Posted on 03/29/2007 11:25:45 AM PDT by Hal1950
And I'll ask this question. What idiot would test a missile by firing into the most densly travelled air corridor in the world? What possible reason would anyone have in doing so? What could they possibly be testing?
And ostriches ignore more than 600 witnesses scattered all over Long Island and Connecticut who just happened to see a orange/red/white streak of light climb up to the plane and meet it just at the time the center fuel tank exploded.
ML/NJ
The missle came from the water level..so it was either our government or somebody else's...or a terrorist hit.
We don't seem to want to acknowledge a terrorist outfit could pull it off...so?
Anyone who has studied aircraft crashes know that eyewitnesses are extremely unreliable.
So we agree that it would be an insanely idiotic thing to do. But then you clearly show you believe it to be the case. Which must mean that in your view the people running the military must be idiots.
The missle came from the water level..so it was either our government or somebody else's...or a terrorist hit.
But what if there was no missile?
We don't seem to want to acknowledge a terrorist outfit could pull it off...so?
I don't know...fuel tank explosion?
Indeed. It was an orange or white or red or pink missile, traveling west to east or east to west or north to south, rising from the water or the land, and striking the plane. Who can dispute that?
Your statement is the kind of gross exaggeration that conspiracy theories rely on. But to your credit, you actually supply a link to back it up. At that link you'll find this statement..."In April of 2000, the NTSB released thousands of documents representing (mostly FBI) interviews with 670 eyewitnesses." and this statement..."However, from the available witness documents, 21 eyewitnesses observed two distinct objects in the air." Maybe the reason people ignore your statement is because they know it is B.S..
You really need to understand how this works.
I am a pilot. I have aeronautical charts which have specially marked areas just south of where TWA 800 went down which contain the legend: "Warning. National Defense Operating Areas. Operations hazardous to the flight of aircraft conducted within these areas."
Pilot's flying visually are expected to find out whether such areas are "active" and avoid them if they are. The area I am referring to just south of where TWA 800 went down is active about three times a year. It was active that evening.
Pilots flying under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) are told where to fly by air traffic controllers (ATC) and the ATC are expected by IFR pilots to give routes that avoid restricted areas. All commercial flights, including TWA 800, are required to operate under IFR.
The area in question extends up to 15,000 feet. Planes bound for Europe from JFK, like TWA 800 are normally at 19,000 feet five minutes before reaching this area. TWA 800 was ordered up to 19,000 feet, but then held at 13,000 feet by ATC to avoid any conflict with a plane inbound to Providence. The controller screwed up. He should not have allowed TWA 800 to proceed so close to this operations areas at 13,000 feet.
It sort of helps to know what you're talking about when you talk about aviation accidents. "Radar tests" are not "hazardous to the flight of aircraft." The Navy has a record of cover-ups including the USS Liberty incident and others.
ML/NJ
Since Reid is a fact, I'll go with that scenario.
But too many people saw something rise up to hit the plane.
Or aviation as a whole. For example, this statement...""Warning. National Defense Operating Areas. Operations hazardous to the flight of aircraft conducted within these areas." includes military aircraft maneuvers including anything from refueling to large fighter training exercises to basic formation work. I've spent many hours training in those areas. The last thing we wanted to deal with in a 1 v 1 dogfight was a 737 transiting through our airspace.
Funny. There have been quite a few other aviation accidents around Long Island. I don't recall any of these where even five witnesses came forward claiming that they saw a missile rise to the plane in question. Here you have hundreds of witnesses, separately interviewed, who mostly all point along lines which intersect at the point where TWA 800 was stricken.
Yes, witnesses get a lot of stuff wrong sometimes. But not when all of them are telling mostly the same story.
ML/NJ
So are fuel tank explosions.
But too many people saw something rise up to hit the plane.
That's the problem. Too many people saw too many different things rise up to hit the plane.
Yes, but it would have been accidental. I know this, because important papers fall into my underwear all the time.
I'm convinced you are correct. The idea of a test to navigate through civilian traffic is almost as stupid as a center fuel tank explosion cause by a wiring spark.
I'm sure you have some good explanation of why the CIA was employed to create a cartoon showing TWA 800 zooming 3000 feet upwards. (crossing the altitude of the Eastwinds Airlines flight whose pilot David McClaine just happened to be staring at TWA 800 all the way from its lift off at JFK. I spoke with McClaine in person for over an hour about this, when by chance we just happened to be staying at the same hotel. McClaine emphatically stated that TWA 800 did not climb at all after the explosion.)
ML/NJ
ARRL Field Day. TS-430 rig?
The sheer number of witnesses stating they saw something rise up cannot be dismissed.
To reach that verdict puts the investigators in O.J. Simpson jury company.
Air Force, and Air National Guard when I flew in the airspace off New York.
"I'm sure you have some good explanation of why the CIA was employed to create a cartoon showing TWA 800 zooming 3000 feet upwards."
Yes. At the time the FBI thought the incident was an act of terrorism. The CIA was brought into the investigation because they were the experts on international terrorism. Here's the best source of info regarding the extent of CIA participation, and why they were involved in producing the video (including what information they had available when they produced the video)
CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CIA AND TRANSCRIPT OF THE CIA BRIEFING TO THE WITNESS GROUP
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.