Posted on 07/31/2023 6:56:22 PM PDT by logi_cal869
I remember years ago when colleges banned the use of Wikipedia as a source. They’re as honest as Snopes.
And how would you suggest that I ‘fix’ the headline?
Perhaps the FIRST LINE of the excerpt should have been 75pt font so you didn’t miss it? /s
You could ask a Moderator to clarify the headline.
I'm pretty sure we had one sooner than a year ago, but time is getting funny the older I get nowadays.
I was told by someone who knows exactly what it was that it was a missile.
And it drives me nuts that I can't tell people who told me and why this person would know what they are talking about.
It was a missile.
“I remember years ago when colleges banned the use of Wikipedia as a source. They’re as honest as Snopes.”
AFAIK they still do.
I have been told (by someone who is in a position to know) that it was rogue mercenaries from Iran, who had been hired by a wealthy Iranian family to get revenge on America for shooting down that Iran Air flight years ago.
And I have been told that Bill Clinton ordered a deliberate cover up.
And corrupt people are still engaging in conspiracies too.
“They”?
Wiki is basically user-modified. Not totally controlled like Snopes, written only by their biased owners.
If you don’t like it, put your viewpoint in on Wiki.
Of course the wiki entries aren’t always correct, but they do provide a nice starting point, and that usually includes other sources at the end of the article.
Conservatives who try to modify Wiki pages have their contributions deleted and their posting privileges revoked.
same
My person said they were ordered to destroy evidence.
“And corrupt people are still engaging in conspiracies too.”
I wasn’t implying that you were corrupt.
Seems I see plenty conservative stuff on there. As well as general conspiracist stuff. We don’t all think TWA was brought down by Navy or that Bush set up the terrorist attacks of 9/11, though.
I didn't get the impression that you were.
But the people who are actually engaging in conspiracies certainly are.
“My person said they were ordered to destroy evidence.”
My person says your person is wrong.
Are you saying that there is nothing truthful on wiki?
This is the crash where the aircraft struck the Queensboro Bridge in NYC. They tried to blame it on an “over-manipulated jackscrew” which controls the elevator function. The only problem with that theory is, since this is fly-by-wire aircraft in which pilot input goes first into the computer and then to the solenoids that control the jackscrew/elevator. The computer prevents over-manipulation by the pilot. This was explained to me over lunch one day by the Boeing engineer/investigator that was sent to the scene. He stated that FAA and NTSB issued the jackscrew story to save the commercial air travel industry, since a second terrorist attack on an airliner in less than three months would effectively shut down commercial air travel. His investigation listed probable cause as a bomb in the last rows of the passenger compartment. He said most likely similar to the thwarted “tennis shoe bomber.” The agencies were not happy with his report, and made sure to drown it out. They portrayed it as him trying to shield his company.
And my mistake: I typed Boeing when I meant Airbus. I’m watching a video on the B-17 while Freeping, and I crossed them up.
I don't know your person so I don't care what they say. I know my person and I know enough about them that I believe what they say.
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.