Skip to comments.NTSB Standard Investigation Procedure and Flight 587/TWA Flight 800
Posted on 01/14/2002 11:19:09 AM PST by Asmodeus
THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS
The National Transportation Safety Board was established in 1967 to conduct independent investigations of all civil aviation accidents in the United States and major accidents in the other modes of transportation. It is not part of the Department of Transportation, nor organizationally affiliated with any of DOT's modal agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration. The Safety Board has no regulatory or enforcement powers.
To ensure that Safety Board investigations focus only on improving transportation safety, the Board's analysis of factual information and its determination of probable cause cannot be entered as evidence in a court of law.
The NTSB "Go Team"
At the core of NTSB investigations is the "Go Team." The purpose of the Safety Board Go Team is simple and effective: Begin the investigation of a major accident at the accident scene, as quickly as possible, assembling the broad spectrum of technical expertise that is needed to solve complex transportation safety problems.
The team can number from three or four to more than a dozen specialists from the Board's headquarters staff in Washington, D.C., who are assigned on a rotational basis to respond as quickly as possible to the scene of the accident. Go Teams travel by commercial airliner or government aircraft depending on circumstances and availability. Such teams have been winging to catastrophic airline crash sites for more than 30 years. They also routinely handle investigations of certain rail, highway, marine and pipeline accidents.
During their time on the "duty" rotation, members must be reachable 24 hours a day by telephone at the office or at home, or by pager. Most Go Team members do not have a suitcase pre-packed because there's no way of knowing whether the accident scene will be in Florida or Alaska; but they do have tools of their trade handy-carefully selected wrenches, screwdrivers and devices peculiar to their specialty. All carry flashlights, tape recorders, cameras, and lots of extra tape and film.
The Go Team's immediate boss is the Investigator-in-Charge (IIC), a senior investigator with years of NTSB and industry experience. Each investigator is a specialist responsible for a clearly defined portion of the accident investigation. In aviation, these specialties and their responsibilities are:
OPERATIONS: The history of the accident flight and crewmembers' duties for as many days prior to the crash as appears relevant.
STRUCTURES: Documentation of the airframe wreckage and the accident scene, including calculation of impact angles to help determine the plane's pre-impact course and attitude.
POWERPLANTS: Examination of engines (and propellers) and engine accessories.
SYSTEMS: Study of components of the plane's hydraulic, electrical, pneumatic and associated systems, together with instruments and elements of the flight control system.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: Reconstruction of the air traffic services given the plane, including acquisition of ATC radar data and transcripts of controller-pilot radio transmissions.
WEATHER: Gathering of all pertinent weather data from the National Weather Service, and sometimes from local TV stations, for a broad area around the accident scene.
HUMAN PERFORMANCE: Study of crew performance and all before-the-accident factors that might be involved in human error, including fatigue, medication, alcohol. Drugs, medical histories, training, workload, equipment design and work environment.
SURVIVAL FACTORS: Documentation of impact forces and injuries, evacuation, community emergency planning and all crash-fire-rescue efforts.
Under direction of the IIC, each of these NTSB investigators heads what is called a "working group" in one area of expertise. Each is, in effect, a subcommittee of the overall investigating team. The groups are staffed by representatives of the "parties" to the investigation (see the next section - The Party System) - the Federal Aviation Administration, the airline, the pilots' and flight attendants' unions, airframe and engine manufacturers, and the like. Pilots would assist the operations group; manufacturers' experts, the structures, systems and powerplants groups; etc. Often, added groups are formed at the accident scene - aircraft performance, maintenance records, and eyewitnesses, for example. Flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder teams assemble at NTSB headquarters.
In surface accident investigations, teams are smaller and working groups fewer, but the team technique is the same. Locomotive engineers, signal system specialists and track engineers head working groups at railroad accidents. The specialists at a highway crash include a truck or bus mechanical expert and a highway engineer. The Board's weather, human performance and survival factors specialists respond to accidents of all kinds.
At least once daily during the on-scene phase of an investigation, one of the five Members of the Safety Board itself, who accompanies the team, briefs the media on the latest factual information developed by the team. While a career investigator runs the inquiry as Investigator-in-Charge, the Board Member is the primary spokesperson for the investigation. A public affairs officer also maintains contact with the media. Confirmed, factual information is released. There is no speculation over cause.
At major accidents, family affairs specialists also accompany the team to fulfill the Board's responsibilities under the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996. See the Family Affairs section of the Board's web site for details on this activity.
The individual working groups remain as long as necessary at the accident scene. This varies from a few days to two weeks. Some then move on - powerplants to an engine teardown at a manufacturer or overhaul facility; systems to an instrument manufacturer's plant; operations to the airline's training base, for example. Their work continues at Washington headquarters, forming the basis for later analysis and drafting of a proposed report that goes to the Safety Board itself perhaps 12 to 18 months from the date of the accident. Safety recommendations may be issued at any time during the course of an investigation.
Aviation go-teams respond only to accidents that occur on U.S. territory or in international waters. Elsewhere, the investigator is the government in whose territory the accident occurs, usually assisted by a U.S. "accredited representative" from the NTSB's staff of IICs if a U.S. carrier or U.S. manufactured plane is involved.
The Party System
The Board investigates about 2,000 aviation accidents and incidents a year, and about 500 accidents in the other modes of transportation - rail, highway, marine and pipeline. With about 400 employees, the Board accomplishes this task by leveraging its resources. One way the Board does this is by designating parties to its investigations.
The NTSB designates other organizations or corporations as parties to the investigation. Other than the FAA, which by law is automatically designated a party, the NTSB has complete discretion over which organizations it designates as parties to the investigation. Only those organizations or corporations that can provide expertise to the investigation are granted party status and only those persons who can provide the Board with needed technical or specialized expertise are permitted to serve on the investigation; persons in legal or litigation positions are not allowed to be assigned to the investigation. All party members report to the NTSB.
Eventually, each investigative group chairman prepares a factual report and each of the parties in the group are asked to verify the accuracy of the report. The factual reports are placed in the public docket.
Investigations Involving Criminal Activity
In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support.
One example would be the crash of a Pacific Southwest Airlines flight in San Luis Obispo, California on December 7, 1987. All 43 persons aboard died in the crash of the Bae-146. Because of information conveyed over the radio by the flight crew shortly before the crash, the FBI instituted its own investigation, parallel to the Safety Board's investigation, to determine if a crime had been committed. Within days, it was learned that a former employee of the airline had boarded the plane with a gun and, while the plane was in cruise flight, had shot the flight crew, causing the aircraft to crash. When that was made evident, the FBI assumed control of the investigation.
As the result of recent legislation, the NTSB will surrender lead status on a transportation accident only if the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Safety Board, notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act.
Safety recommendations are the most important part of the Safety Board's mandate. The Board must address safety deficiencies immediately, and therefore often issues recommendations before the completion of investigations. Recommendations are based on findings of the investigation, and may address deficiencies that do not pertain directly to what is ultimately determined to be the cause of the accident.
For example, in the course of its investigation of the crash landing of a DC-10 in Sioux City, Iowa in 1989, the Board issued recommendations on four separate occasions before issuance of its final report. In the case of the crash of an ATR-72 in Roselawn, Indiana in 1994, the Board issued urgent safety recommendations within one week of the accident. In the TWA flight 800 investigation, once it was determined that an explosion in the center fuel tank caused the breakup of the aircraft, the Board issued urgent safety recommendations years before completion of its investigation that were aimed at eliminating explosive fuel/air vapors in airliner fuel tanks.
The Board may hold a public hearing as part of a major transportation accident investigation. The purpose of the hearing is two-fold; first, to gather sworn testimony from subpoenaed witnesses on issues identified by the Board during the course of the investigation, and, second, to allow the public to observe the progress of the investigation. Hearings are usually held within six months of an accident, but may be postponed for complex investigations.
The Remainder of the Investigation and Final Report
More months of tests and analysis eventually lead to the preparation of a draft final report by Safety Board staff. Parties do not participate in the analysis and report writing phase of NTSB investigations; however, they are invited to submit their proposed findings of cause and proposed safety recommendations, which are made part of the public docket. The Board then deliberates over the final report in a public Board meeting in Washington, D.C. Non-Safety Board personnel, including parties and family members, cannot interact with the Board during that meeting.
Once a major report is adopted at a Board Meeting, an abstract of that report - containing the Board's conclusions, probable cause and safety recommendations - is placed on the Board's web site under "Publications". The full report typically appears on the web site several weeks later.
The so called Conspiracy Theorists have alleged for 5 1/2 years that Flight 800 was the victim of a missile(s) shootdown while wildly, recklessly and falsely accused thousands of Americans - including members of the armed forces - of heinous crimes ranging from complicity in a felonious criminal "coverup" to accessories to mass murder to treason. The following explains how it all came about - including why the standard NTSB investigation procedure was not followed - and includes supporting documentation:
The "Conspiracy Theorists" have injected their untenable coverup conspiracy allegations about Flight 800 into every major aircraft disaster since including the crashes of JFK Jr., Alaska Air, etc., etc. and most recently Flight 587, thereby wildly and recklessly inciting suspicion, fear and hatred of the United States government.
America has been at war since 11 September 2001 with enemies who also incite suspicion, fear and hatred of the American government and members of the armed forces, enemies who pose a clear and present horrendous danger to every man, woman and child in this country.
It's still our right to publicly discuss and debate these issues but it's obviously inappropriate, to put it mildly, for anyone to be making wildly reckless allegations and accusations about our government or members of the American armed forces.
Or to present sinister suspicions as proven facts.
To all: To view the Traits of and 25 Rules for dealing with Disinformationists such as Elmer(FUDD)Barr/aka @$$modius/aka EB-44:
Also, bear in mind that the link referenced in FUDD's post is to his own website, a very slick and professional-looking one at that.
Elmer FUDD Barr usually points to John Barry Smith's fallacious cargo door theory after attempting to debunk and denegrate other investigators.
I do not know if they are one and the same or not.
I do know that JBS comes across as a fairly honorable opponent stuck with defending an untenable position, contrary to FUDDs unabashed and transparant use of Disinfo. tactics.
I do know that any mention of missile and eyewitness in any TWA 800 discussion brings Elmer FUDD running to shut the "tin-foil-conspiracy-theorists down. In this incarnation he's aka @$$modeus. There are several conjectures as to his agenda.
I do know the 25 Rules of Disinformation are his nemesis. Applying them to his posts usually has him dropping the thread he's trolling like a hot potato. Especially if it appears his rhetoric and invective is getting nowhere with enlightened Freepers.
Yahoo TWA800 Forum
Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:19 am Subject: Re: [twa800] Again??
Elmer FUDD aka "Asmodeus is busy dodging the Disinformation Rules on FreeRepublic.
The Flight 800 shootdown tinfoil hat skinheads have been accusing all those who dared to disagree with them of being government disinformationalists for the last 5 ½ years.
Example: Lewis is, in short, a disinformationalist by virtue of the duck test. He acts like a disinformationalist, he sounds like a disinformationalist, and he smells like a disinformationalist. Source
The tinfoil hats have even accused their own of being disinformationalists if they had a differing theory.
Example: It means that the disinformationalist campaign to spread the Friendly Fire missile story is a success. Source
There are various versions of the tinfoil hats so called Rules of Disinformation - all of which are intended as how-to-do-it guidelines for the tinfoils themselves in disrupting debate and obscuring the issues when the subject is evidence that conflicts with their shootdown allegations and related accusations.
Example: Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney - 1.Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil - 2. Become incredulous and indignant - 3. Create rumor mongers - 4. Use a straw man - 5. Sidetrack opponents wwith name calling and ridicule - 6. Hit and Run - 7. Question motives - 8. Invoke authority - 9. Play Dumb - 10. Associate opponent charges with old news - 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions - 12. Enigmas have no solution - 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic - 14. Demand complete solutions - 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions - 16. Vanish evidence and witnesses - 17. Change the subject - 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad - 19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs - 20. False evidence - 21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor - 22. Manufacture a new truth - 23. Create bigger distractions - 24. Silence critics - 25. Vanish
Although the tinfoil hats routinely proclaim that they want the public to know the truth, their paper trail reflects that they dont and that their sole purpose is to try to breath some life back into their own differing discredited theories by propagandizing while suppressing the truth by censorship.
Example: Do ANY of their own websites include the following sequential graphics prepared by the New York Air National Guard after the crew of Jolly 14 witnesses Meyer et al were debriefed?
Note that the Massive Fireball explosion ENGULED the first explosion reported by witness Meyer - which is also included in Meyers press graphic.
There is no mistaking the Massive Fireball explosion in witness Meyers press graphic. It was reportedly about2000 feet in diameter and the immediately preceding small explosions have been proclaimed for years by the tinfoil hats to be the alleged shootdown explosions of the 747 at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12.
Its glaringly obvious that the shootdown explosions could not have been engulfed by the approximately 2000 feet in diameter Massive Fireball explosion unless that Massive Fireball explosion took place within approximately 2000 feet of the alleged shootdown at 13,800 feet - and the evidence is overwhelming that the Massive Fireball explosion filled the sky between about 5500-7500 feet - at approximately 8:31:47. Source
Among the other additional documentation included in that source is the following graphic of the Massive Fireball altitude estimates of the airborne witnesses - ranging from 3000 feet to 8000 feet, a CIA letter indicating that the Massive Fireball explosion took place when the left wing separated about a mile above the surface, the report of witnesses Faret & Wendel that the Massive Fireball explosion was below their own flight altitude of 8500 feet, that they flew to the smoke cloud it left and thereby determined that its top was at 7700 feet, and the Air Traffic Control tape transcript documenting that the first radio report of the Massive Fireball explosion was timestamped at 8:31:50 - 38 seconds AFTER the shootdown alleged by the tinfoil hats.
It is the eyewitnesses themselves who topple the house-of-cards shootdown case of the tinfoil hats.
But there is an abundance of other evidence including but by no means limited to that presented during the Grassley Hearing - that further documents that the tinfoil hats have been making wildly reckless untenable allegations and accusations.
There is one fact that bothers us, however. No mention is ever made of the fact that the explosion was at 7500 feet! We do not dispute the fact that something happened at 13,800 feet, but what happened after that. There is 5000 feet unaccounted for.
We would like to emphasize:
"We approached the black-gray smoke cloud on the west side. We were at 7700 feet and were at the top edge of the cloud. The cloud center was at 7500 feet. There were 2 small bumps atop it. There was no smoke or smoke trails above it. It was still lit up a little by the sun, clear above."
We dont why this has never been discussed in any scenarios.
That first addendum to their report still appears to be included in only ONE of the shootdown websites.
That second addendum to their report still does not appear to be included in ANY of the shootdown websites.
Rule #5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Ah heck...Let's just post 'em all and let the public decide!
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby) when CIA agent Marita Lorenz 'confession' testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt lost his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby's newspaper, The Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's remarkable book, Plausible Denial, for the full confessional transcript.
Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up. In this case, it would be the entire Time-Warner Media Group, among others. This author is relatively certain that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case from among those having intelligence community ties.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
Example: 'How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint.
' Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse of power that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
'You can't prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating around the Internet for months.'
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a similar statement by a Congressman, neither of which had actually seen Pierre's document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 - create rumor mongers)?
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. The disinformationalist, later identified as having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: 'If these images exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don't exist, and never did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls flat.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)?'
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Example: 'You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?'
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
Example: ''This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.' Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again.
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. If you do not like reading 'this crap', why do you frequent this NG which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?'
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
Example: 'With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. If you think what has been presented are 'lies', why not simply so illustrate? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?'
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
'You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. You simply cite 'Jane's-like' information to make us think you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke authority)?'
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Example: 'Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?'
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
Example: 'Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant to truth. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)?'
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
Example: 'Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy it makes us feel, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters being discussed. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?'
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
Example: 'I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)?'
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
Example: 'The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story -- often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony 'confession' by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest story of the Century, but they didn't print it, did they? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)?'
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10
. Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
Example: 'The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to explode.'
Proper response: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. This was eloquently defeated in court but media blindly accepted it without challenge. Thus rewarded, disinformationalists do not shrink from its application, even though today, thanks in part to the movie, JFK, most Americans do now understand it was fabricated nonsense. Thus the defense which works best may actually be to cite the Magic Bullet. 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented. You invent a cargo door problem when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the cargo door hinges and locks disprove you. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - fit facts to an alternate conclusion)?'
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
Example: 'You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't you accept the Police reports?' This is a good ploy, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it -- all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.
Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond... 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention ONLY because of highly suspicious matters such as the simultaneous and mysterious vanishing of three sets of evidence. The suspicious nature itself tends to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)?'
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
Example: 'There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.' Assistant's response. 'You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on...' One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one...
Proper response: 'You are both avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response to a new topic -- a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate politics NGs. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?'
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
Example: 'You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.' After a drawing an emotional response: 'Ohhh... I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help...'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Example: 'All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press -- as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Then you demand us to produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held by FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?'
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy 'confession', since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination (see below.)
Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time... 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have been designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and others, met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose 'Solidarist confession' was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 - false evidence)?'
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.
Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up. This happened locally in Oklahoma, and as a result, a new Grand Jury has been called to rehear evidence that government officials knew in advance that the bombing was going to take place, and a number of new facts which indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done the deed without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such as available ONLY to the military or intelligence community, such as CIA's METC technology. Media has refused to cover the new Oklahoma Grand Jury process, by they way.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Read The Professional Paranoid or Phsychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing as Mind Control.
Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are not well equipped to fight this tactic.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to talk about -- or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the whole gun control thing?
Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the 'news flap' or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.
Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing.)
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.
Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play or deceit as part of a deliberate cover up.
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000 - formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
The FBI took control of the Flight 800 investigation at the outset, including substituting FBI agents to interview the witnesses rather than the NTSB Witness Groups. Source
The latest update by the NTSB on the Flight 587 crash follows:
January 15, 2002
FOURTH UPDATE ON NTSB INVESTIGATION INTO CRASH OF AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 587
The National Transportation Safety Board today released the following updated information on its investigation of the November 12 crash of American Airlines flight 587 in Belle Harbor, New York, which resulted in the deaths of all 260 persons aboard and 5 persons on the ground.
Vertical Stabilizer and Rudder
The aircraft's tail section has been in NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia since early December. In the intervening weeks, the Safety Board has conducted a series of non-destructive tests to determine whether the vertical stabilizer and rudder had any pre-existing flaws before the accident. Some delamination has been noted, but at this time it is not known whether this occurred before impact or as a result of impact.
Contrary to recent press accounts, the Board has not ruled out either mechanical malfunction or structural defect as causing or contributing to the accident. Work at NASA Langley will take many more months and will transition to more extensive and intrusive tests of the stabilizer and rudder.
Although the flight data recorder showed significant rudder movement during the last moments of flight 587, it is not known what caused the movement - whether it was mechanically induced or pilot activated - or what role, if any, the movement played in the separation of the vertical stabilizer.
The Safety Board is surveying salvage yards for an intact A300-600 vertical stabilizer and rudder as an exemplar for potential tear down and examination. The undamaged exemplar could be helpful to investigators as they examine the accident airplane's composite materials and attachment points.
In the course of the NTSB's continuing investigation, over 350 eyewitnesses to some segment of the accident sequence have been identified. Those who have not already provided written statements or been interviewed by NTSB personnel will be contacted shortly. Some of these individuals mentioned observing fire or smoke before the plane impacted the ground, although the majority of them do not. Although at this time no physical evidence of an inflight explosion or fire has been discovered, the Board is taking into full consideration the observations of all witnesses. Witness statements will be made part of the public docket of this investigation.
As previously announced, the Safety Board has established a web site (AA587wit@ntsb.gov) for eyewitness statements. All persons who can provide eyewitness testimony about this accident who have not yet been in contact with Safety Board personnel should contact the NTSB through this site.
Flight Data Recorder
The flight data recorder continues to be analyzed. That process is taking a little longer in this case because signals for some parameters on this aircraft are "filtered" before they reach the flight recorder. The filtering operation is used to smooth data that drive cockpit displays so that the needle (or other indicator) does not jump around. This filtering is accomplished by averaging the data over time. When large, rapid movements are made, this averaging will distort the recorded data; rapid, extreme control movements are clipped off. As a result, the readings on the recorder show what the gauges were telling the pilots, not necessarily what was actually occurring on a real-time basis to the aircraft. This will require some aircraft testing and then further computations by Board staff to get the true readings on some parameters of interest like rudder, elevator, and aileron movement. Although this has added to the workload of investigators, it is not expected to affect the quality or the timing of the Board's final product.
In 1994, the Safety Board recommended to the FAA that such filtering systems be removed from information sent to flight data recorders. The FAA told the NTSB that its 1997 final rule amending FDR requirements "precludes the use of a filter and specifies the seconds-per-sampling interval for all parameters." Based on that information, the Safety Board closed its recommendation as "Acceptable Action" on August 9, 2000. The Safety Board has alerted Airbus and the FAA of the problem noted on the recorder recovered from American Airlines flight 587.
How come you never answered my questions on the other TWA 800 thread?
Interestingly, he gets all upset about people not trusting the government. As if there was ever a reason FOR people to trust the government, and in contrast with the government's record on bad no-knock raids, the Elian raid, burning a bunch of otherwise harmless 7th Day Adventist heretics (oh yeah, compared to those 7th Day Adventsts, al Quaida are Boy Scouts, I'm sure), ineffective border control, shooting a mother with babe-in-arms, etc.
He is upset about this because individuals are key to the government's ability to continue these travesties. People like James Kallstrom should be spat upon everywhere they go. The Elian raiders shoudl be outed. And Lon Horiouchi is already serving life at Quantico. Make the down-side visible and harsh. Make it so the toadies AND their families never live it down, and the lies will have to end.
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.