61–70 of 270 posts
The lawsuit[0] is worth a read and goes into quite a bit of detail about the claimed timeline. Roughly: * Upgraded missile defense systems were deemed a national security priority around this time * Navy ships compatible with these systems were 5 years out, so… * Live missile testing happens at a compatible land base in New Jersey, under congested airspace * Multiple civilians report seeing missile tests in & around…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if it was skin-to-skin impacted by an unarmed missile?
TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air. That would not be caused by an inert missile impact. The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup on top of the fact that there is literally zero evidence for it. The most likely explanation is exactly what is written in the official report.
Why not? Inert missile punches through a fuel tank, aerosolizing the fuel, and either the missile engine or a damaged aircraft engine ignites it.
The lawsuit[0] is worth a read and goes into quite a bit of detail about the claimed timeline. Roughly: * Upgraded missile defense systems were deemed a national security priority around this time * Navy ships compatible with these systems were 5 years out, so… * Live missile testing happens at a compatible land base in New Jersey, under congested airspace * Multiple civilians report seeing missile tests in & around…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if it was skin-to-skin impacted by an unarmed missile?
TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air. That would not be caused by an inert missile impact. The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup on top of the fact that there is literally zero evidence for it. The most likely explanation is exactly what is written in the official report.
Please explain this assertion. It makes no sense (at least to me).
Isn't there a statute of limitations? 1996 was 26 years ago.
In some scenarios, SOL also starts from the discovery of the crime/tort, not the committing of it.
I was always curious about how so many witnesses saw a streak of light shoot up to the plane which then exploded. I was never convinced by the video the CIA released that explained what those witnesses actually saw was a trail of burning jet fuel going away from the plane.
So this tells us its OK to lie as long as 200 people die and you can tie up the evidence for a couple decades. I'll remember that when I'm teaching my kids its bad to lie about stealing an extra cookie. Thanks CIA, etc
2. With respect to lying about hundreds of people dying, is that really a surprise to you? Just a few possible examples off the top of my head.
RMS Lusitania, claimed to be carrying tens if not hundreds of tons of undeclared high explosives, which would have made it a 'legitimate' target for the u-boat that sank it. This is officially denied, but the Royal Navy has since endeavored to destroy the wreck and warn divers away from investigating it.
K-219, a Soviet ballistic missile sub, sank in early October 1986. Later that month USS Augusta, an American attack submarine, went in for repairs to a smashed radar dome. The US Navy denies any connection between the two.
K-129, another Soviet ballistic missile sub, sank in 1968. The US Navy figured out where it was before anybody else, claiming to have found it using sonar buoys and Bayesian search techniques. A few days after K-129 sank, USS Swordfish went into port for repairs after a supposed collision with sea ice. The US Navy denies any connection between the two.
MS Estonia was a ferry that sank in 1980 when the front loading doors failed. Allegations that the ferry was being used to smuggle military hardware were denied by everybody, then the wreck was deliberately buried under thousands of tons of gravel so that nobody can inspect it.
1988, the US Navy shoots down Iran Air Flight 655. The US Navy claims it was self-defense because their Aegis cruiser misidentified the Airbus A300 as an Iranian F-14.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air. That would not be caused by an inert missile impact. The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup on top of the fact that there is literally zero evidence for it. The most likely explanation is exactly what is written in the official report.
Being struck violently by an unarmed missile could have caused a massive structural failure of the aircraft, which then exploded. > literally zero evidence for it. There is literally circumstantial evidence for it, as well as eye-witness testimony. This is not "proof" by any stretch, but it's certainly evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being struck violently by an unarmed missile could have caused a massive structural failure of the aircraft, which then exploded. > literally zero evidence for it. There is literally circumstantial evidence for it, as well as eye-witness testimony. This is not "proof" by any stretch, but it's certainly evidence.
My understanding is that the chronology of all eyewitness accounts for the missile have been after the airframe was known to have broken up, meaning that they were most likely seeing large sections of the burning fuselage. Are there other eyewitness accounts that don’t match that, or are you saying that the official chronology is itself suspect?
'Evidence' doesn't imply 'proof'.
This is one of those conspiracies that always seemed probably true, based on my cursory examination of the evidence. Or the other way, assume a weapons test went horribly wrong; what would the result be?
Missile damage to aircraft leaves very distinct and VERY obvious traces as you would expect from a bunch of shrapnel suddenly slicing through the fuselage at hundreds of different points. If you want an example look at the reconstructed fuselage Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 which got shot down over Ukraine. 95% of the fuselage of TWA 800 was recovered. It was not hit by a surface to air a missile.
The reason for the warhead is to improve the odds of the bringing down the airplane.
