Actually the whole "conspiracy" as you call it is based upon the FACT that the plane was shot down by a missile seen and reported by more than 100 disparate witnesses; and that at the position where the plane was shot down, there are no known weapons which could reasonably have been acquired by private interests that could have been used to shoot it down. The reset is probably circumstantial, but damning none the less: the activated military-operations-area, the lies and retractions, the failure of the investigation to consider witnesses. Doesn't any of this bother you?
I'm not sure who you think is getting rich, or even making money from this. Maybe you could send me some info so I can get a piece?
As for Reed's follow-up, it doesn't ring true to me. But even if it is correct that this guy is some sort of fraud, don't you think it might be interesting to find out why someone in the Navy would make up stories about that night? Maybe you believe that Vince Foster committed suicide too? There was plenty of positive disinformation in the Foster case (Swiss banking trips, clipper chip, etc.).
ML/NJ
The launch of such a missile would have been impossible to miss at night, yet none of the witnesses saw a launch. Why not? Then there's the fact that we know the back end of the plane would have climbed, yet IIRC none of the witnesses report a missile track followed by another streak rising from near the impact point.
The "missile track" was the flaming aft fuselage, surging upward after being freed from the weight of forward fuselage.
Interesting that you capitalize the word "FACT" when you have absolutely ZERO facts to back up your claim. You have a lot of theory, but no facts. For example, please provide me a list of those "100 disparate witnesses" who say they saw a missile shoot down TWA 800. Because I've been studying this event for years, I know that you won't be able to. But I'll ask anyway just to help prove my point.
"the activated military-operations-area, the lies and retractions, the failure of the investigation to consider witnesses. Doesn't any of this bother you?"
I'll address that list one at a time.
1. Activated military operations area -- You've already admitted you don't know what that means. I do. For two years I flew F-16's with the NJANG and we regularly used that airspace. The whole East Coast is lined with military operating areas. Activating them implies nothing, and there is no airspace anywhere near Long Island used for missile tests or even firing.
2. "the lies and retractions" -- From who? Reed Irvine? Give me some examples...other than his.
3. The failure of the investigation to consider witnesses -- You CLEARLY have NO IDEA what is contained in the TWA 800 investigation. There are hundreds of pages dedicated to witness interviews, analysis of their statements, and how their statements correlate to actual events. Before you make any more comments revealing how little you actually know about this event, I suggest you at least read the NTSB report.
"I'm not sure who you think is getting rich, or even making money from this. Maybe you could send me some info so I can get a piece?"
Talk to the author of the article that started this thread. He'll get you started. He's a pro.
"As for Reed's follow-up, it doesn't ring true to me."
So now you are calling Reed a liar? I guess everybody who doesn't support your fantasy is a liar. Interesting.