Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/9/2001 5:51:20 PM EDT
[url]http://www.flight93crash.com[/url] Someone with the cajones to take on the feds. I like it! I can stomach the shootdown, but I can't stomach the lies and deceit. Someday I hope their lies do them in, otherwise we're all doomed.
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 2:51:30 PM EDT
Just some jerkoff trying to take away credit from the people on that plane who took action. I see nothing to dispute that the people on board brought that plane down. Not everything is a conspiracy. Same old blah, blah, blah. This man is no crash expert.
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 3:11:34 PM EDT
First of all, I'm not convinced that the government shot down Flight 93. And to be real honest, I don't care if they did. THEY DIDN"T HAVE ANOTHER CHOICE. I think there's enough evidence to support the fact that these guys rose to the call and did what needed to be done. Why try and take that away from them and their families? And really whether or not the government took the plane down or not, the fact is these guys did fight back knowing that they might die, to try and save others lives. Enough for hero status if you ask me. "Let's Roll!"
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 5:57:05 PM EDT
There's nothing jerkoff about wanting to know the true story of what happened. There is pretty good consensus among historians now, over 30 years later, that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. I don't want to wait 30 years to find out that the US Air Force shot down a civilian airliner on Sept. 11, for whatever the reason. For the record, I agree, they had to do it. But god damn it, the only difference between the US Govt. and that of the old Soviet Union is how accountable and frank it is with the people. Do you understand? Or are you too thick to realize that before Flight 93 there was also the mysterious Flight 800, which obviously, despite official claims to the contrary, did not explode because of its center fuel tank. They wouldn't even accept testimony from those who saw the missile. The families of the victims can rationalize this any way they choose. You're wrong seamusmcoi, there is very little evidence that anyone on board took any action whatsoever. I think most of that was made up by the families looking to glorify their lost loved ones, possibly with the aid of the FBI, NTSB, etc. who are very well practiced at official coverups at this point. Bush gave the order to shoot the plane down and it "crashed" only a few minutes later. Don't bullshit me with stories about passengers fighting back that aren't true. There were five very motivated hijackers on that plane. The bottom line is that when a government takes an action, even if it's by accident (Flight 800), if the people are kept from knowing the truth, it hurts *everyone* and it brings us just a little bit closer to the eradication of everything our system of government supposedly stands for. Catch phrases like "Let's Roll", however clever they are, don't nearly come close to replacing the republican form of limited government for which so many Americans have given their lives. It's an insult, especially to the men in uniform, when the government lies and deceives. We trust our leaders to do the right thing and own up to their hard decisions and their mistakes. Americans will eventually pay the piper for complacency in this regard. We are already.
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 6:13:48 PM EDT
I want to add a couple more things because this really pisses me off that people are dismissing this as some wild conspiracy theory. Space aliens are conspiracies, this is real and very well documented: 1) Where are the flight data recorders? If the passengers brought down the plane themselves, why isn't the government parading all the evidence out in public? It should be very easy to determine what happened. After the crash, they spirited the tapes off to the manufacturer and claimed they were "too far damaged to be any good, yadda, yadda, yadda." Instead we get treated to the cell phone calls and the emotionally charged stories from family members who were called. Very unreliable--ask any cop about eyewitness testimony after a crime has taken place. 3) Days later, the tapes reappear and the story has all changed--we're offered only tiny bits of info like the last sounds in the cockpit were what sounded like someone "flipping pages in a manual". Pretty calm behavior for a cockpit in which the passengers were fighting with the hijackers. No signs of a struggle at all, actually. Much of the tape is missing, however, just like Flight 800, not surprisingly. 3) The media has not been allowed to interview the F-16 pilots, who by the accounts of many witnesses on the ground, "must have seen the plane go down" because they were so close in the air. Again, if there is no coverup, why not let the pilots give full press conferences? Why the veil of secrecy over their identities? They know *exactly* what took place. 4) How did debris from the plane, including an engine, get 8 miles from the crash site? It crashed nearly straight in, according to eyewitnesses. Pieces do not bounce 8 miles.
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 6:17:22 PM EDT
Warren Commission......... 1 shooter, all the "real" studies after that 1 shooter. Just like MLK. There are people out there afraid to believe that 1 motivated person with a simple firearm can kill any other person the chose to. Well 1 person with a gun with a little skill and luck can kill any other person they want to. Flight 800. No verified USN ships in the area, do you really want to tarnish the men and women serving thier country like that? If a ship fire a missile how many people would've been onboard?? 100? 200? 300? If they fired a missile they would have to get re-supplied. How many doock workers would remember 1 missile being loaded on to a ship after Flight 800 went down? Someone would have talked, or someone would have spotted during a weapons audit. Far more likely the center fuel tank suffered an internal expolsion, some of the burning jet fuel leaked out...... people on the ground saw the flame. They tried to make sense out of what the saw. Boeing may not want everyone to know how dangerous their design was. By the way tell me which us missile we have is powereful enough to take down a 260 ton jet, that could fly for some time on 2 engines. There ain't one, so your missile theory doesn't work, and even if there was 1 that big it would have shown up on radar. So what your saying is that there was a US plane, airborne, and armed that just happened to be close enough to shoot down Flight 93. Seem like an awful lot of happened to be's. Oh and it had a missile big enough to take down a 100 ton jet, and it wasn't seen or heard by anyone. Silly me I thought it would be far more likely that the passengers, after making cell phone calls and learning about the WTC, decided to re-take the plane. Trickshot said: [b]It's an insult, especially to the men in uniform, when the government lies and deceives.[/b] Your right, but it is worse when YOU claim that the same people in unifrom killed other citizens and the covered it up.
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 6:17:29 PM EDT
There is something jerkoff when every asshole has a theory about everything. I am just as authoritative when I say he is a jerkoff and he is wrong. I have just as much 'proof' of that as he has of a shootdown. As for flight 800, more jerkoff conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat, whining, "oooh, they are out to get me.....", blah, blah, blah. Just because the government is not always up front about things, it does not mean that every whacko has the correct answer nor does it mean that every incident is a government cover up.
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 6:17:54 PM EDT
It was brought down by a short circuit in the center fuel tank.
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 6:44:21 PM EDT
I skimmed most of the site, read the part under the tab marked "heroes". Also many people post what bumbling incompetents the government hire and promotes. Your shoot down theory requires the Air Force or National Guard to have had armed planes available and for the FAA to have communicated to the planes wher the plane was, and for those planes to have received authorization to fire on an civilian jet liner. Then once they got on the ground the pilots and ground crews were de-briefed so that no one would talk. The NTSB, FAA, air traffic controllers, and PA State Police were all secretly briefed and told not to talk. Eyewitnesses were secetly contacted and told what their new eyewitness acount would be. When i watched Men In Black I never would have believed that those memory zapper things were real. No far more likely the FAA didn't get a message to the Air Force. The Air Force didn't know about flight 93 until it was already down. No one in govt. would have had the audacity to say "jet liner full of civilians headed toward DC, yeah sounds like a good idea, why don't we shoot it down". NO far more likely jet headed to DC....... I'll check with my supervisor..... And we know that "checking" could go on for days. Don't even get me started on how unlikely it is that the gov't could truly cover up anything.
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 6:52:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/10/2001 6:46:43 PM EDT by Sweep]
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 7:07:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: It was brought down by a short circuit in the center fuel tank.
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 7:08:41 PM EDT
Sweep, It is an interesting question, but before I would go into all the conjecture, WHAT PROOF is there about where the engine was found so far away? Prove that it was 8 miles from the main impact. And in the website he linked it says 11,000+ ft............hmmm when did a mile become 1375 ft????? The other hijacked planes took bascially straight line courses to the impact points with fairl regular descents. According to network news programs I have seen flight 93 became very erratic before it crashed. Bt that I mean it was gaining and losing altitude rapidly. Is it possible that was because of a fight for the controls?? Or because the terrorist flying the plane was trying to keep the passengers from being able to enter the cockpit? is it possib;e that during one of thes manuevers the engine was overstressed and torn from it's mount? Or there was another impact with a ground object prior to the main impact? Based on the evidnce that I have heard, and it is all second hand.......news internet etc. I have yet to hear credible evidence suggesting anything other than the plane crashed due to an internal conflict. To accsue the govt. of a shoot down/cover up based on conjecture and speculation is reckless and could damage the reputations of the National Guard (our neighbors) or Our Armed Forces. I have more respect for them and myself to be making up stuff like that.
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 7:47:53 PM EDT
I remeber listening to the radio right after the first 3 hit and the news guy said there was "a 4th plane flying along the east coast, being escorted by an F16". Latter I saw on tv that the 4th plane had crashed in Pennsylvania. (1)If they did shoot it down they don't need to lie about it. (2)How could parts end up 2 mi away from the crash site unless it broke up in mid air? (3)The story about on board heroics sounds a little incredible (I wish it were true.) Also I'm not gonna believe any stories about cell phone conversations that took place just 'cause they (the media) said they did. That whole story is just too easy to make up. (4)The FBI does have a history of lying ( Waco and the incendiary devices used there)
Link Posted: 11/11/2001 7:13:21 AM EDT
Hmmm.... I've been to the crash site many times. My family is from Shanksville and I have a cousin that live 1/4 mile from the strip mine where the crash occured. The plane passed over his house. He was on the scene minutes afterward. He mentioned fighters in the air. Shot down? Who knows, who cares? I know the area very well and I can't see any debris "bouncing" out to Indian Lake or down over to New Baltimore. So it is at least possible IMO. I do know one thing. It is a sad, sad place. I hunt the area and know the some of the local folks. It is a horrible way for anyone to go. It is basically an old strip mine on a hilltop. It seems lonely. I was there the weekend after the crash and the place was locked up tighter than Fort Knox. State troopers, FBI, Navy, Airforce, you name it. I was turned away when I tried to get to my cousins place because I had an out of town address on my license. I heard so many accounts of the crash and they are all pretty much the same. Plane came in low alt. wings verticle and that was it. My cousin was there before any officials and said the heat was so bad it burned his nostrils. There is a memorial close by. It makes you so mad/sad that anyone with a conscience would nuke Afghanistan in a heartbeat! If it was shot down then so be it. I have doubts. But I do believe that the military knew the plane was on a suicide mission. I was listening to the scenario on the radio the day of the attacks and there was talk of a plane off course over W. Pa. and talk of shooting it down. So it is a possibility.
Link Posted: 11/11/2001 8:35:18 AM EDT
I have to tell you guys that, there was a tv on at work...I saw a report from a local station in pa..where a witness was telling the reporter he saw the plane get shot....this was immediately after it hit ground..so not enough time for the feds to move in..if you recall the flight path and extra time that 93 was in the air, there was more than sufficient time for fighters to get to it....one more thing...people keep bringing up reports and debreifing.....fighters on alert/scramble are on highly classified status....it is not likely that anyone would hear anything....there could be a leak yes, but if you are military, you are not going to spill it...so then where..media?..not if unk told them to shut up.....
Link Posted: 11/11/2001 8:41:13 AM EDT
I`m not %100 convinced that it was shot down. those of you who are not open minded enough to see this as a high possibility........well, get back to peter jennings I guess.........hero`s on the plane?.....sure...why not?
Link Posted: 11/11/2001 11:02:42 AM EDT
Oly, As a 747 instructor, I have maybe a few more details than average on systems, and even details on TWA 800 wreckage from my NTSB and FAA students. First, you don't need a nuclear- sized explosion to bring down an airliner. Mess up a critical system just enough, and you bring a plane down. A poorly repaired pressure vessel on a JAL 747 took down 550 people. When the pressure vessel burst, it blew off a significant portion of vertical stabilizer and severed a quadruple-redundant hydraulic system into uselessness. I agree that hitting one engine on a 747 with a missile, is unlikely to bring it down. But passing a large number of high-speed fragments through a fuselage, can have an entirely different effect. I taught hundreds of airline pilots...many of them former 747 pilots. I can think of two that actually believe the center fuel tank blew up due to a spark. I taught FAA folks who had been with the 747-400 program since inception...not one believed the center fuel tank blew up. Some of my students actually examined the TWA 800 wreckage as NTSB investigators...some had some interesting details on what they thought an exploded center tank should look like and what it actually looked like. Now, before you lambast me for accusing America's finest of accidentally blowing up TWA 800, let me ask you two questions: How many 747 center fuel tanks have exploded in the history of this 33 year old aircraft with hundreds of millions of flight hours logged? The answer is zero. How many times has the Navy accidently shot down an aircraft? The answer is at least once. Militaries around the world have had the same problem...and one, just a month ago. Now, as for keeping it quiet...that's the hard part. Maybe a sub crew could. But, it is not just the military that has a missile capable of this deed. Osama had something like $300 million in resources. Hindsight being 20-20, I believe he had the ability to put a large enough missile in the air. I am more suspicious of the Clinton admin. hiding this possibility from the public at the time. As for Flight 93 being shot down...maybe. Debris falling several miles from a crash site is possible if the airframe is overstressed...but personal effects from inside the plane is a different story. Didn't the cell phone-using pax, comment that the terrorists said they had a bomb?? Maybe they really did. - Anarki
Link Posted: 11/11/2001 1:39:33 PM EDT
And if the JAL 747 had failed over deep water, falling from thousands of feet......... Would you believe that the quadruple redundant hydraulic system was taken out by accident? With all due respect you are a pilot, an instructor at that, not an engineer, not an aircaft designer. I understand you know far more than I ever will about 747's or any other plane. But the missile theory requires, if it was a government missile, a giant cover up. Government just isn't that resourceful or motivated. If the terrorist missile theory is to be valid that means that the investigations, FBI and NTSB couldn't tell how the aircraft was actually brought down........ How much of the center fuel tank has been recovered? All that is required to wipe out the tank is one spark. Tell me there has never been an electical spark in the wiring of an airplane. 1 spark. FYI subs don't have ground to air missiles. As I remeber this incident the aircraft was over 15,000 feet up when it came apart. To ge a ground launched missile up that high you are talking about a massive missile, the type mounted on a tracked vehicle, usually with a second vehicle carrying radar, and a third with fire contol. Seems unlikely that those kinds of missiles would just be lying around. Not to metion that would have to be adapted to fit on a large boat or ship. And are so large that ICBM launch sensors might be able to pick them up, and radar certainly would pick them up in flight. Not to mention the target radar would probably have been detected when it turned on. When 757's(IIRC) started going down due to the defective rudder system how many people believed that it was the rudder and not "pilot error"? In fact how many people doubted that there was a rudder design defect? Only after several planes went down and others had close calls did the believe it was the rudder system. If the 747 center tank is so flawless why did the redesign the fuel pump wiring harness after flight 800............ How could a missile hit be so severe on a 747 to cause it to break up in flight and not have time for a distress call...... How many fuel tank fires did the Concorde have until it's design weakness was exposed with a fuel tank fire?? How old are the Concordes?? Appx the same age as 747's. Ha, let's think about that.
Link Posted: 11/11/2001 7:26:55 PM EDT
I give up. I feel like Winston Smith at the end of 1984--"it was over, they had won, he loved Big Brother." You guys who say it doesn't matter, you're right in a sense. I think it's way too late in the game for any of it to matter. I did notice that 60 Minutes is going to interview the two fighter pilots who intercepted Flight 93. So they definitely got there in time. I don't expect we'll ever hear anyone officially admit that it was shot down. Probably just more propaganda about how they didn't intercept it in time. What pisses me off is that I used to enjoy flying a few times a year. Now the simple pleasure of taking a vacation or traveling on business has been turned into a bullshit hassle, or simply revoked. I take freedom very seriously and I refuse to subject myself to the bullshit security measures and leave myself at the mercy of my own government. I hate the fuckers, and I don't mean the terrorists. There comes a time you get backed into a corner. They had plenty of choices right up to Sept. 11 and suddenly all those choices were gone and then they had "NO CHOICE" but to kill 44 Americans in order to "save the lives of people on the ground" aka government employees at the White House or US Capitol. Yeah, protect the guilty and murder the innocent. At least they're consistent. The last straw for me will be when they put up roadblocks on the highways or on the borders between states. When I can't drive from place to place unmolested, that's it.
Link Posted: 11/11/2001 7:35:31 PM EDT
... I'm with you on this one [b]trickshot[/b]. I too questioned this on this forum the day it happened and all got was guff. ... I'm conviced that the plane was shot out of the sky.
Link Posted: 11/11/2001 7:59:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By samuraiTy: (1)If they did shoot it down they don't need to lie about it. (2)How could parts end up 2 mi away from the crash site unless it broke up in mid air?
View Quote
Thanks for your input, mr. PhD-in-physics. Any links to what exactly these "parts" are? It is possibly, actually very probable, that some small pieces would end up that far away. Do you understand the energy involved in such a crash?
(3)The story about on board heroics sounds a little incredible (I wish it were true.) Also I'm not gonna believe any stories about cell phone conversations that took place just 'cause they (the media) said they did. That whole story is just too easy to make up.
View Quote
Sure, the media made it up.... And all the family members who would have supposedly received these calls have been threatened by the government to go with the story or die?
Link Posted: 11/11/2001 11:39:00 PM EDT
Oly, What draws my suspicions to TWA 800 is the witness testimony. Normally I put little value into non-pilot testimony in aircraft crashes. However, there is a very common thread in almost every witnesses testimony regarding the ascending flare/fireworks/light from the water surface. If you are unfamiliar, try taking a look at: www.serendipity.magnet.ch/more/goddard/twa-fact.htm I had a better site for the actual reports, but can't find it. Has there ever been a spark in an airplane? Sure. But do you understand the NTSB's latest working theory and how far fetched is to make the spark necessary? First, a sulphur-based deposit has to be located in just the right spot. There has to be a short at that deposit in the (I believe) millivolt level wiring going to the fuel sensor. And then there has to be a short between that wiring and another 180 volt electrical system further down the harness. Even the NTSB admitted that it was an unlikely source..so they left their report open as to the cause of the "magic spark." I am not double-checking my numbers, but I recall the plane was at approx. 13000 feet, not "over 15000." I won't pretend to know something about missile technology and what kind of platform can reach and do damage to an aircraft at that altitude. I believe there was some speculation that if a sub did fire an anti-aircraft missile, that this capability would be a violation of a SALT-like treaty. But I'm not reading the damn thing to figure that stuff out...and you know that subs don't carry AA missiles unequivocally??? I'm sure the military has a lot of things I don't know about. It was 737's not 757's with the rudder actuator problem. And I don't recall Boeing redesigning the fuel system wiring harness. They did issue a service bulletin (not an AD) which recommended the replacement of original electric fuel pump with the metal impeller, with a couple of jet (venturi-type) pumps...even though the manufacturer could not get a metal to metal spark out of the impeller-type pump. This was pretty much a knee-jerk reaction, however, it fixed an irritating problem on fuel restrictions on takeoff. Actually, the Concord had several wing puncture incidents before the really impressive accident. Sometimes you just have to kill people to get a problem fixed. I have thought about that. You seem very sure about what happened for someone without knowledge of aircraft systems. I reiterate, that you probably won't find many of us line pilots that are so convinced that a well-tested system could fail so easily. But line pilots will tell you that the military plays with us quite a lot...unbeknownst to passengers. I have personally been intercepted several times, with no forwarning and no conversation. They probably don't even know I know...but the little red lights swinging back and forth across my tail at night, are a dead giveaway. Read the eyewitness reports and try to work that into your theory. That's where I am having the hardest time reconciling the story. Oh, BTW, did you know the witnesses published a full page ad in the WSJ asking why their testimony was basically ignored? Kind of a strong statement. Am I real sure about what happened? No. Am I real sure that a spark didn't blow up the center tank? Much more sure than my faith in the govt. to tell the truth. Sorry for the long post. Regards - Anarki
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 12:22:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/12/2001 12:19:19 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
The issue I have with eyewitness testimony is that it becomes less reliable as events are further away from them, and how fast the incident is happening. Specifically this incident, why were all these people looking up in the air?? A missile would probably be moving at appx mach 3. If they caught motion and looked over at where they saw motion the missile would already be gone. Much more likely is they saw motion and looked over and saw the flame descending from the explosion. Ok, missiles from subs. Subs main defense would be to be undetected. If a plane flies over and can't detect the sub, the sub is safe. To fire a missile from a sub would mean the sub would have to be able to detect the plane and fire the missile. To do either the sub would have to be close to the surface or surfaced. Seems like a risky plan that negates the subs 1 true asset, stealth. Again it would have to be a large missile to get up that high. Yup, I know that military aircraft do like to practice intercepts on civie jets, sometimes setting of collision alarms or causing the jetliner pilots concern. But if it was a military jet...... First you assuming that they just let some guy fly around with missiles, then he armed them, locked onto a civilian jet, and whoopsie fired on the jet, the missile hit, it caused massive catastrophic damage, that disabled the flight and commo systems of the jet. Then when the pilot gets back to base he is able to cover up the fact that he is missing a weapon worth a substantial dollar amount, and the ground crew, weapons officers, armory all immediatley join the cover up, probably aware of where the missile went.......really. The sea based navy missile requires hundreds more people to be involved. I think part of what you and the flying public don't want to come to grips with is the fact that a highly engineered aircraft can suffer a catastorphic failure without warning. Look at the NASA astronauts that died in a training accident because the had pure oxygen in the capsule and there was an electrical spark. Yeah I knew it was a rudder problem with a 7X7 plane just didn't remember what X equalled. I think that in a major incident, with multiple eyewitnesses, and physical evidnece, the physical evidence is more reliable. Often times witness don't report what they see but what they "think" happened. If it was a missile I think they would be able to porve that with physical evidence. It it was a bomb, which they seem to have wanted to prove, the would have been able to do that with the physical evidence. (flight 103 comes to mind) Also if any person had caused it to go down, terrorist, accident, whatever they would have blabbed...... Am I sure that it was a center fuel tank spark, no. But there is no evidence of outside involvement. Didn't another jet go down shortly after this near Nova Scotia?? Wasn't that an Airbus, due to electrical problems?? Before I accuse the US military/government of mass murder and conspiracy I would like some proof. There only seems to be specualtion here.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 3:11:58 PM EDT
The [i]government[/i] blew up the destroyer that started the Spanish-American War. The [i]government[/i] knew Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed. The [i]government[/i] killed Kennedy. The [i]government[/i] is behind all UFO sightings. The [i]government[/i] killed Randy Weaver's family. The [i]government[/i] was totally at fault at Waco. The [i]government[/i] blew up the Murrah Federal building. The[i]government[/i] shot down Flight 800. The [i]government[/i] knew about Sept. 11. And finally, the [i]government[/i] shot down Flight 93. Some we know is true, some we only speculate to sometimes ridiculous lengths. Yeah, trickshot, you're right. It doesn't matter any more, I don't care. There. Oh, and don't rush...your ID card will be here one day.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 3:48:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/12/2001 3:50:42 PM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]
I've got HUGE problems with the conspiracy addicts. First, it is a LIE that a "majority" of historians believe that O didn't kill K, and even if it wasn't, so what? A majority of historians bought that Prick Bellisales(sp)'s bogus research that nobody owned guns in 18th and 19th century USA. They were wrong. Second, as to the challenge "how many times has a 747 blown from a short inthe main fuse tanks" I pose this counterchallenge: THE CONCORDE IS OVER 30 YEARS OLD. TT HAS SEEN HEAVY USE DURING THAT ENTIRE TIME. DO I BELIVE THAT SUDDENLY THE GEAR SELF DESTRUCT AND TAKE OUT THE FUEL TANKS? Is the alternative that the French shot it down? Man, some people can't stand the truth. Also, as pointed out above, the Gov't has said several times that they WOULD HAVE shot this plane down if they had to and that they would shoot down planes in the future if they need to. What, the men in black interviewed all relatives and found out that the people had retaken this plane so they axed the truth of the shootdown, all in a couple hours? Bullshit. Also, eyewitness testimony is notoriously faulty. I've taken hundreds if not thousands of depositions of witnesses. Never have 2 described any event so you'd think they saw the same thing. They can't agree on traffic signal color, which vehicle started on which street, stuff like that. Sorry, but I don't believe the average civilian can distinguish between a missile hit and a mechanical failure. Also, the flight 800 is particularly interesting, these 100s of witnesses are all inexplicably staring at yet another airliner with nothing unusual to attract the eye, nobody is doing anything else that requires attention, and they all see a missile track and hit it, nobody heard the explosion then looked, or looked toward the light bloom? Or did they turn as it got unusual, and try to interpret what they saw only after it got interesting? Edited toadd: TO those that believe in large government or toher conspiracies, you reveal a failure to grasp human nature. Can one guy keep a secret? Of course, as G Gordon Liddy. Can 100, or whatever number is necessary inthese instances(pilots of the fighters, their commanders who gave the order to fire, the control tower personnell, the flightline crews who loaded the planes, then unloaded them at least 1 missile or several hundred cannon rounds lighter, the supply personnel, all the roommates of these enlisted ground crew types, I mean, come on, this wouldn't leak out except throught some internet whack job?) It IS jerkoff to bury your head and insist the government, which can barely deliver the mail accurately, can pull something like this off on a regular basis.
Top Top