Enough
Originally Posted by
F4E Mx
The NTSB planned to hold a meeting in Baltimore where eyewitness statements would be presented and the witnesses themselves could testify and be questioned.
The Baltimore meeting you refer to took place on 8 Dec 1997. Your characterization of the purpose of this hearing is not correct. The purpose of the public hearing was to provide a report to the general public on the progress of the investigation, safety related issues that had arisen as well as fact finding related to the incident. There was never any plan to present eye witness statements for public consideration or call eye witnesses themselves. By this point (December 8, 1997), it had been over 13 months since completion of salvage operations during which 95% of the aircraft had been recovered and 17 months since the accident itself. By this point in history, the FBI had completed its criminal investigation and concluded that the accident was not a result of criminal activity. The NTSB doesn't usually wait over 17 months to get around to interviewing eye witnesses to accidents they are investigating.
Since there had been so much speculation concerning eye witness statements supporting the missile theory, the NTSB planned to address these eye witness accounts. Their motive was to refute these, close the book on such theories (in light of the same conclusion by the FBI) and continue the investigation focusing primarily on the safety related issues resulting from an accidental hull loss. The reason for director Kallstrom’s letter (read it for yourself: http://www.thehullthread.com/fbi3.htm) was his concern over NTSB member’s plans to address some of statements made by eye witnesses and point out some of the historic inaccuracies inherent to eye witness statements. He felt the NTSB (having no jurisdiction or real expertise in criminal investigations) shouldn’t be publically commenting on the criminal portion of the investigation. This was partly due to the fact that, while the FBI had concluded the criminal investigation, they had chosen to technically leave it open until the conclusion of the NTSB’s efforts. The FBI had also already publically presented their conclusions and solicited anyone to come forward with additional information. Any effort on the part of the NTSB to re-present the same information and conclusions would have been redundant and beyond the scope of their investigation.
So, explain to me how, at that point, the investigation goes “seriously off track”?
Originally Posted by
F4E Mx
The witnesses did not say they saw a terrorist missile go towards the airplane (which would be criminal). They did not say they saw a US Navy missile going towards the airplane (which would be an accident).
So…… your point is what, exactly?
Originally Posted by
F4E Mx
If it was one of the last two possibilities it was not a criminal act and the FBI would have no authority anyway.
Until the actual facts of the event can be determined, of course the FBI has authority to investigate possible criminal acts. Just because an event like this is judged to be accidental, doesn’t mean it won’t fall under FBI jurisdiction. Accidents that happen as a result of negligence may fall under FBI authority (as might be the case in an accidental shoot-down).
Originally Posted by
F4E Mx
Dozens of credible witnesses said they saw what appeared to them to be a "missile" or streak of light climbing to the aircraft. Why would that be suppressed? Why would NTSB investigators be discouraged from interviewing those witnesses after the FBI did the initial interview? Why were the witnesses not allowed to testify?
They weren’t suppressed. The NTSB had access to those same witnesses and DID interview them. The NTSB and the FBI came to the same conclusion. Those “credible” witnesses didn’t see a missile. That was the whole point of the NTSB motivation in presenting some of the information from those witnesses at the 8 December hearing. They wanted to show the public they had evaluated and dismissed these accounts as well as present some technical experts to further explain the inherent problems with eye witness accounts. Director Kallstrom’s letter was simply a request asking they not do that for the reasons I already mentioned.
You seem to put such faith in all these eye-witness accounts when it has been proven over and over again that layman eye witnesses to aviation accidents usually have no clue what they’re seeing. Eye witnesses standing next to each other can’t even agree on what they saw or contradict each other’s account only minutes after the event was observed.
http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=ijaaa
We’re talking about an event that took place many miles away from the eye witnesses in early evening darkness. So, there are issues with sound traveling much slower than the visuals. The fact that an aircraft climbing above 10,000 MSL at night would be all but invisible to anyone (that is, until it exploded). What’s more likely? These witnesses were actually observing the aircraft as it climbed and witnessed the events as they occurred? Or, is it far more likely that the visual cues of the initial explosion, fire and aftermath drew their eyes to the event after it was already in progress (with the actual sounds from the event arriving later, further confusing the situation).
Since we’re still having this discussion almost two decades later, don’t we also have to consider the lunatic fringe members who are going to claim they saw things they didn’t? How many of those “eye witnesses” showed up to their FBI interview with an agenda they were attempting to insert into the public record?
We can keep beating this dead horse if you want. I’m sure there’s something far more interesting somewhere else on the web concerning chem-trails, the 9-11 cover-up or our pretend landing on the moon.
Last edited by Adlerdriver; 11-15-2015 at 09:58 PM.