There is no "Witness myth." I've heard several, met one, read gazillions of police reports, and seen lots of summaries on the 'net. Are you suggesting that all of these people, some pilots, some military, are engaged in some sort of conspiracy or fantasy? This isn't the first time that a plane has crashed in or around Long Island. It is the first time, to my knowledge, that there are any people who claim to have seen a missile bring down a plane. Can you cite another example? (There are 100's of people who say they saw a missile bring down TWA 800.)
I can understand why you might find some of the things Cmdr. Donaldson has said, somewhat suspect. He had an agenda: to deflect attention from his Navy.
What's your agenda, I wonder.
ML/NJ
Ah, yes....But here are very few facts from from which to base a well informed opinion here.
It is known that the government agencies involved are well known for their incompetence.
There are respectible people, well aquainted and experienced in flight, who believe that a missle attack was likely and who have testified so.
Although I have no opinion, I do not trust our government who has all too frequently swept embarrasing problems like this under the rug.
The current shakeup for politically correct politicians is just changing the deck chairs at CIA and the FBI and no one will loose their jobs(9-11). Mr Norm Mineta is a prime example of politically correct madness at the controls of government which is endangering us all.
Nonetheless, Have a nice day tommorrow.
I would suggest you familiarize yourself with all the details. When numerous eyewitness testimony and physical evidence is both ignored in reaching a conclusion that even George Stephenopolis admitted was a fabrication immediately after September 11, 2001 one may safely conclude that the fairy tale is the FBI/NTSB official conclusion. Finding metal fragments other than that consitent with a 747 or luggae is beyond suspect it is in itself proof of foul play much as a bullet in the body is "proof" that someone fired it into the body. The cites evidence proving that the FBI/Ntsb version is myth on its face. It is time for them to deal with the this evidence.
and as long as there is enough confusion, there will always be doubt enough to conceal it.
Now the official claim is that the center fuel tank spontaneously exploded. The debris field would than be configured as follows:
1. There would be a fairly wide area of debris at the flight position of the explosion of the tank.
2. This would be followed by a line of thin debris corresponding to the flight path as parts were shredded from the aircraft.
3. The end of this line of debris would be another large area of debris where the aircraft impacted the water.
To summarize, in the official senario one would expect a significant debris field, a thin line of debris, and then a second large debris field. (i.e. 2 large debris fields connected by a thin line of debris.)
On the other hand if the missle scenario is accurate one would expect the following:
1. A significant debris field at the point of missile impact. This field might be offset to one side of the flight path. (The exit side of the missle impact) The debris might consist primarily of parts restricted to that area of the plane where missile impact took place.
2. This is followed by a thin line of debris to the point of the next major event. (An onboard explosion of the fuel tank caused by the missile damage.) There would again be an extensive debris field.
3. This is again followed by a thin line of debris to the point of impact. This of course, provides a third extensive debris field.
The actual debris field is a perfect match to the missle impact scenario. (3 extensive debris fields just short of a mile separation between each field connected by a thin line of debris.
I could add a number of significant details that would add validity to the missle scenario. But I suspect that you would be unimpressed by the laws of physics.
Godspeed, The Dilg