Stupid, did someone say stupid? At least we're out in front of pprune on this thing.

 

Okay – so we’re back on the missile BS. I told myself I wouldn’t waste my time with this thread but I just can’t stand it any longer.

How about all the conspiracy folks use just a modicum of common sense. The simplest answer is usually the most likely candidate. Sure you can spin tales about “G-men” (what is it 1930 again?) withholding information and suppressing eye-witnesses or camera guided missiles without warheads that run on jet fuel. Or, you could simply apply some basic knowledge of surface to air weapons.

Considering a MANPAD would be a heat seeker, if the theory is crazy terrorist in boat, it’s extremely unlikely that a heater that size is going to bring down a 747. The warheads on those things are usually less than 3 kilos. A SAM that size would pop a motor, there'd be some gnashing of teeth and they'd bring it back and land (reference DHL in Bagdad). Those engines are in pods on the wings for a reason. If the hit was worse than that by some stroke of bad luck, there’s no way it would be a catastrophic, there one second, gone the next event. The aircraft would have flown for a while before packing it in and most likely there would have been communication from the crew.

So, since a MANPAD is out, we’re talking fuselage hit/proximity fuse from a large radar guided missile with a good sized warhead (reference Malaysian 17 in Ukraine). Take a look at the MH-17 report and find me some similarities in the TWA report. Any warhead shrapnel in bodies/aircraft parts on the TWA flight like there was in MH17? Is the TWA reconstructed fuselage peppered with holes from hundreds of fragments from a high explosive anti-aircraft warhead like that of MH17? No? Hmmm Wonder why?

Where could a missile of that size and capability come from out over the ocean off the eastern US coast? The only plausible answer is the US Navy. But if that’s your theory, we run into the whole "keep an entire Navy ship full of US patriots quiet”. Riiiiiiiight.

A high school kid or someone from Boeing called what a farce? Removing the front section of an aircraft going 300 knots plus, instantly shifting the center of gravity farther aft thus making the remainder pitch up and climb? It climbs rapidly until the airspeed dissipates as a result of the climb and break up and then begins to fall to the ocean. Anyone with a basic understanding of how aircraft fly can see that’s exactly what would happen.

You’ve been asked several times to lay out a realistic, believable scenario rooted in fact that supports your position. Simply attempting to create doubt in the reports, videos, etc. produced by the relevant agencies is an easy game to play. If you’re going to claim missile and ignore the basic common sense issues that refute that possibility, tell us who did it and how?

 

There you go again!

 

The NTSB planned to hold a meeting in Baltimore where eyewitness statements would be presented and the witnesses themselves could testify and be questioned. Before the meeting Kallstrom wrote a letter to Chairman Hall basically saying they had reviewed the eyewitness statements which would relate to a criminal act and had found nothing but with the remote possibility of further developments they did not want the statements released or the eyewitnesses testifying or questioned at the meeting. This is where the investigation goes seriously off track. 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). They did not say they saw a burning 747 on fire climbing steeply (which would be incidental). If it was one of the last two possibilities it was not a criminal act and the FBI would have no authority anyway. 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?

 

Ever think they might be involved to cover the possibility of terrorism?
Why do you think somebody is hiding the real cause of this accident, what would be the motive for that and who would profit?

Could you point us to a document in which Boeing calls the investigation a farce as you claim? That would be very interesting.

 

And no doubt, as I said earlier, those organizations (Boeing, airlines, engine manufacturer, component manufacturers, airline insurance and underwriters, etc.) would be lining up to sue the federal government for the cost of the ADs if it was unfounded.

 

It's too thin F4. Some conflicting downrange eye witness testimony, fine. Some misaligned PCMCIA squigglies off a powerplant, fine. The post above like many others identify critical areas where actionable data to support SAM strike & cover-up is absent or at the very least, not compelling.

Solid tradecraft btw Adler. Say hi to Broadwell for me

 

Quote:

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”?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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.

 

I have been a party to several NTSB investigations where a eyewitness statement did not correspond to other eyewitness statements or to the evidence at the scene. In EVERY case the NTSB investigator thanked the witness for taking time to write his statement and to agree to being interviewed. In EVERY case all the eyewitness accounts were openly discussed and ALL eyewitness statements were included as attachments in the report. None were suppressed and no witnesses were derided. No CIA came out of the shadows with a video showing that the witnesses did not see what they saw.

The attention of many witnesses was drawn to the streak they saw rising from the surface; many had no idea there was even a plane in the area until a moment before impact when they noticed the navigation lights of the 747. There were over 200 witnesses with about 75 seeing the event from the surface up. And the time was seven minutes after official sunset which was hardly dark.

Perhaps you can discuss the letter the FBI sent to the FAA basically wanting the controller who initially reported a possible missile heading to the plane to recant? And the FAA reply telling the FBI to stick it?

 

Don't be so coy tell us who done it, surely you must have a theory about the who, what and why.
Don't hold back the good stuff about the shadow gov, false flags and the wider conspiracy, we are clearly waiting on your conclusions.
Nice windup, now throw your best pitch.