I'm just saying that,
Speaker 1: like they should have done the other one somehow more important,
Speaker 1: mean like con testing that circuit to see, actually that's
Speaker 1: more important to me. Yeah, I agree they must have.
Speaker 1: I mean, of course it's the government. A Well, let's
Speaker 1: let's move on because that is the end of the
Speaker 1: official theory or the story. It was truly an accident.
Speaker 1: So from here on out, we're gonna to a point
Speaker 1: disregard some of the ntsb s findings because that's what
Speaker 1: the folks who were putting out these theories are doing.
Speaker 1: Where and when. I'm not gonna say when it's convenient,
Speaker 1: but when it suits them. I don't want to be,
Speaker 1: you know, negative about about this. But sometimes they're saying
Speaker 1: that what the NTSB said is wrong. Sometimes they're saying
Speaker 1: it's an outright, lie, So we're just gonna follow that path. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Sometimes they're saying they're a confidence. Sometimes they're saying they're conspiring. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's collusion, all that kind of stuff. So theory theory
Speaker 1: number two here is that the plane was taken down
Speaker 1: and it was taken down from a missile that was
Speaker 1: fired from land. Uh And they say specifically they speculate
Speaker 1: that it was done with something like a Stinger missile,
Speaker 1: which is uh. The official acronym is the worst acronym ever.
Speaker 1: It's a man pads, marble air defense system, shoulder mounted rocket.
Speaker 1: It's really that's the simple thing it is. But theoretically
Speaker 1: that's something that can easily be brought to a location
Speaker 1: like the shoreline, fired and then thrown into a bag
Speaker 1: and hustled away from the scenes, even like on a boat. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was I was taking of shooting up from a
Speaker 1: boat makes more sense to me. Yeah, well the boat
Speaker 1: thing comes up from a in a different theory. But
Speaker 1: but people say, well, who could have done this and
Speaker 1: why would they have done it? And their speculation, well,
Speaker 1: maybe this was like an early trial run on the
Speaker 1: part of Osama bin Laden or some other group that
Speaker 1: we anger It's not like it's a new idea. You
Speaker 1: remember in our Barn fifty two episode, we talked about
Speaker 1: the Black September group wanted to take down an L
Speaker 1: L jet liner in rural airport and they had Remember
Speaker 1: that was that Barn fifty two? Yeah, not Barn No, No,
Speaker 1: not not Bearing fifty two. I'm sorry, Argo, Argo sixty. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was fifty two. Was Vietnam. We're doing too many
Speaker 1: plane mysteries. This is the hand anyway, that that was
Speaker 1: the one where they actually got some some black market
Speaker 1: missiles and but somebody, the guy, the guy that that
Speaker 1: delivered him didn't didn't have a car, so they had
Speaker 1: to go buy some rugs and rolled missiles up in
Speaker 1: the transport them back to their apartment right of the
Speaker 1: Rome subway system, rolled up in carpets. So it's not
Speaker 1: a new idea, no no. But but the problem with
Speaker 1: the idea here, if it was a rocket, a man pad,
Speaker 1: a man pad, the problem with the whole thing is
Speaker 1: that there should have been at least an entry wound
Speaker 1: on the plane from where the rocket hit the plane.
Speaker 1: Because it's high energy explosive, there should have been melt.
Speaker 1: Like we talked about before that splatter or that slag,
Speaker 1: and officially there doesn't appear to have been any of that,
Speaker 1: but some people say, well that could have been hidden,
Speaker 1: and there's some ways that that could have been hidden.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about those in a theory and a half. Well, then,
Speaker 1: since the government bodies were investigating it, yes, generally speaking,
Speaker 1: we're gonna move on to theory and or three. This
Speaker 1: is a different way that the missile was launched, and
Speaker 1: this is a missile from c but not with a
Speaker 1: guy on a boat with a stinger rocket, but instead
Speaker 1: it was launched from a ship that would be carrying
Speaker 1: munitions like that a k A navy or coast guard
Speaker 1: or somebody like that. And here's the thing is that
Speaker 1: that changes the kind of rocket. It also changes to
Speaker 1: a degree the requirement of that high energy explosive impacting
Speaker 1: the plane, because not all rockets are designed to contact
Speaker 1: with their target and then explode like you want a
Speaker 1: fighter jet. You're not going to hit him, he's just
Speaker 1: too damn fast. But if you blow up near him
Speaker 1: and throw shrapnel, it's hot and fast all around in there.
Speaker 1: And probably so this theory is saying that the reason
Speaker 1: we're not seeing a massive entry wound from a rocket
Speaker 1: is because it was high you know, I'm high tech
Speaker 1: isn't the right word, but it's a sophisticated piece of
Speaker 1: munitions that exploded and through this hot shrapnel and these
Speaker 1: one of these little pieces is what punched through the
Speaker 1: plane and punched into the center fuel tank, the center
Speaker 1: wing tank, and that is then what caused that explosion,
Speaker 1: and that's what introduced the the ignition source rather than
Speaker 1: that wire that we were discussing earlier. Um and you know,
Speaker 1: the the NDSB they said, well, listen, it couldn't be
Speaker 1: a rocket because we didn't have any kind of trace
Speaker 1: evidence on anything that would support that. This maybe could
Speaker 1: be the reason why there's some things that we haven't
Speaker 1: talked about. And again this is something that's brought up
Speaker 1: in some of the documentaries. Uh. And that is damage
Speaker 1: done to the I think it's the left wing of
Speaker 1: t w A flight eight. The right wing pretty well
Speaker 1: intact in terms of I mean, it's broken, but the
Speaker 1: circumference of it was pretty well intact, whereas the left wing,
Speaker 1: the top surface of it was shattered. And the NTSB's
Speaker 1: official explanation was, listen, it was still full of fuel
Speaker 1: and when it hit the water, there was hydraulic force
Speaker 1: that pushed the fuel that was still remaining in the
Speaker 1: wing tank because there's two tanks, but pushed it through there,
Speaker 1: and that hydraulic pressure shattered the wing, and that's why
Speaker 1: that one's all broken up, whereas the other one came
Speaker 1: down in a different manner, and so they left wing
Speaker 1: had more the right wing didn't have any fuel in it. Well, no,
Speaker 1: I think I think it's more of think of it
Speaker 1: this way. If the where it tore off from the plane,
Speaker 1: if you if that were to fall and land on
Speaker 1: that torn end first, then the impact with the ocean
Speaker 1: and all that hydraulic pressure upwards would have to go somewhere.
Speaker 1: But if the light wing were land at some kind
Speaker 1: of angle or flat or you know, with the the
Speaker 1: front tip in, that's a different impact. So it's it's
Speaker 1: not the hydraulic pressure is not moving through the length
Speaker 1: of it. Okay, Well, our conspiracy friends say, well, listen
Speaker 1: that that's obviously total bunk because the only way that
Speaker 1: that wing could have shattered that way is if the
Speaker 1: fuel inside of that left wing were to also have ignited,
Speaker 1: and if they were hit with some kind of rocket
Speaker 1: like this it could have set off the center wing tank,
Speaker 1: but it could have also set off the fuel in
Speaker 1: that left wing, and that would account for that shattering.
Speaker 1: I mean, another question would be like, wasn't it dumping
Speaker 1: all the fuel like while it was falling, but also
Speaker 1: then somehow like landed and the fuel exploded out of it, Like,
Speaker 1: you can't have it both ways. I actually I did.
Speaker 1: After I wrote up all of my stuff that we're
Speaker 1: going through tonight, I actually went back to the NTSB
Speaker 1: S report and I started pouring through what of respects
Speaker 1: I could get on the wing tanks. The wings hold
Speaker 1: up to sixteen thousand gallons of fuel. Uh, that's sixty
Speaker 1: thousand liters. I had to convert that real fast. That's
Speaker 1: a lot of fuels, so in forty or fifty seconds.
Speaker 1: If they were completely full when the accident happened, which
Speaker 1: I don't know that they were to the top full,
Speaker 1: they probably, but it could It's probably not likely that
Speaker 1: it would have burned and lost all of the fuel
Speaker 1: in that, but it probably lost a great amount of it.
Speaker 1: So it does It does beg the question of well,
Speaker 1: that's a lot of pressure to cause that, and even
Speaker 1: if the wing was only half full, that's still weird
Speaker 1: that it would have that with shattering going. You're absolutely right, Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but you know, then again I could
Speaker 1: see if it's half full, all that liquids in the top,
Speaker 1: then it hits and it comes slamming forward with all
Speaker 1: that force, and you know, maybe bust. The hydraulic action
Speaker 1: does some crazy. It sure does. But I do think
Speaker 1: there are still some weird questions about it. There. So
Speaker 1: another thing that our conspiracy theorist friends who are putting
Speaker 1: out the rocket from Sea theory will point to is
Speaker 1: they will talk about the fact that listen, and we've
Speaker 1: been talking about this this whole time, is all these
Speaker 1: witnesses on land, but there are witnesses who were in
Speaker 1: the air at the time that this happened, and at
Speaker 1: least several of them saw the explosion of flight at
Speaker 1: t w A flight eight hundred. At least one of
Speaker 1: them reported seeing this light streaking upwards and making contact
Speaker 1: with the plane. He's not in the ntsb S report.
Speaker 1: That's actually one of the major complaints is that of
Speaker 1: all of these interviews that were done, a huge portion
Speaker 1: of them seem to have been omitted. And that omission
Speaker 1: or that having been cut out. People point to as well,
Speaker 1: they're actively tailoring things to fit the nario that they
Speaker 1: created for what brought this plane death. It's hard, it's
Speaker 1: that's that's always like a hard one for me. I
Speaker 1: think you shouldn't omit things, but you do have to
Speaker 1: only include the credible ones, because when something this big happens,
Speaker 1: a lot of people just want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the story and they want to say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I saw something, well and totally I saw something, And
Speaker 1: it's like you have to deem if that report is
Speaker 1: credible or not, but also you got to include most
Speaker 1: of it. There. There are issues though, with the way
Speaker 1: that the interviews were handled and the modification of witness statements,
Speaker 1: and we'll talk about some of this in our next
Speaker 1: theory that our next one. But there are people who
Speaker 1: say that like I never said that, I never said
Speaker 1: that's not what I told them, And they're being cited
Speaker 1: in the reports, Well they summarized, they didn't quote them directly.
Speaker 1: The witnesses were all over the place. The problem they
Speaker 1: figured rely and literally one reason you really can't you
Speaker 1: can't really have all that stuff in there because it
Speaker 1: doesn't any sense when we them altogether. It makes no
Speaker 1: sense whatso it makes it very difficult. You're absolutely right,
Speaker 1: But but that aside, what we still haven't figured out
Speaker 1: is whether this this was launched from sea or from land.
Speaker 1: We still don't really see a clear reason why to
Speaker 1: bring this particular plane down. It doesn't seem to be
Speaker 1: a logic other than fear into the United States. Yeah.
Speaker 1: On the problem with that is that if that had
Speaker 1: been brought down by terrorists, they would have taken credit
Speaker 1: for it. Nobody did. Yeah, yeah, that is that is
Speaker 1: the odd part. Um. Let's let's move to our next theory,
Speaker 1: and this is that it is a military mistake and
Speaker 1: cover up, I think. And we talked about the fact
Speaker 1: that in the beginning, when we were talking about the
Speaker 1: civilian boats going to try to help, there were also
Speaker 1: military boats there in the area, and allegedly there was
Speaker 1: one military craft that was almost directly underneath the explosion,
Speaker 1: and it is seen on radar. Supposedly, I haven't, I don't.
Speaker 1: I can't read the radar tracks well enough to know
Speaker 1: this myself, but supposedly it leaves the area at high
Speaker 1: speed while everybody else is going directly to the area.
Speaker 1: So people say, well, obviously there was a ship in
Speaker 1: the area, and if it was one of ours, if
Speaker 1: it was a U. S. Military ship and it accidentally
Speaker 1: launched a weapon and brought down a civilian craft, well
Speaker 1: you know, no wonder they left well identified, you know,
Speaker 1: not that I have ever seen. Here's the thing, and this,
Speaker 1: this really this bugs the holy hell out of me.
Speaker 1: We've talked about this before. These boats and these ships
Speaker 1: have lots of people on them working every day. And
Speaker 1: if if the military were to have made a food
Speaker 1: bar like this, then you would imagine that they couldn't
Speaker 1: keep quiet over it. How how fast is thirty knots
Speaker 1: uh not? Not as like one and one eighth mile,
Speaker 1: It's about and something like that fast. Yeah, I just
Speaker 1: you know, if I saw a plane falling straight towards me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but if you realize that you launched a weapon and
Speaker 1: then a civilian craft comes falling out of the sky,
Speaker 1: I would also buggy on. After the fact, you would
Speaker 1: think that these people would feel a responsibility to say, listen,
Speaker 1: we screwed up in a big way and the military
Speaker 1: has done this and they've had to you know, they've
Speaker 1: been made accountable for there was uh yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: it's happened before. Well, it does happen. I mean, but
Speaker 1: you're playing with dangerous toys. There's going to be accident. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The whole thing is, No, none of these guys, I mean,
Speaker 1: the guy, the captain on this ship, the captain had
Speaker 1: the Excel. All these these are not morons. They're not
Speaker 1: like your typical criminals. You know, they're not like they're
Speaker 1: not thinking, oh yeah, if we just boogie out of
Speaker 1: here as quick as we can, nobody will ever figure
Speaker 1: out that it was us. You know. They don't like that,
Speaker 1: you know, and they're not eight years old now, so
Speaker 1: I can see them, like Deva says, you know, getting
Speaker 1: the hell out if there's a fireball directly above you.
Speaker 1: I can see them stepping on the gap yourself. But
Speaker 1: you're gonna stop and come back. But you don't hide,
Speaker 1: you don't just hope nobody will notice. Yeah, although I
Speaker 1: will say, um, you know, on a bigger scale, if
Speaker 1: this was like a vast conspiracy that ranged, you know,
Speaker 1: into lots of different organizations, it wouldn't be uh oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we made a mistake, but we're going to get out
Speaker 1: of here. They'd be like we made a attack that
Speaker 1: was ordered from higher ups, and we feel justified in
Speaker 1: that because that was that was the goal, was to
Speaker 1: take this plane down for whatever reason, and we will
Speaker 1: be taken care of. Yeah, it could be that if
Speaker 1: it was I like this, Serri. Actually it's like, you know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna do this and then we're gonna go out
Speaker 1: to sea and we're going to kill the crew and
Speaker 1: them over or maybe it's a you know, skeleton crews
Speaker 1: behind killing and five people and you can kill four
Speaker 1: hundred instead. You know, it's there, you know, the small crew.
Speaker 1: But you know it's also it could be like, well, listen,
Speaker 1: this is a covert operation. Is that's what this boat
Speaker 1: is for. Its covert operation. There's a you know, mass
Speaker 1: terrorist on that airplane. We're going to take him out.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a few civilian casualties, but the
Speaker 1: you know gain of life from whatever, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: whatever story is told could be there. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: this is a good theory, because I don't think it's
Speaker 1: a good theory, but I just think they're like, there're
Speaker 1: a lot I can get there well, and and the
Speaker 1: thing is so easily. If it truly was a military
Speaker 1: vessel that did it, then it would take a massive
Speaker 1: internal conspiracy of the US government's part to cover that up.
Speaker 1: And that's what a lot of people are going on.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that really gets people going
Speaker 1: is the reported behavior of the b I during the investigation, because,
Speaker 1: like I said before, they don't normally investigate aircraft crashes
Speaker 1: like this um and a lot of people came forward
Speaker 1: after the fact and said there was some weird stuff
Speaker 1: early on in the investigation. Of course, what's happening is,
Speaker 1: you know, they're getting the parts of the plane in
Speaker 1: to inspect and reassemble, and they start testing it for
Speaker 1: explosive residue to figure out, well, did somebody actually shoot
Speaker 1: this down? And they start getting pieces of the plane
Speaker 1: which you're testing positive for explosive residue. So everybody freaks out,
Speaker 1: Oh my god, Oh my god, Oh my god. Except
Speaker 1: then they decide to dismiss those findings because they say, well, listen,
Speaker 1: these parts of the plane were underwater for a couple
Speaker 1: of days, so there's no way they can still have
Speaker 1: the residue, so that must be Um, oh god, what
Speaker 1: is the word I'm looking for. It's cross contamination from
Speaker 1: the military vessels that brought them back that of course
Speaker 1: would be have would have unitions have that kind of
Speaker 1: residue on down well, and also there were at least
Speaker 1: some of the interior contamination was potentially at least acounting
Speaker 1: part the fact that they use that very plain for
Speaker 1: explosive training for dogs about a month before the accident.
Speaker 1: Actually that that actually gets a lot of ridicule because
Speaker 1: if you look at the timeline, that plane is sitting
Speaker 1: on the tarmac, it lands then and then within about
Speaker 1: an hour to an hour and a half passengers are
Speaker 1: boarding and it's leaving again. So there's a very short
Speaker 1: amount of time to do a dog training exercise with
Speaker 1: nobody else on it, but apparently directly next to it
Speaker 1: on the tarmac for hours was a completely empty seven
Speaker 1: four seven. So people say, listen, they were probably actually
Speaker 1: testing the other one, and they said they were in
Speaker 1: this one. But but even if that's the case, the
Speaker 1: thing was underwater for days. That's part of it, but
Speaker 1: it shouldn't have been there. Yeah, but as part of
Speaker 1: the explosive thing too. It's not even a very busy
Speaker 1: little seven forty seven like ours what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: That's some down time. Why they do maintenance on it
Speaker 1: and it which is a great time to bring your
Speaker 1: dogs and your bombs on board and do you know,
Speaker 1: do a little plane around. But like you said, too,
Speaker 1: it was also all this stuff was immersed for a
Speaker 1: long period of time. I don't know what kind of
Speaker 1: residue was left behind from a bunch of stuff burning
Speaker 1: on your plane, not not just the jet fuel, but
Speaker 1: you know, seat cushions and luggage, all kinds of nasty
Speaker 1: stuff burning. And that's gonna be some residue too. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not necessarily the same signature as an explosive, you know,
Speaker 1: But I don't know well, and you know, they're at
Speaker 1: one point during their investigation, there's a hole to do
Speaker 1: made of this reddish material that is found on the
Speaker 1: seats of the airplane that was chewing gum. It's chewing
Speaker 1: gum it. It officially was figured out to be the
Speaker 1: glue that the seat manufacturer used to adhere the fabric
Speaker 1: to the cushion. According to the there's a like I said,
Speaker 1: there's multiple documentaries. There's one that came out in two
Speaker 1: thousands seven or two thousand eight ish and it says,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, no, that's actually not true. That manufacturer never
Speaker 1: came forward and said that, but in the official reports
Speaker 1: that's what it says. There's also some things. There's more
Speaker 1: weird behavior on the part of the FBI. UM. One
Speaker 1: of the people said that was involved, said that he
Speaker 1: took a part to the FBI to have invested part
Speaker 1: of the plane, said can you test this? They were
Speaker 1: testing for nitrates. Uh, And they took it in and
Speaker 1: the thing tested positive, and everybody started wigging out, and
Speaker 1: then the FBI shut him out and said, we have
Speaker 1: to ship it somewhere. And it's because we don't know
Speaker 1: if this is real and the machine has prone to
Speaker 1: false positives, except the machine was state of the art
Speaker 1: and the guy who made the machine and cells it
Speaker 1: was like, yeah, no, there's no such thing as false
Speaker 1: positives with this thing. It goes down to you know,
Speaker 1: so many parts per million to make this conclusion. So
Speaker 1: there's like when McDonald's is like, no, our ice cream
Speaker 1: machine is down, when you know it's just the employees
Speaker 1: just want all the ice cream for themselves. That's exactly
Speaker 1: the same thing. Um. But I can see if you
Speaker 1: did get if you did get a positive on this
Speaker 1: on this thing, you'd want to stip it off to
Speaker 1: somewhere else for more testing. But and so the thing
Speaker 1: that people say is weird about that is that there
Speaker 1: there shouldn't have been any difference between what they were
Speaker 1: doing on site. Also once it left the hangar, that
Speaker 1: part has been unaccounted for since then. So people find
Speaker 1: that to be very very hinky. You know, they lose stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, the FBI still can't put his hands on
Speaker 1: d V. Cooper's cigarette. They really, they lose stuff all
Speaker 1: the time. Let's see what not What else did the
Speaker 1: FBI do well? According to investigators, they manipulated wreckage the NTSP.
Speaker 1: We're talking about NTSB investigators against the FBI. Okay, I
Speaker 1: just wanted to be clear that we're saying that like
Speaker 1: one agency that was investigating it, one national agency that
Speaker 1: was in charge investigating is he's making allegations against the other.
Speaker 1: That it's not just random people on the internet saying correct. Well,
Speaker 1: I heard this not in the comments section. So DSP
Speaker 1: investigator James Spear, he's been open about saying that he
Speaker 1: walked into the hangar at one point and caught a
Speaker 1: unnamed FBI agent using I think it was like a
Speaker 1: hammer on pieces of wreckage to change their shape which
Speaker 1: is just more than a little bit unusual when you
Speaker 1: want to keep things as they were when it's like
Speaker 1: a crime scene or whatever, exactly know what it looks
Speaker 1: like if you've modified its appearance. But he was, he
Speaker 1: was weighing on something. Is this guy sure it was
Speaker 1: wreckage and not just something else. As far as I'm awhere,
Speaker 1: they only had wreckage in there. It wasn't like they
Speaker 1: were storing wreckage. And by the way, the auto shop
Speaker 1: was next door and he was working on his pondy
Speaker 1: another stuff in there. I'm sure they had their tools,
Speaker 1: they had their lunchboxes, there was miscellaneous others. I don't
Speaker 1: think he was fixing us. But so here's other things
Speaker 1: that they out their allegations they have out there. Um,
Speaker 1: they say that David Mayer, who was the the ntsb
Speaker 1: S or the NDSP, he's the NTSBS head guy for
Speaker 1: this investigation. He was seen believed to be coluding with
Speaker 1: the FBI, and he was going through the hangar and
Speaker 1: as things were coming in, they were being tagged with
Speaker 1: their location and know what zone did they come from,
Speaker 1: how did they get there? And he apparently was changing
Speaker 1: what was written on the tags, which is highly unusual
Speaker 1: because again that changes and says the landing gear didn't
Speaker 1: drop in first, he dropped in last. That would greatly
Speaker 1: influence your conclusion of the order of events of the explosion.
Speaker 1: So that has got people. There's a lot of people
Speaker 1: who just hate that guy's guts. They do not like
Speaker 1: him at all. I don't have an opinion on him,
Speaker 1: but they they go to some pretty great lengths to
Speaker 1: say some rather nasty things about him. But again, why
Speaker 1: why are they doing all this? Why are they hiding it? Well,
Speaker 1: if it's a military mistake, then that gives them a
Speaker 1: reason to all work, the NTSB and the FBI, to
Speaker 1: work together with whatever military organization it was to hide
Speaker 1: the fact that they accidentally took down one of our civilians.
Speaker 1: That I don't I don't see how how changing the
Speaker 1: labels so it looks like I don't know. I just
Speaker 1: don't see how that really affects the outcome of the
Speaker 1: investigation all that much. I mean, I think it redirects it.
Speaker 1: If you think that a part of the plane fell
Speaker 1: off first, and then now you think it in the
Speaker 1: very beginning, and now you think it fell off halfway
Speaker 1: through the process, Yeah, that's going to change analysis. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I kind of I kind of see what that is,
Speaker 1: but it still doesn't take away the fact that if
Speaker 1: the military screwed up took it down with the missile,
Speaker 1: that fiscal evitage is going to remain. That's still going
Speaker 1: to be there. There should be and and people have said,
Speaker 1: listen the missile. Probably actually they're Okay, we're gonna jump
Speaker 1: forward and then I'm going to get into this, So
Speaker 1: we're going to get into the documentary multiple missile theory.
Speaker 1: But there's people who say that listen to missleton actually
Speaker 1: explode in the plane. It just punched through the plane
Speaker 1: from underside to top side, and that's what caused the explosion.
Speaker 1: And so because that medal was torn and not ignited
Speaker 1: and melted, they're not seeing it. And I'm using air
Speaker 1: quotes when I'm saying they're not seeing it. Do I
Speaker 1: believe that. I'm not on board with that. So, like
Speaker 1: I said before, they're multiple times. Now there's a documentary.
Speaker 1: This is the two thousand thirteen documentary UH focused on
Speaker 1: the event, and it's I'm pretty sure it's made by
Speaker 1: Tom Salcott. He's features prominently in it. He's actually in
Speaker 1: the one that's from two thousand seven or eight. I
Speaker 1: think that's the year. Anyway, I keep forgetting what you're
Speaker 1: the older one was made in uh And he's made
Speaker 1: allegations pretty much from the beginning. He was in the meetings,
Speaker 1: the official hearings back in two thousand and we're taking
Speaker 1: place on this. So like this guy is deeply involved.
Speaker 1: What's his relation to it? Is he just an investigator?
Speaker 1: He just took an interest in it and went from there.
Speaker 1: He has he had no formal training yet to be
Speaker 1: involved in it. Yeah, I think you're right, all right.
Speaker 1: Uh So, but as we've already talked a little bit
Speaker 1: about the fact that you know, he along with several
Speaker 1: of the people, didn't feel that the NTSB and the
Speaker 1: FBI were doing everything above board. And one of the
Speaker 1: things that they used to say that something is being
Speaker 1: hidden is the bodies of the people in the plane.
Speaker 1: And I apologizing going to be a tadbit graphic here,
Speaker 1: but the bodies of the passengers should have shown evidence
Speaker 1: of exposure to extreme fire temperatures or extreme heat and
Speaker 1: extreme pressure changes. And they also should have shown evidence
Speaker 1: from you know, if they were thrown out of their
Speaker 1: seats or their seats disconnected from impacting other objects inside
Speaker 1: of the plane and eventually impossibly the surface of the ocean,
Speaker 1: and that should have followed a pattern which it makes sense,
Speaker 1: you know, in the plane and after they identified the bodies,
Speaker 1: the guy in the tail of the plane is probably
Speaker 1: not going to be burned, whereas the person sitting over
Speaker 1: the center wing tank should have suffered extreme you know,
Speaker 1: fired down of some of the other stuff, Like when
Speaker 1: you're talking about trauma and stuff like that, it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, after this body has fallen like, you know,
Speaker 1: thousands of thousands of feet and hit the ocean, maybe
Speaker 1: been submerged for a while. Yeah, how do you how
Speaker 1: the hell can you tell? I mean, I understand the burns,
Speaker 1: you're going to recognize burns, but some of the rest
Speaker 1: of that, I'm not so sure. But yeah, Well, the
Speaker 1: thing is is that they're saying, according to this documentary,
Speaker 1: they say that the medical examiner's stuff. I want to say,
Speaker 1: it's fabricated, but maybe modified or altered because they say
Speaker 1: the the conclusions. Because they're saying that there are bodies
Speaker 1: that weren't burned that should have been burned, and there
Speaker 1: were bodies that were burned that should not have been
Speaker 1: in the plane that should not have been burned, right,
Speaker 1: and the same thing with impact damage and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: They really they go off on this. But if you
Speaker 1: when I read things, and it took me several times
Speaker 1: to really internalize this, the center wing tank is not
Speaker 1: the only thing on fire. The wings are venting fuel
Speaker 1: and burning, which means the body of the plane is
Speaker 1: the center of the fuselage, has got fire pouring down it.
Speaker 1: So it actually maybe does make sense that some people
Speaker 1: who were farther back in the plane are burned. The
Speaker 1: heat sources and the other thing. You know, even if
Speaker 1: that wasn't happening, if if it was a center wing
Speaker 1: tank that was on fire and that's where the big
Speaker 1: conflagration is going on. And also you know that these
Speaker 1: are people seated behind it well back and everything like that,
Speaker 1: but the plane is still moving forward at a high speed.
Speaker 1: What happens is all that heat is pushed back into
Speaker 1: the plane, so the people actually it would actually cool
Speaker 1: the people right next to the tech, they would be
Speaker 1: less likely to get burned. The people behind them would
Speaker 1: be more like barbecued. It's kind of the way I'm thinking, Yes,
Speaker 1: I totally agree with that, I just I agreed I
Speaker 1: just agree that it's weird that, um, it sounds like
Speaker 1: not everybody in like rows were burned, or well, the
Speaker 1: burns didn't. Like theoretically you should expect that the row
Speaker 1: of seats. So let's just say I'm making up a
Speaker 1: number here, row A to F. They that all should
Speaker 1: have had relatively similar burns, but instead only a B
Speaker 1: and C of C or D and E of the
Speaker 1: row behind him, and then you know, so it kind
Speaker 1: of makes a stagger pattern. That's one of the things
Speaker 1: that I've seen pointed out is that, like the injuries
Speaker 1: and stuff seem to not be as uniform as one
Speaker 1: would you know, initially expect, But then again, explosions and
Speaker 1: fires tend to not be uniform like pandemonium chaos kind
Speaker 1: of thing mechanics. But also, I don't know, this makes
Speaker 1: me think that if I fly to seven forty seven,
Speaker 1: I'm going to say it right over that center wing tank.
Speaker 1: I always said over the wings because it's the smoothest ride. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's another good reason, because it's the full crimb of
Speaker 1: the point no matter what's going on, and you know,
Speaker 1: obviously we can just we can only hope that these
Speaker 1: people were dead well before any of this. Yeah, some
Speaker 1: of the ones in the actually survived from really hope
Speaker 1: that the initial explosion was enough to, if nothing else,
Speaker 1: render them unconsciously. Yeah, yeah, because otherwise it would be
Speaker 1: a terrifying ride and then when that big wave of
Speaker 1: searing heat comes back and you should stop there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I agree, it is a little weird. Knowing that
Speaker 1: there is some semblance of a pattern makes me. You know,
Speaker 1: I initially when I read that was thinking like, okay,
Speaker 1: so passengers in UM like A, C and E were
Speaker 1: all burned, but like in B D n F, we're fine, right,
Speaker 1: And that to me is like, well, that's that's that's
Speaker 1: that Sherlock episode where it's just a plane full of
Speaker 1: people who are already dead, Like that's how that happens.
Speaker 1: That's the only way that happens. Right. But you know,
Speaker 1: knowing that it was kind of like in this weird
Speaker 1: maybe diagonal pattern, that doesn't bother me as much because
Speaker 1: that I can understand how, you know, things could be
Speaker 1: traveling like that. And also and also to me, it
Speaker 1: does not indicate you know, missile versus fuell TEK explosion.
Speaker 1: It doesn't like you know, it doesn't make anything. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make me think, you know, Kearis bomb or accident
Speaker 1: or whatever. It doesn't change anything really. Well, the other
Speaker 1: thing that really sticks in in sou Cut and teams
Speaker 1: craw is the interviews with the witnesses, because we mentioned
Speaker 1: this before, but the FBI did all the interviews because
Speaker 1: this was still a criminal investigation at the time, and
Speaker 1: all that was provided was the FBI investigators notes. It
Speaker 1: wasn't as if it was a transcript of what was stated,
Speaker 1: and so therefore it's already a slightly modified version of
Speaker 1: the conversation. So they say, well, obviously that's not the
Speaker 1: entire conversation. And they say that the fact that the
Speaker 1: NTSB then declined to reinterview these these witnesses because the
Speaker 1: NTSB said, listen, there's like five I don't know, let's
Speaker 1: just say five hundred people were interviewed, because that's a
Speaker 1: ballpark about the right number. There's a lot of people.
Speaker 1: I'm round figuring it, so round figure, let's just say
Speaker 1: five are they want to talk to? But those people
Speaker 1: have already been talked to once and now a year
Speaker 1: two three have passed and memory changes, and that's a
Speaker 1: lot of effort in time to track those people down
Speaker 1: and re retake their statements and may have changed, and
Speaker 1: they changed, and as completely as he is from that
Speaker 1: totally makes sense because also there's been a lot of publicity,
Speaker 1: which is also good to influence these people's thoughts about
Speaker 1: the whole thing. So yeah, it really makes it worthless
Speaker 1: to go back and reinterview them all this probably should
Speaker 1: have recorded or think it really was a little too cursed.
Speaker 1: I you know, that was my initial question when we
Speaker 1: were first talking about the case, was, you know people
Speaker 1: reported they saw missiles. Well, did they report they saw
Speaker 1: missile after they found out that a plane exploded or
Speaker 1: did they just on their own think, oh, that looks
Speaker 1: like a missile, right, Because yeah, I saw something go
Speaker 1: up in the air and then learned that a plane
Speaker 1: had exploded, I would think that looks kind of like
Speaker 1: a missile. But at the time when I saw the
Speaker 1: initial thing, I might have thought that looks like a
Speaker 1: crappy firework, Like what's going on? People were thinking that.
Speaker 1: And also, let's not forget this was less than two
Speaker 1: we exact fourth or July. But that's what I mean
Speaker 1: is like that was my initial question was, And that's
Speaker 1: that's so indicative of how that can change. There's so
Speaker 1: much perception. And also, like you said, you know they
Speaker 1: should have just the So so here's here's where this gets.
Speaker 1: So this is what I so, this whole part we've
Speaker 1: been talking about is the multi missiles theory, and this
Speaker 1: this is the part of where Okay, well, there's two
Speaker 1: things about Seal Cutt and the documentary that I don't like. One,
Speaker 1: it bugs the hell out of me that he hijacked
Speaker 1: the last fifth ten or fifteen minutes of the documentary
Speaker 1: to talk about how his mom died when he was
Speaker 1: a kid. That was weird. But what also bugs me
Speaker 1: is that they start saying, oh, no, the plane was
Speaker 1: taken down by multiple missiles. The early documentary that he
Speaker 1: was featured in says it was two missiles, and then
Speaker 1: when you go to documentary, they've upped the annie and
Speaker 1: they moved it to three missiles. And as far as
Speaker 1: I can tell, what they're doing is they're basically figuring
Speaker 1: out where these people were in time and on the
Speaker 1: coast and then saying, okay, well, these people must have
Speaker 1: saw this one, and these people must have saw that one,
Speaker 1: and they've assembled this timeline of three missiles impacting this plane.
Speaker 1: Almost exactly at the same time, instead of saying that
Speaker 1: the witnesses could have been faulty. And it's hard enough
Speaker 1: sometimes for things to hit a moving object just one
Speaker 1: of them, you know, there's multiple projected simultaneously, that sets unlikely.
Speaker 1: But but yeah, and and the thing about it is
Speaker 1: and and that what they're what they're doing, constructing reconstructing it.
Speaker 1: That one it makes kind of sense because from the
Speaker 1: advantaged one of some of the witnesses, well, it looked
Speaker 1: like it was coming straight up from the ground. I
Speaker 1: just said, oh no, it looks like it was coming
Speaker 1: out about a forty five degree angle from north to south,
Speaker 1: and other said east to west, west to east. And
Speaker 1: so you know, you assemble all that together, you get
Speaker 1: the trajectories of what maybe we're three missiles or uh,
Speaker 1: maybe a couple of pieces of fireworks. Because again, we Americans,
Speaker 1: if you don't know this, we like our like we
Speaker 1: love to send things into the sky, and we like
Speaker 1: things that go bluie. Yeah, we like. Yeah, we like
Speaker 1: our noisy, explosive, dangerous toys and our darks and cats,
Speaker 1: don't we know. Yeah, And so again to to less
Speaker 1: than two weeks after forwards of July but there's still
Speaker 1: some straight rockets out there that people had. Yeah, some
Speaker 1: of that stuff going. But here's the funny thing is
Speaker 1: that I was watching something this was actually today as
Speaker 1: walking watching and they were saying, well, listen, if this
Speaker 1: had been like a stinger missile, you know, something a
Speaker 1: guy launched off his shoulder something like that, or even
Speaker 1: if it was from a ship. Um actually more of
Speaker 1: the stinger missile. It would have taken off and about
Speaker 1: one or two seconds after it left the barrel that
Speaker 1: of the launcher, it would have began to burn its
Speaker 1: few will that makes smoke as it propelled itself upwards.
Speaker 1: But you would only see that trail of smoke for
Speaker 1: about seven seconds, and then it would exhaust that fuel
Speaker 1: and continue on its trajectory unaided, you know, just under
Speaker 1: its own force. But there will be no trail at
Speaker 1: that point. So now you got another up to seven
Speaker 1: seconds of flight before impact. And yeah, exactly, and these
Speaker 1: people recording the trailer going all the way up and
Speaker 1: then going boom. Yeah, the reported and and for like
Speaker 1: you know, in some cases like thirty seconds. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: again yeah, all these little all these little manpad type launchers. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like I said, they have maybe seven or eight seconds
Speaker 1: of burntime and that's just bam and so, which is what.
Speaker 1: So that's one of the things that really really kind
Speaker 1: of sunk the it was launched from the coast by
Speaker 1: a person theory. For me. What we have here, though,
Speaker 1: is we do have believe it or not, we still
Speaker 1: have remaining theories. We're way into this and we're not bad.
Speaker 1: They're theories though, like Michael Jacks in Bad, I'm bad,
Speaker 1: you know, Okay, all right, well so bad. Theory Number one,
Speaker 1: according to Devon is the meteorite theory. I don't think
Speaker 1: this is so bad, I think, but she got it
Speaker 1: yea for once, you like to joke. I didn't like it.
Speaker 1: I just got it, okay. So there's absolutely no support
Speaker 1: for this theory. But what it said is that a
Speaker 1: bull is it bull eyed or ball eyed? I thought
Speaker 1: so too, a bull eyed cause the destruction of this plane.
Speaker 1: And here's how it works is that a meteor comes,
Speaker 1: you know, just shuttling into our atmosphere, heats up to
Speaker 1: the point that it explodes into a bunch of little
Speaker 1: bits like that one that I like, that one that
Speaker 1: blew up over Russia several years ago. This stuff happened.
Speaker 1: It happens every day, it happens all the time on
Speaker 1: varying scales, and they're saying that what happened is it
Speaker 1: was it just the right place and time that when
Speaker 1: it exploded, those that bits of shrapnel that came off
Speaker 1: of it went into the the aircraft and that's what
Speaker 1: ignited it, and that's what set the entire explosion off.
Speaker 1: I would think that if this was the case, for
Speaker 1: as many airplanes as we have in the sky, this
Speaker 1: should have happened more than justice. No, actually, no, actually
Speaker 1: it's I could see it being a one off thing.
Speaker 1: Really again, this is a really this if it did happen,
Speaker 1: would be extremely rare occurrence, extremely rare, and so I
Speaker 1: could totally The only reason I don't buy this theory entirely,
Speaker 1: Number one, there's no there's no proof for it, even
Speaker 1: though it's plausible as possible. But I think it's very
Speaker 1: unlikely that if had it happened, that the plane would
Speaker 1: have only been hit by by one piece of meteorite.
Speaker 1: That would have been hit by at least several, if
Speaker 1: not you know, hundreds, Who knows when boys blow up,
Speaker 1: I don't know how many pieces they actually explode into
Speaker 1: I think it really depends on the unique one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it totally does, I'm sure. And so you know, it
Speaker 1: seems unlikely to me that it managed only one piece
Speaker 1: hit the plane, you know, I mean, Bob breaks into
Speaker 1: four pieces. Why well, Tommy over there breaks into a hundred.
Speaker 1: I mean, it really just depends on what kind they are.
Speaker 1: So it could be that it broke into three. But
Speaker 1: one of those things just hit it just right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but it's unlikely as it is. I mean, sins things happen.
Speaker 1: If you look at the look at the surfaces of
Speaker 1: the Moon. Look at all those meteor impacts on there
Speaker 1: in a in a system the size of our Solar
Speaker 1: system and a target as tiny as our moon. It's
Speaker 1: every single one of those dots on the Moon represents
Speaker 1: an extremely unlikely occurrence. Yeah, it did happen eventually. Listen.
Speaker 1: I know nobody's told you this before, but the moon
Speaker 1: has acne. That's yeah, damn it. Okay, I feels okay anyway, enough,
Speaker 1: But I like the theory, but you know, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: in practice. I just I have a really hard time
Speaker 1: saying that what's going on? But let's move the last
Speaker 1: theory in this which is that this was this whole
Speaker 1: thing was caused by electromagnetic interference. And this one is
Speaker 1: also kind of tough to follow, and it's all based
Speaker 1: on high intensity radiated fields UM, which is hi RF
Speaker 1: is what you see the acronym all the time. And yeah,
Speaker 1: if you read this kind of stuff, you see you
Speaker 1: guys have talked about this with oh god, what's the
Speaker 1: place that does it doesn't matter or it doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: but it's basically it's the idea that, yeah, it's microwaves
Speaker 1: directed energy. So a microwave in your kitchen or office,
Speaker 1: you know, common area is really on a small scale
Speaker 1: directing all kinds of high radiation or it's all kinds
Speaker 1: of high energy radiation into one very close area. What
Speaker 1: this is saying is that military vessels are able to
Speaker 1: act shoot beams of that at targets and disrupt them
Speaker 1: to a degree that they can disable them. That's well, yes,
Speaker 1: we can do it in a in a microwave, and
Speaker 1: maybe we can throw a high energy freak or high
Speaker 1: RF stuff some distance. To hit a plane at fourteen
Speaker 1: thou feet is just pretty far out there. And almost
Speaker 1: nobody tastes this seriously, except for the one person who
Speaker 1: brought it to the NTSB. I do not remember her name.
Speaker 1: It's scary, yeah, Elane Scarier scary, Ok, yeah, but it's
Speaker 1: Alane Scary. She's the only one who says they can
Speaker 1: do this. I know that the military can do stuff
Speaker 1: like this. Don't think it's on that scale, especially in
Speaker 1: nineties six, I don't. I don't know what they had.
Speaker 1: I mean, they've been working on things like directed energy
Speaker 1: weapons like that that can basically reproducing any MP pulse
Speaker 1: but directed at like an enemy fighter and fry all
Speaker 1: of us electronics, all kinds of cool stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Of course, we've got lasers are now they're not getting
Speaker 1: ready to start downsizing lasers powerful lasers and put them
Speaker 1: on planes and stuff. And so we're getting to that
Speaker 1: point where we're actually gonna have lasers on planes. Wait wait, wait, wait,
Speaker 1: fighter jets are going to be going around for real. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's going to be more for development, like
Speaker 1: like like protecting against incoming rockets and things like that.
Speaker 1: But it's still speakers on the plane to make the noise.
Speaker 1: They should they should at least for air shows. You know,
Speaker 1: they should totally install speakers on the plane for air ship.
Speaker 1: I think what they should do is install speakers, but
Speaker 1: they're connected to a microphone in like the dudes headset,
Speaker 1: so he's just in there. I don't know, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't know about this story. All right, we've been
Speaker 1: doing a lot of the late let's do a throwback.
Speaker 1: Here's something that we don't do very off did preferred theory,
Speaker 1: I don't have one. That's what I was just saying,
Speaker 1: is I don't have one. Yeah, my preferred theory is
Speaker 1: the short and the fuel tank. I think it's the
Speaker 1: best supported. Yeah, it really is. Uh yeah, because the
Speaker 1: missile uh, if the military had done in our military,
Speaker 1: there would have been an accounting for it. They wouldn't
Speaker 1: have gotten away with it. If terrorists had done it,
Speaker 1: they would have taken credit for it. So it's you know,
Speaker 1: really short, the short really working. Although again even the
Speaker 1: anti speed does not say they're that that's what caused
Speaker 1: the expen and and remember they recover of the airplane,
Speaker 1: not all of it, and people have said, well, you
Speaker 1: put parts of it the wrong place, so that might
Speaker 1: not be right. So it's hard to say, but I'm
Speaker 1: I'm mostly behind that it was an accident. I will
Speaker 1: say that I'm not totally opposed to the idea of uh,
Speaker 1: you know, high explosive kind of shrapnel bomb throwing something,
Speaker 1: but would have left a lot more puncture. But that's yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's the thing is that the other ones, you know,
Speaker 1: don't line up with the data for me. So yeah,
Speaker 1: and then there was there was one subterry on that
Speaker 1: is that well, maybe one of those one of those
Speaker 1: excluding shrapnel you know, air interceptor bombs went off, but
Speaker 1: at one of but well went not far enough away
Speaker 1: and we're talking to regular bomb just like what we
Speaker 1: were talking about, but it went around, it went off
Speaker 1: far enough away that only one chunk of it hit
Speaker 1: the plane and that happened to punch through the center
Speaker 1: wing tank and blow the plane up. And and that's
Speaker 1: why you don't see all these puncture marks all over
Speaker 1: the plane. And the NTSP actually actually did consider that theory,
Speaker 1: and if you read the report they considered, I was
Speaker 1: actually kind of surprising all of the things, including the
Speaker 1: report that they considered. Yeah, and they considered it, well,
Speaker 1: let's face it, it's it's rather unlikely proximity fuses and
Speaker 1: those things, you know, I mean, uh, maybe a malfunctioning,
Speaker 1: proximity fuse and everything. I don't know, it's just a
Speaker 1: confluence of things. I'm very un likely things number one,
Speaker 1: the terrorists who have happens to have one and doesn't
Speaker 1: feel like taking credit for the whole thing. And this
Speaker 1: thing just happens to be defective and goes off way
Speaker 1: too far away from the aircraft it's supposed to be
Speaker 1: taken down. It's a lot of things. It's hard to buy,
Speaker 1: all right, yeah, all right, Well, so let's let's finish
Speaker 1: up here. We got, you know, a little bit of
Speaker 1: housekeeping as usual. Uh, if you have thoughts about this
Speaker 1: story and you want to reach out to us, you're
Speaker 1: more than welcome to do so. You can reach out
Speaker 1: to us by email, but at Thinking Sideways Podcast at
Speaker 1: gmail dot com. So if you've got suggestions for other
Speaker 1: stories or comments on this one or anything like that,
Speaker 1: you want to reach out and talk, you can totally
Speaker 1: do it there. You can reach out to us on
Speaker 1: social media. So we have the Facebook page and the
Speaker 1: Facebook group, So join the group and like the page.
Speaker 1: Don't forget to answer the questions when you always answer
Speaker 1: the questions when you're joining. But there's lots and lots
Speaker 1: of good conversations about episodes going on in there. We're
Speaker 1: also gonna be on Reddit, where we have a subreddit,
Speaker 1: Thinking Sideways, and we're on Twitter Thinking Sideways. Uh. And
Speaker 1: Devin always tweets back at everybody because she's a good
Speaker 1: tweeter most everybody. Okay, Uh. She never responds to Joe
Speaker 1: for some reason, like she sees you all the time.
Speaker 1: You can, of course, get this episode in a myriad
Speaker 1: of places iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, wherever it is that
Speaker 1: you stream and door download from you're currently using that
Speaker 1: continue on and you can add us to your subscription list,
Speaker 1: and that would be awesome. If you have the ability
Speaker 1: to leave a comment and a rating in whatever avenue
Speaker 1: you're using, please do so because that helps other people
Speaker 1: find us. And last, but not least, if you want
Speaker 1: to read any of the information or some of the
Speaker 1: information that we found about this particular story, or find
Speaker 1: other stories that we've covered, go to our webs Thinking
Speaker 1: Sideways podcast dot com. On there you'll find episode links
Speaker 1: for our story links for each episode you can stream,
Speaker 1: you can download, you can find the merchandise it's available
Speaker 1: to purchase, because we do have shirts and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: On the website, So that's all there. Uh, we have
Speaker 1: a full episode list on the website as well and
Speaker 1: a separate page so you can go in there and
Speaker 1: check that thing out to see if we've done a
Speaker 1: story before, because it's super convenient that way. So that's
Speaker 1: all that we've got for this particular episode in this week. So, uh,
Speaker 1: we're really close. I think Christmas just passed. I think
Speaker 1: this is a Christmas episode, So Mary christ Pacific if
Speaker 1: it is, or if you're in Christmas or whatever, happy
Speaker 1: Honkah or whatever holiday that you prefer to celebrate. Congrats.
Speaker 1: And it's almost a New Year, so yay New Year crash,
Speaker 1: and I hope you're not traveling. Sorry, everyone want to
Speaker 1: travel by the ultra safe high speech right, Yeah, all right,
Speaker 1: we'll get me a pack by shoot and get out
Speaker 1: of here. We will talk to you guys later. By
Speaker 1: guys to