defenderSD: "This disaster is still a big mystery as you demonstrate by pointing out that eyewitness reports don't even agree on the altitude where the huge fireball occurred. But even if the fireball happened at 7500 feet, that does not rule out an attack on the airplane with some kind of munitions. Just one possibility here and I'm only speculating: perhaps some kind of munition containing large pellets was first fired at the plane at 13,800 feet, and the pellets punctured the a full fuel tank in multiple locations causing massive fuel leaks out of the airplane. Then the pilots immediately took the plane to lower altitude as they prepared for an emergency landing. Then at the lower altitude of 7,500 feet, attackers fired some kind of incendiary flare at the airplane and lit the leaking fuel, causing the entire airplane to burn up in a huge fireball."
So far, tpaine has continued trying to ignore the report of the two airborne witnesses, while describing his own observations of the video he alleges he watched on TV in the following sketchy manner:
tpaine: "-- The video I saw did not have a view of the moon, -- and it was taken from a different higher angle looking down on the people, -- which cut out any view of a higher second object. -- It showed a streak of light rising from the horizon, a flash of light from above, and people pointing up and out to the flash. --end tape-
Why is he so reluctant to discuss the report of Faret & Wendell here?
Why is radialenginefan also so reluctant to discuss that report here?
Hatteras: " . . . eyewitnesses (you know, the people who were actually there?....) with your same or similar experience and background as what you claim to have are dismissed as idiots that didn't recognize what they were seeing . . ."
Perhaps he will discuss the Faret & Wendell report here at this time, keeping in mind that those 2 witnesses were actually there.
Not true. -- I read it with a lot of interest when it was first posted. -- As nothing in it contradicts anything I've posted why should I comment on it?
while describing his own observations of the video he alleges he watched on TV in the following sketchy manner:
Bull. My comments on what I saw that night are far from "sketchy", as anyone reading the whole thread can testify.
Why is he so reluctant to discuss the report of Faret & Wendell here?
Why are you so weird about imagining I'm reluctant? -- What do you wish to discuss about Faret & Wendell?
Perhaps he will discuss the Faret & Wendell report here at this time, keeping in mind that those 2 witnesses were actually there.
Have at it kid, -- make a point, -- if you have one.
Were Sven Faret and Ken Wendell invited to testify at the Baltimore Hearings?......NO?
Well then their testimony rates the same as your's does...a big fat friggen ZERO!