Missile Witnesses Needed Now - TWA 800

WorldNet Daily ^ | 29 March 2007 | Jack Cashill

[MissEdie]

Wild Fire, it’s also by DeMille.

[Churchillspirit]

Ah, yes. I've read that.

Great book.

[M Kehoe]

The missile's supersonic speed caused these changes to occur nearly simultaneously."

The Tomahawk mentioned is sub sonic. Maybe he meant something like an SM?

Otherwise it's tinfoil time.

5.56mm

[Rokke]

"What evidence is there that anything unusual happened aboard TWA 800 at 31:12 according to the timing given on the ARTCC transcript?"

None that I'm aware of. But as I'm sure you are aware, pilots are trained that in the event of an emergency, making a radio broadcast is one of your last priorities. It would be very odd if someone made a radio call about witnessing an explosion the second TWA 800 blew up.

[mad_as_he$$]

While I am no expert on weapons I don follow them. I have never heard of a Tomahawk with ANY active tracking capability, did I miss something? Now if you tried to fire one in a manner ballistic you would have to be one heck of a shot.

[ml/nj]

pilots are trained that in the event of an emergency, making a radio broadcast is one of your last priorities.

Another of your inanities.

Pilots are trained that in the event of an emergency IN THEIR OWN PLANE, that making a radio broadcast is a low priority. McClaine wasn't declaring an emergency, he was observing one. BTW there are plenty of gaps according to the transcript for him to have come in earlier. (You supposedly know how this works.)

You still didn't tell us where the 31:12 time comes from, yet you cited it, and apparently think it's important. Did you just make it up?

ML/NJ

[Rokke]

I don’t know if you are trying to make yourself look ignorant or if it just comes naturally. Either way, it comes through loud and clear. 00.31.12 came up in post 207. It comes up as the last primary radar return for TWA 800 in the radar data I linked you to in post 206. It is the time of the last audio recording from the cockpit voice recorder. It is the time of the last burst of data recorder on the Flight Data Recorder. In short, if you had half a clue about what you are talking about you would know I didn’t “just make it up”. April Fool’s was 4 days ago, so I can’t give you that excuse now. I really don’t what excuse to make for you. And frankly, I’m losing interest in trying to create one. Why don't you spend a little less time accusing me of making things up, and a little more time doing some actual research. You are starting to make Cashill look credible.

[ml/nj]

Ah, the old ad hominem. That's me really ignorant and stupid. Your bait and switch stuff is getting tiresome. Your last post to me was an inanity about declaring emergencies that would make it seem that you aren't even a pilot. Now you chide me for asking what evidence there was at the 31:12 time (which you didn't answer when I asked - instead you replied, "None that I'm aware of." ). Excuse me for asking, and go away.

ML/NJ

[ladyinred]

I don’t think it was a training exercise actually. I do believe it was terrorism. Call me crazy! :-)

[Rokke]

"Ah, the old ad hominem."

By definition, "ad hominem" implies I am ignoring the substance of your argument and simply attacking you. As I reminded you previously, the wonderful thing about a FR thread is that the comments of both sides are preserved without editing for anyone to review. And a quick review of this thread reveals that I have addressed every part of your argument in a direct and supported manner. In the course of this thread you have made a series of false claims (starting with post #102). You've tried to avoid addressing me and instead appealed to your "peanut gallery". You've provided links to posts of mine from over 6 years ago in an attempt to...actually I never have figured out what your point was there. You've made claims I was introducing unrelated information when in actuality I was directly responding to questions you had asked. And after a series of attempted insults, you are now complaining that I have made an ad hominem attack by calling you ignorant (and you added stupid).

After all that, calling you both ignorant and stupid is not an ad hominem attack. It is a factual matter of record. If anyone doubts it, they can review this whole inane thread. Since you yourself provided the link proving you've been at this TWA 800 stuff since at least 2001, for you to claim I was making things up when I stated the initial event happened at 20:31:12 is proof that you are incapable of absorbing the most basic details of the very thing you've been arguing about for at least six years. Here's a little test for you...try typing 31:12 and TWA 800 into Google. As you skim through the several pages of matches that come up, you will note that everyone from the NTSB to "Chemtrailcentral" is aware that the initial event of the TWA 800 incident occurred at 2031:12. Yet somehow, after at least six years of "research", when I state I believe that is when the event started, your response is to accuse me of making things up.

Ignorant...or stupid? I think I agree with you. Ignorant and stupid. Which is a great summary for almost everyone who falls for this phoney baloney conspiracy crap. You've demonstrated in spades on this thread the intellect of a typical conspiracy nut. The record exists as long as this site does, and for your future reference, I am adding it to my links on my homepage.

And finally, in my long and time honored tradition of responding to your questions and requests (as demonstrated conclusively in this thread), I will honor your request for me to "go away". My work here is done.

[ml/nj]

Interesting that this post is about 800. That was my score on the "Analytical Reasoning" SAT many years ago (before they dumbed down the test). Did you even take the test?

I am probably paid more in a day than you make in a week to use those "analytical reasoning" skills. But I'm the one who is ignorant/stupid.

BTW, ad hominem is Latin for to the man. It is a typical type of fallacious argument. When you call someone stupid/ignorant you are employing this type of argument.

Bye.

ML/NJ

[Sunnyflorida]

Has a Tomahawk EVER been fired at a moving target, let alone one 15,000 in the air, traveling at 400 mph?

Plus its would be hard as hell to see at fifteen hundred. It has a jet engine, not a rocket motor. Does not smoke and no after burner.

[ml/nj]

Has a Tomahawk EVER been fired at a moving target, let alone one 15,000 in the air, traveling at 400 mph?

I think the folks who claim a Tomahawk was involved think that it was employed as a target. I have my doubts as there are likely much cheaper targets available for such purposes. But there is a photo around, that someone supposedly took that night, of something that could be mistaken for a Tomahawk.

ML/NJ

[UNGN]

I think the folks who claim a Tomahawk was involved think that it was employed as a target. I have my doubts as there are likely much cheaper targets available for such purposes. But there is a photo around, that someone supposedly took that night, of something that could be mistaken for a Tomahawk. ML/NJ

Someone thinks they took a photo of something at night that someone thinks might be a tomahawk and you don't immediately dismiss them all as idiots?

I know I would.

Tomahawks don't have lights, don't leave a contrail, are only 20 feet long and travel 400 mph. Good luck getting a picture of one (or even seeing one) at night.

They also are designed to fly at a couple hundred feet above the ground (not 13,000) and cannot track or acquire a moving target.

If someone even mentions the word "tomahawk" in the same sentence with "TWA800" the first thought in your mind should be "idiot".

When the conspiracy theory is far less plausible than the official explanation and you start seeing tomahawks in TWA 800 photographs, it's time to give it up.

[Hal1950]

"When the conspiracy theory is far less plausible than the official explanation and you start seeing tomahawks in TWA 800 photographs, it's time to give it up."

Correct.

ml/nj has been posting in FR on Flight 800 for years. All of the conspiracy theorists have claimed they are searching for the truth but NONE have and few have done much research, spending their time instead making nonsense allegtions - including that those who disagree with them are government agents trying to coverup that the 747 was the victim of a missile(s) shootdown.

Nearly 11 years have now gone by since the disaster. As you state, it's time for the conspiracy theorists to give it up.

[Rokke]

"Did you even take the test?"

It was a requirement for entrance to the Naval Academy. The minimum acceptable SAT score was over 1100, but you needed higher to be competitive. The national average is just over 1000. I don't doubt the score you say you achieved.

(I will continue to answer any direct questions you have of me. Otherwise, I'll butt out)

[ml/nj]

Nearly 11 years have now gone by since the disaster. As you state, it's time for the conspiracy theorists to give it up.

So that's it. If a cover-up succeeds for some amount of time specified by Hal1950, then all discussion should cease? Does this mean you also think Vincent Foster committed suicide?

As for Tomahawks, I have not claimed that a Tomahawk was involved. Other people have probably because of this presentation:

You can read more about this (Kabot) photo at:

http://www.rense.com/ufo/twaexpose.htm

and

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/PHOTOS.html

As for what happens to people with standing who come forward with evidence, consider please Pierre Salinger. Here's an excerpt from his Washington Post obit:

He also fell for a hoax document found on the Internet that claimed that TWA Flight 800 was shot down near Long Island, N.Y., by a stray Navy missile in 1996; investigators concluded that it was blown up by a spark in its fuel tank.

Until those incidents, Mr. Salinger enjoyed a reputation as a reporter with sources in the intelligence communities of the world. He won a number of prestigious journalism prizes, including a George Polk award for his 1981 scoop that the U.S. government was secretly negotiating to free the Americans held hostage in Iran.

They couldn't wait to bury him.

ML/NJ

[Hal1950]

You're wrong about the Kabot photo and that "they" wanted to bury Sailinger.

What you've demonstrated is that conspiracy theorists have always relied on the "evidence" of other conspiracy theorists while ignoring the mountains of contrary irrefutable evidence.

A real search for the truth mandates objectively cross checking the documented evidence of both sides.

[fso301]

"It had to be a bloody missile, probably an un-armed Tomahawk, going for center-of-mass,"

I stopped reading at that.

[ml/nj]

You're wrong about the Kabot photo and that "they" wanted to bury Sailinger.

I haven't said anything about the Kabot photo, except to provide links to others who have describe it, and to show where the link between it and a Tomahawk missile came from. So what did I get wrong: the origin of the link to the Tomahawk? the existence of the photo? something at the links I provided? What? What did the glorious NTSB have to say about the photo? I missed it. The Salinger obit speaks for itself.

I notice you forgot to tell me whether you believe Vince Foster committed suicide.

ML/NJ