Not according to the Federal Judge and jury who convicted him. Were they part of the conspiracy?
"dual-thrust (boost/sustain) solid-fueled rocket motors burn out? I thought that's what the "sustain" part of the motor was for"
Yes. Do you think they burn forever? The boost launches them from the tube. The sustain accelerates them. Both burn out within seconds of launch.
"Are you now saying that a rocket wouldn't leave any kind of chemical "footprint"? "
Most likely an explosive footprint if the warhead exploded. But not "a trail of rocket fuel".
"Didn't use the link in the post again"
Yeah. I've read them all. Several times because you keep posting the same ones. I asked you a specific question. And it is not at all clear the witness video ever existed. And your info on the FOIA issue is completely wrong. That is why the case against the FBI was thrown out.
"Boeing tried fighting."
So Boeing lied in its final report?
"He had a legal right to have evidence checked by a lab."
He had no legal right to remove any evidence from the investigation site and was found guilty of a felony for doing so.
"When sued, there is a response."
So I guess every time the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, they have decided for the Plaintiff.
"Give me links where independant pilots and engineers agree with the suggested scenario by the FBI/ CIA/NTSB.
Here you go...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653709/posts
Yup. We all know that their OPINION is more important than law.
Yes. Do you think they burn forever? The boost launches them from the tube. The sustain accelerates them. Both burn out within seconds of launch.
What gets a FIM up to Mach 2.2+?
Most likely an explosive footprint if the warhead exploded. But not "a trail of rocket fuel".
And it is not at all clear the witness video ever existed.
Too many Freepers saw it for it to be a myth. Sorry Rokke.
And your info on the FOIA issue is completely wrong. That is why the case against the FBI was thrown out.
The official record states that the documents requested could not be located.
In September 1998, Sephton sent a letter to the FBI's New York field office -- the office that had coordinated the FBI's investigation -- requesting a list of all foreign material removed or recovered from the victims' bodies and the results of any forensic analyses performed by the FBI on such materials. The FBI initially located 21 pages of responsive documents, but it resisted disclosure of those documents on the grounds that their disclosure either would interfere with an ongoing investigation, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A), or violate the secrecy of federal grand jury proceedings, see id. § 552(b)(3).
After exhausting his administrative remedies, Sephton filed a federal action in July 2000 seeking disclosure of the withheld documents and an injunction ordering the FBI to conduct a thorough, good-faith search of its records for all documents responsive to his request. The parties spent the next five years litigating this case in the district court and in this court. Along the way, the FBI relinquished the 21 pages of initially withheld documents and conducted further searches yielding over 550 pages of additional documents that were subsequently delivered to Sephton. The litigation proceeded, however, because Sephton remained unconvinced that the FBI had conducted an adequate search. By the time the district court issued its summary judgment ruling, the FBI had submitted four affidavits attesting to and describing its search for documents.
Applying our precedent, the district court recognized that although Sephton might prefer the FBI to search every file that might conceivably contain responsive information, FOIA requires a "reasonable" search, not an exhaustive one.
("The crucial issue is not whether relevant documents might exist, but whether the agency's search was reasonably calculated to discover the requested documents.")
The above is called "stone-walling" by reasonable people.
So Boeing lied in its final report?
Boeing was going to fight the Clinton machine? And win? Yeah. That was likely. /sarc
He had no legal right to remove any evidence from the investigation site and was found guilty of a felony for doing so.
The law states as an investigator, he had the legal right. Souvenir seekers do not.
So I guess every time the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, they have decided for the Plaintiff.
Rokke, Rokke. When being sued you file a response. Are you equating the SC with being a defendant?
Here you go...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653709/posts
The 3 or 4 of you are pilots and engineers? Do any of you fly commercially for a living? I know which are pilots but which are the engineers? Every Freeper engineer I've read in the last few days disagrees with you.