Posted on 05/04/2007 10:51:10 AM PDT by Hal1950
Swordmaker says that the huge fireball explosion took place (1) at 7,0000 feet, and (2) at approximately 8:31:40, twenty-eight seconds after the initial event. Yet, most of witnesses appear to have seen the fiery streak only moments before the huge fireball explosion - which followed almost immediately at the place where the fiery streak ended.
In short, that was the birth of the missile shootdown theory.
I see no such proof from the pilots credible eywitness testimony; -- in fact, it makes the incident even more complicated. -- Did the Report address or explain their 7000' explosion?
No one can be as obtuse to logic as you pretend to be.
The obvious point is that if the supposed streak of light occurred after the aircraft had already been stricken and descended 6000 ft, it could not have be the culprit.
"-- Yet, most of witnesses appear to have seen the fiery streak only moments before the huge fireball explosion --"
I replied:
So? --- Obviously, you think you've made a [factual] point, but what is it? [ as opinions are not facts]
No one can be as obtuse to logic as you pretend to be.
[speak for yourself s-man]
The obvious point is that if the supposed streak of light occurred after the aircraft had already been stricken and descended 6000 ft, it could not have be the culprit.
Big "IF"... Or is that fact to obtuse for you to understand?
Everything you post appears to simply be an act, designed to continue getting responses, but without any real bearing on the thread at hand.
This is not normal behavior. It is antisocial, and certainly harmful to FR.
For you to be allowed back after being banned so many times defies logic. I’ve never witnessed you adding anything but vitriol to a thread.
A lot of posters now avoid you, like they avoid a drunk on a park bench, but I refuse to be annoyed off of a thread by the likes of you.
Big "IF" summarizes your entire assertion that you refuse to defend. You have yet to make a single post that challenges any of my posts, let alone debunks an of them. Yet you claim you have a strong case.
People with strong arguments don't have to hide and run away from defending them. Nor do they have to play passive-aggressive games of pretending not to understand simple statements.
Correct. Put another way, the "streak" was fire in the (by then) rapidly descending wreckage of TWA Flight 800 and was the ignition source of the huge fireball.
My posts point to the ~fact~ that many rational eyewitnesses saw a streak of light prior to the incident, and that a tape of that streak was played on TV shortly after, then never seen again.
-- You're being 'aggressive' about that fact, - and I'm not passive.
You might as well post that the sky is not blue and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge than anyone can even argue that its blue. Everything you post appears to simply be an act, designed to continue getting responses, but without any real bearing on the thread at hand.
I'm addressing the issue at hand, while you are making personal comments about 'my act'.
This is not normal behavior. It is antisocial, and certainly harmful to FR.
Another bizarre personal comment, - by you.
For you to be allowed back after being banned so many times defies logic. I’ve never witnessed you adding anything but vitriol to a thread. A lot of posters now avoid you, like they avoid a drunk on a park bench, but I refuse to be annoyed off of a thread by the likes of you.
I've been arguing the issue. You're adding the "vitriol", - as anyone can see.
You've provided no material evidence of this claim. Nor have you provided any documentation of what the witnessing claim to have seen. "A streak of light" is very vague.
I'm addressing the issue at hand,
Hardly. You refuse to address the issue.
What kind of missile was it?
If not a missile, what could it have been?
How can the time frame of the "streak" correlate to being causal to the accident?
These are but a few of the things you refuse to address.
Another bizarre personal comment, - by you.
Your behavior is what it is, antisocial.
I've been arguing the issue.
You've done nothing of the sort. You've said there was a streak. By and large, no one has argued with that. Beyond that you have implied much and argued nothing. You've yet to materially challenge any post by anyone concerning the issue of a missile. Nor have you argued your case that the streak was causal to the explosion. Not once.
All you've done is duck, run and demagogue.
MSNBC and the missing videotape: Jack Cashill examines network’s role in TWA Flight 800 cover-up
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1343443/posts?page=1,50
An article written by a conspiracy theorist, that still fails to provide anything but second hand accounts of “men in suits”, military involvment, and missing evidence. Without a black helicopter, its really missing something.
One wonders why these “men in suits” aren’t sent out more often, as they are always effective at shutting up the media. It seems that Clinton would have used them to hush up Monica, or Bush could have used them to hush up Abu Ghraib.
One might also wonder why no one had a VCR running. Or perhaps the “men in suits” came to everyone’s house and confiscated their tapes too.
“I just can’t believe that.” Neither can I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.