Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ml/nj
I knew where you were going before I looked.

Although I do not know for sure, I assume that the flight was to intercept the 236 radial at the East Hampton VOR. From everything that I have looked at, the flight never strayed into the warning area W-106.

Given the shear amount of traffic that make that same track out of JFK, not to mention La Guardia and Newark, I cannot see how the Navy could fire any missile in the area without hitting SOMETHING.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you or UCANSEE. I just point out that that I need more than uninformed speculation to convince me. And I don't see much informed speculation.

73 posted on 02/15/2005 6:18:32 PM PST by Mr. Quarterpanel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]


To: Mr. Quarterpanel
I knew where you were going before I looked.

So why are you playing games. Quote it, and then tell everyone what you think it means.

I assume that the flight was to intercept the 236 radial at the East Hampton VOR.

You assume a lot. He was probably direct Nantucket. (I'm IFR rated and been direct Nantucket more than a few times myself, albeit lower the the Europe bound jets!)

From everything that I have looked at, the flight never strayed into the warning area W-106.

I think the suggestion is that W-106 (or 105) strayed into the flightpath.

uninformed speculation

You may be uninformed. I do not believe that I that I am; or that I am necessarily speculating.

ML/NJ

77 posted on 02/15/2005 6:38:59 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel

I see.

So the P-3, the target drone, and the ATC radar reports are all figments of my imagination?


99 posted on 02/15/2005 10:09:06 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (sH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel
I just point out that that I need more than uninformed speculation to convince me.

Couldn't agree with you more.

And I don't see much informed speculation.

Very little, by either side, and it is difficult to verify the truly informed from the misguided.

109 posted on 02/15/2005 11:25:06 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (sH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel

Introduction
CDR. William S. Donaldson, USN (ret.), challenged the official NTSB position on the cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 in a series of letters to James Hall, Chairman of the NTSB between April 1997 and December 2000. During those four years, CDR. Donaldson worked with other Retired Aviation Professionals, including some previous crash investigators as well as persons inside the NTSB investigation itself. CDR. Donaldson has extensive experience as a Naval crash investigator and he and others concluded that the NTSB's explanation of the Center Wing Tank explosion was not credible. With the help of these other concerned aviation professionals, CDR. Donaldson produced an extensive report on the cause of the crash. The initial Interim Report was delivered to the House Aviation Subcommittee on July 16th, 1998. Since that time a great deal of new information has surfaced.

Information uncovered in early 1999 now shows that TWA Flight 800 could have been shot down by one or more shoulder-fired missiles. The FBI was briefed by military missile experts in the Fall of 1996 that Flight 800 was well within the range of a shoulder fired missile. The FBI conducted a covert dredging operation for stinger missile parts between November 1996 and April 1997. CDR. Donaldson brought this new evidence to the House Aviation Subcommittee in testimony on May 6, 1999. Unfortunately, the major media and the Congress are content to swallow the official line without question.

This website is dedicated to CDR Donaldson's memory and outstanding leadership in searching for the truth.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vaogy19ct80J:www.twa800.com/+jim+hall,+ntsb,+twa+800&hl=en


110 posted on 02/15/2005 11:28:42 PM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel

Why was the FBI involved in the from beginning to end?

Once it was determined it was not a bomb or missile, the FBI normally walks away.

Why did the FBI construct the video, shown to the public through the Clinton-directed MSM?

I would have thought the NTSB or FAA or Boeing would be experts in mechanical defects, flight characteristics of airframes during mechanical failure, etc.


111 posted on 02/15/2005 11:28:59 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (sH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson