Replies

Why is it so important that the gov't version of this incident be accepted as gospel?

The facts, not the governments report, should be what weighs heavily.

I agree. The facts of the gov't report have been questioned by responsible people [eyewitnesses among them] since it was issued.

You question the report, fine. I question your lack of evidence for your missile theory.

I have no specific 'theory'. I saw the 'streak of light' TV tape, as did many others. The tapes disappearance has never been explained.

Your kook ideas simply aren't supported by the facts.

I know what I & my wife saw that night on a network satellite feed. Many others saw the same 'streak of light' in person. - We are not "kooks" and you are violating FR's personal attack rule by saying so.

Of the two of us, I'm the one that's never been banned from FR for violating the rules,

Irrelevant. You've violated it now.

but let me rephrase. The idea of a MANPADS use was not originally kooky.

Thanks for the apology.

The idea that hundreds of normal Americans lied about the evidence to protect the a murderers of fellow Americans, in order to invalidate the material evidence is "Kooky"

There you go again; -- I've never advanced that idea.

Your particular kook theory requires hundreds of people with no stake in lying to do just that.

Bull; - post my "particular kook theory" that says anything like that; - or quit this BS.

So you don't think the government covered up anything? As you have a bit of a pattern of modifying your story as you go,

There it is, the 'strawman setup'.

how about you spell it out. Why is there no material evidence, that should clearly be there, to support your claims? (Another question that will go unanswered.)

That is one of my questions, of course. Where is the 'cocktail TV' tape?

I especially like the claim that the USN shot down TWA 800 and got several thousand people to keep it perfectly secret.

You would. Your main stock in trade is 'straw man' BS.

You again have the term "strawman" confused. The claim is out there, and there is just as much evidence for it as there is for yours.

Round we go. You pile strawman on strawmen, then deny you do so. Amusing.

The idea that it might have been a missile was fine, until all of the evidence showed that it wasn't.

"ALL of the evidence"? Get a grip on your empty rhetoric.

Your belief that seeing a streak of light on a network feed trumps all of the NTSBs examination of the wreckage and the physical limits of the subject missiles is what you need to get a grip on.

I saw the 'streak', as did a lot of others. Your contention that the NTSBs examination of the wreckage and the physical limits of the subject missiles trumps those eyewitness reports is what you need to get a grip on.

Are you even vaguely aware of the inaccuracy rate of eye witnesses in plane crash reports? Its monstrous. That doesn't mean you ignore them, but it does mean that you don't hang your hat on them either.

There are other aspects of this incident that cast reasonable doubt on the gov't version of events. Those, together with what my lying eyes saw, mean that my hat is hanging securely.

Tinfoil hats rarely hang securely. Missing the time of takeoff by 1 minute or misstating irrelevant facts is the result of the NTSB not caring about calming you down.

There you go again. No "tinfoil" in my hat, nor any misstatements. Your 'calming' remark is simply gibberish.

They cared about trying to find the cause of the accident, and try to ensure it didn't happen again. They spent less time on the inconsequential and probably did make mistakes in them.

Again, you make my point. Thanks.

Had they spent an inordinate amount of time on "why it couldn't be a missile"

They did. Thanks again.

after determining that there was no evidence to support a missile, you would be claiming

Hold it there. - I've never made such claims.

that such a focus was an overt attempt to cover-up the truth and saying "why talk about it if it didn't happen?".
Still waiting for you to answer my question (several now actually but let's focus) as to why it couldn't have been a signal flare?

I've seen signal flares in the service. This was not a signal flare, as many testified, and as the missing 'cocktail party' TV tape would verify.

That's it? Otherwise you think its possible? Can't flares be modified like you say MANPADS can? Interestingly, you are OK with dismissing people who have expert knowledge of MANPADS.

I've dismissed ~you~, who self-proclaim your expertise, yet can't argue without using strawmen/ad hominum rhetoric.

Tell me, how fast was your streak of light? 1 second, 2 seconds, 10 seconds? As a missile would only be traveling at about three times the speed of the aircraft, it would not be a "streak" as you describe. Even if illuminated all the way to the target, the missile would appear to be a fast rising bright light that would take about 15 seconds to reach the target.

If memory serves, -- the TV tape showed it rising faster.

If a MANPADS, it would fly a rainbow path, vice a straight line. If not a MANPADS, it could not be launched from directly beneath the aircraft and would fly a much longer (although straighter) path.
So for how long did you observe this "streak"?

Obviously, if I had the 'cocktail party tape', we would know exactly. It disappeared after being shown a few times many years ago, as has been discussed on many previous threads.

Can we assume, as usual, that you won't be answering questions because of your fear of self-incrimination?

Your basic weirdness surfaces again S-man. How on earth could what I've said here "incriminate"; me?

Wow, what a great way to sum up this post. Rarely has anyone been so thoroughly consumed by their own words, as you have here.

Wow, more meaningless rhetoric. Are you sure you're an expert witness? You sure don't present your case well..

As usual, the posting history is available to everyone and doesn’t need to be recreated like the Carolingian Chronicles every time you want to make one statement.

I started to read your post, but when I got to the fourth or fifth historical post without anything new posted I gave up.

You want to give it another shot without being annoying this time?

Here's a second dose of reality for you, as you appear to have avoided it the first time.

1. The altitude and speed of the aircraft make a MANPADS engagement all but impossible (by strange things do happen so that doesn't completely exclude it). The limitation is mainly on the seeker, which would be well past its capabilities, yet the ballistic envelope would also be right on the edge.
2. MANPADS have IR seekers and would definitely not have hit the center fuselage if launched from directly below as would have been the case. It would have hit an engine and/or possibly a wing just beside an engine. The damage would have been extremely isolated.
3. MANPADS are finely tweaked and maxed out systems. The idea that they are "easily modifiable" as you suggest is an assertion completely ignorant of the technology.
4. A MANPAD hit would nevertheless have created a fragmentation detonation or a if the missile was a dud, an air to air impact. Forgetting about the area of damage being very distant from the massive heat plumes of the engines, the evidence showed no intrusion damage and none of the hundreds of embedded missile parts and/or warhead fragments. Dud warhead hits on aircraft have occurred and leave plenty of evidence, although little damage. Comparing this to a car, it is like saying that your engine didn't just catch fire, but that you think you were struck by a red truck traveling at 60 mph, except there are no dents and no red paint on your vehicle.
5. MANPADS have a very short burn that puts them up to speed and then glide. No streak of light would have been around the aircraft at that altitude, because there would have been nothing to produce it on a MANPADS.
6. Much like the big balls of AAA that were seen rising from Baghdad (you might have caught that on TV), missiles look the same as they rise until burn out. MANPADS burn out quickly, but bigger missiles can burn up past 13,000 ft. In either case, they do not create a streak of light, as they aren't traveling at warp speed. A missile that would be so illuminated would have had to have been fired from more than a couple miles horizontally from TWA 800 and would have had a long flight. Mach 2 is not a "streak" or "blur" when viewed from more than a few hundred yards away.
6. Any missile that would be large enough to hit the aircraft at that altitude would have done enormously more damage (even if they were a dud) than occurred and puts us back at #4. Additionally, those missiles would have required a large, complicated, and expensive launching system, that would have been serial numbered back to the supplier if found. The logic behind an overt act of state war to bring down a single airliner for no gain of any kind is a head scratcher in itself.
7. Lacking an kind of material evidence that would irrefutably be present if your theory was true, you are left arguing that there is a massive cover-up. That the evidence was there, but the gov't lied. Career NTSB workers with no fidelity to Clinton had to have lied, dozens of them, and not one of them came forward. Once you head down that path you are immune to facts of any kind.

But I'm supposed to discount all of this based on a party video that apparently doesn't exist.

"My wife & I saw the 'party tape' loop being shown on a network satellite feed the night of the incident."

"Obviously, if I had the 'cocktail party tape', we would know exactly. It disappeared after being shown a few times many years ago, as has been discussed on many previous threads."

* * * * * THE LINDA KABOT PHOTO
The photo taken by Kabot depicts a bearing of north/northeast. TWA Flight 800 was south/southwest almost directly behind her.
Photograph analyzed by CIA National Imagery and Mapping Administration (NIMA) advised that
1. THERE IS OBJECT IN PHOTO
2. OBJECT IS NOT A MISSILE
3. OBJECT APPEARS TO BE AN AIRCRAFT
Not possible to ID aircraft because:
Not possible to determine distance of object from camera.
Exact time of photo unknown. (time frame only is known)
Insufficient detail in photo to determine type of aircraft.
4. OBJECT IS NOT A DRONE
No drone exercises conducted near Long Island July 17, 1996
http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/51099lsa.htm