[COEXERJ145]

Well until I see proof of a missile, I am not going to believe all the conspiracy theories.

As for the witnesses, they are notoriously unreliable when it comes to aviation accidents. As an example, these are just some of the eyewitness reports of American Airlines Flight 587.

"The left engine was on fire."

"The right engine was on fire."

"Both engines were on fire."

"Neither engine was on fire."

"The left engine separated from the aircraft."

"The right engine separated from the aircraft."

"Both engines separated from the aircraft."

"The aircraft broke up before impact."

"The aircraft crashed intact."

"The fuselage was on fire."

"The was no fire visible."

The only eyewitness that doesn't get its facts wrong is the camera be it still or video.

[milford421]

"The only eyewitness that doesn't get its facts wrong is the camera be it still or video."

FBI Sitting on Videotape of Flight 587
http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2001/11/16/100702

"Blip on Surveillance video"http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2001/11/16/145953

Flight 587 Video Shows 'Puff of Smoke' in Sky

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2001/11/17/103936

[Bear_Slayer]

There is always inconsistent testimony amongst witnesses, which is why detectives, the better ones (/sarc), look for consistencies throughout testimony and come up with a view of what happened.

However, to take all the independent testimony of witnesses, which corroborates a missile, and discount it because their testimonies disagree in other places is bad detective work at best, and coverup at worst.