Posted on 06/22/2006 7:35:47 AM PDT by drypowder
Do you mean believable or unbelievable?
Anyway, if you read the transcript the captain is questioned, requestioned, requestioned again and cross examined by the interviewers. He unequivocally states that he was watching Flight 800 constantly from about 2 to 5 minutes before the explosion. There is no reason why the captain could not be watching Flight 800 for the time he stated. His copilot was busy performing tasks as is stated in the interview. Why do you discount his word?
I believe this captain for a few reasons: He sounds believable, he doesn't support the CIA zoom theory, he was genuinely interested in Flight 800 because of the unusual light coming from it, he was also interested in Flight 800 because he used to be a passenger on the flight many times, he was a Navy pilot in Vietnam.
You bet! NOTHING that came out of the Clinton Admin was the truth. There's never been a more corrupt government.
In my case because I saw that video and heard the eyewitnesses the night it happened.Also, was he at an angle where he could even have a view of what others saw? And whay didn't he see the comet that the FBI claims Nasir Aziz saw? The FBIs claim is ridiculous.
A blast from the past!
I read that interview and McClaine seems believable, however he also states that a missile could have hit it, he just didn't see it.
Believable.
"Why do you discount his word?"
Sure, ol' labette is going to call a Vietnam vet a liar...on Free Republic no less..and on Sunday...NOT! {Well, maybe John Kerry..}
Why not simply treat him as a witness who is telling what he saw to the best of his ability and recollection. Dear FRiend frogjerk, you are the one who posted Captain McClaine's testimony @ reply# 121 where you said "I am also skeptical of the missile theory because of this Captain's testimony:"
I'm going to make a few points from very limited wisdom and please note that I am not trying to ridicule your opinion:
-Page McClaine 6- He isn't reporting what he is seeing, but what he remembers seeing two years ago.
-Page McClaine 12- He reports only high cirrus clouds above his 24000 ft. altitude. {Other witnesses claim lower clouds at TWA's 13000 area.}
-Page McClaine 17- "Boy, did he have a pair of landing lights."
-Page McClaine 18- He decides the two lights are really one light, Yet he was watching TWA constantly for two to five minutes. {Once again, from the position McClaine gives TWA in relation to his window, I wonder if he would have even been able to see a missile launched from even farther below. Therefore, it is irrelevant if he didn't see a missile. Two lights that are later one could even be stretched to support missile theories.}
-As a final observation,You yourself don't believe the zoom theory, so why do you think it was necessary for the CIA to get into the movie making business? {Hint, propaganda}
"Propaganda is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. If the means achieves the end then the means is good.." Goebbels
Behold. Here we have an age old evil, the end justifying the means. Could you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the MSM if Bush pulled this stunt?
It strikes me as being incredible to assume that just because this ONE man didn't see it, it didn't happen.
I'm not stating this. I just believe this captain's eyewitness carries much more weight than some of the other witnesses.
I agree. That is what he stated.
The FBI claimed it was a meteor not a comet.
I don't think this is the first time he told this story. In fact, he wrote up an incident report the same day which he states he will refer to during the interview.
-Page McClaine 17- "Boy, did he have a pair of landing lights."
I don't understand what your point is regarding this. This is what he thought he was looking and it was the reason later on why he kept looking at the plane. He also noticed that it was off color and the "brightest thing in the sky".
-Page McClaine 18- He decides the two lights are really one light, Yet he was watching TWA constantly for two to five minutes.
Wrong. This is not what he did. He did not decide two lights were one but actually the opposite. He saw one light but because of the brightness and possibly the angle of viewing he considered it may have been two
As far as the CIA zoom theory, you are correct, I don't really buy it. Hey, I don't believe a word Bill or Hillary say but to believe this is a big conspiracy cover up because the CIA theorized incorrectly is a non sequitur based upon the evidence and information that I have seen. If I read up more upon the disaster I may agree with you. I'm just very skeptical when it comes to conspiracy theories, cover ups and such.
As I said earlier, I can be swayed in my opinion because my mind is not made up on this. It's just that the missile theory needs more real evidence in my mind before I can seriously consider it.
I believe he also mentions in there that it couldn't have been a fire or else there would be plenty of radio traffic. You admit you doubt the zoom-climb, but this scenario described by McClaine doesn't fit with the spontaneous explosion, either.
Correct about the fire, but there would only be radio traffic if they knew there was a fire. What if there was a fire somewhere on board, (maybe contained), that they didn't know about? I mean, were only talking about 5-10 minutes here...That would fit the fuel tank explosion. Similar to a car in a crash that continues to burn until the gas tank explodes.
I find it hard to believe that a fire bright enough for a pilot 10,000 feet away to see as the dominant light source in the sky was not noticed on board the plane. McClaine would have had to see it either through windows, (meaning surely passengers were in the vicinity), or the fire actually pierced the fuselage (and half a dozen alarms would have sounded). I can think of two possible explanations. First, the setting sun was reflecting off part of the aircraft, or second, the bright light was a missile. Of course, the first would be more "likely", but then again planes aren't "likely" to blow up.
It makes no difference. It is as crappy an excuse as all the witnesses were partying and drunk. They tried too hard to discredit anyone who didn't back their view but that's always been the Clinton Adminstrations M.O (and their shills). That's why we're Freepers. :)
Damn, and I thought Moore was off his rocker with his insane 9/11 conspiracies. We *really* don't need to echo the liberals simply because a liberal (however pathetic he was) was in power at the time.
I think the reasoning stands. There were live fire navy exercises going on in the region at the time that involved shooting down drones. The need to cover up a military screw up under the Clinton administration makes perfect sense since he was already cutting spending and shutting down bases all over the place. The reasons for covering up a terrorist attack are a lot less logical.
Let's not forget that the Navy tried to distort the the circumstances surrounding the death of two pilots that supposedly overshot the landing area on one of their Carriers...it was only after a video tape surfaced that they were willing to change the report from pilot error to equipment malfunction. Also, the U2 spy plane that was shot down crashed because of engine failure according to our government even though you could clearly see the bullet holes in the wings and fuselage if you looked at pictures of the wreckage.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.