JETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29 Posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2372 times:
I was looking at CNN. com and reading the message boards over there concerning the AA crash in NY.
The amount of BS over there about a government conspiricy is mind boggling
No individuals posts contained any credible evidence, any motivation on the governments part that this would be a cover up.
Now Irealize that that is John Q Public, and the public is about as stupid as they come....except for a few increadibly gifted individuals like myself.
I was suprised to see the same moronic posts about this accident being covered up by the governmet.
When the government covers things up its often quite obvious such as the TWA800 afffair....anyone who thinks that plane wasnt shot is overlooking overwhelming evidence, and needs to be hit in the head with a fish.
Can someone here....now this may be a stretch....explain to me why the government would open up air traffic and bridges and the such if this were an act of terrorism....they would be accountable for any other air crash that day and would be taking an enourmous to other air traffic if it was a bomb that did bring the plane down.
Bombs leave tell tale marks.....marks that are obvious to anyone looking for them.
Jsf119 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2080 times:
its incredible these people in here are looking for a conspiracy as if every plane crash is a government cover up. truth is airbus has corrosion problems which is why aa a 300's were painted in gray to begin with because they didnt have alclad on the planes. but then again i would'nt expect these "aviation experts" to know that anyways. it is easier for people who are completely ignorant on a subject to cop out on a conspiracy theory then pass themselvs off as if they know what the hell they are talking about. maybe all these experts can answer this question if it was a cover up and someone bombed that plane to terrorize america dont you think they would claim responsibility to scare us even more and make our government look foolish?truth is you people want to sound important so you come up with conspiracy b.s. but anyone with any aviation experience knows this was an accident plain and simple with no cover ups.
Gunships From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 574 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
I agree with you 100%. But it's no wonder people think like they do when some in the media keep fueling the conspiracy fires. I can't remember her name, but there was a reporter on FOX news who kept pushing the "government coverup" angle at the same time that the fire department was not even at some of the damaged areas yet. Very irresponsible reporting.
AF002 From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 74 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1605 times:
If you look at where, when and how it happened, it's not illegal to think that it's weird, to say the least. What leads to interesting discussions here is how we consider/believe facts. If you think that there's no reason for a coverup, you may be right, but you don't own the Truth (tm). IMNSHO, we will never know for sure, as it's often the case when politics are involved.
PHX From United States of America, joined May 2000, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1586 times:
I'm failing to understand why a person that complains about conspiracy theorists would believe that TWA800 was shot down by the US government. This to me is as ridiculous as a coverup in AA587. I have done quite a lot of research into the crash of TWA800 and I (and I think the majority of intelligent people) have no reason to believe that it was shot down.
If a person wants to thrill themselves by believing the least likely reason for an accident, more power to them. I will make my judgements based on the most reasonable explaination. So, if you must, bring on the fish.
JETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1546 times:
Since this topic seems to be swaying into TWA 800 territory I will post a few niblets here as I choke up on my fish and prepare to swing.
TWA's flight path was on the northern boundary of a hot warning area that night....they were testing the guidance system of a ship to air missile. Read "inert warhead". That is a fact it is public knowledge form any FSS.
The missle being tested was launched and initially guided by AEGIS cruiser shipboard radar. The missile was then supposed to use its active radar for final targeting.
A drone was launched from Shinecock and was the target for that missile. Again public knowledge that the government admits to....there are civilian pics of the missle taken that night.
Now it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the missles guidance radarwhen it went active locked on TWA 800.
There was an Air National Guard C130 crew operating i nthe vacinity. Both captain and co pilot who flew in the vietnam conflict and were witness to anti aircraft missiles both stated they saw a "missile" hit the plane.
These are the two most credible of the 400+ witnesses who said they saw the same thing....
Argument: No explosive residue was found and no evidence of an explosion
Reply: There wouldnt be if the missile had no warhead asin this test of a GUIDANCE system.
The military ships conducting the test were seen on radar as turnung and steaming away from the plane accident minutes after it happened.
President Clinton 2 days later made it a crime for anyone to divulge classified information concerning things they had been witness too in the military even after they were discharged.
Planes dont blow apart.
They do a lot of other things but they dont blow up in mid air.
A Virgin Atlantic pilot said he saw what appeared to be another planes landing light collide with TWA800.