Replies

I'd have to go back and read what was released about this night, but as I recall there were surface ships in the area as well. As for a deep dark secret, evidendly so, since the Navy lied about it after the weeks and possibly months later. I just don't remember the time frame precisely after all these years.

Please do.

No thanks.

As I said before, I believe there were also surface ships on site. I may be wrong about that, but I do believe there were.

If you are right then surely you can identify the ships in question. And if you are wrong, what does that do to your conspiracy theory?

I have not elicited a theory other than the fact that the Navy lied about it's presence in the area. Oh yes, well there is that! I have said that I will keep all options on the table until the downing of TWA 800 is given serious redress by the government. If you're too imature to control your bowels over that, too bad.

In a criminal court there is a concept known as 'clean hands'. If a party brings legal action against another, the case can be thrown out of court if it can be shown that the plaintif was involved in a criminal act associated with the case. When the Navy lied here, it destroyed it's credibility as it related to the matter.

LMAO, So having been in the Military would have made it a-okay that the Navy lied.

The military denies things all the time in the interest of maintaining security. The fact that a P-3 was in the area or submarines were transiting had nothing to do with the TWA flight, so why publicize it? The Navy is particularly touchy about the locations of their submarines and will take steps to ensure that their whereabouts remain unknown. And yes, that would include issuing denials that they know to be false.

Well I'd suspect even you might be able to understand that with a loss of approximately 260 lives this instance might be a little different than most others. As protective as the Navy is, submarine locations are revealed when they return to port, so it isn't like the Navy never reveals their location is it? As for what the actual disposition of assetts in the area were, we may never know. We've even seen some people express the belief that even under the circumstances that took place that night, it was okay for the Navy to lie.

I've been here close to ten years and I've supported the military consistantly for that length of time. We lost 260 some odd souls when TWA 800 went down, and I take the loss just as seriously as I take the need to be surportive of the military.

And yet despite the lack of supporting evidence, you have no problems believing that the same military you claim to support is also capable of shooting down civilain airliners and then engaging in a massive coverup. With supporters like you they hardly need enemies.

I have said that I am keeping all options on the table. That is judgement neutral in case you don't have the faculties to determine it on your own.

The Navy is a rather large entity. Most folks would be capable of understanding that someone could hold off judgement on a certain incident and still be supportive of the service over all. I am supportive of police services over all, but when one of those services goes postal, I look at the situation openly and urge condemnation or exhoneration depending on the facts that surface.

What could be more destructive to any wholesome organization than to have people who were willing support it no matter what some of its members did? I will continue to keep all options on the table.

If your idea of support for the Navy means that it can never do wrong, then you and I have a different perception of what healthy support for an organization actually is.

No thanks.

Couldn't find any, huh? Well there's a simple reason for that. There weren't any.

Well I'd suspect even you might be able to understand that with a loss of approximately 260 lives this instance might be a little different than most others. As protective as the Navy is, submarine locations are revealed when they return to port, so it isn't like the Navy never reveals their location is it?

It'd be kind of hard to hide a submarine tied up to a pier. But before reaching port, the Navy would have every possible reason for wanting to hide the whereabouts of their submarines or what areas they're transiting in. And that would well include P-3 exercises that involve them. And since neither submarines nor P-3s could shoot down an airliner why should the Navy publicize their activities?

The Navy is a rather large entity. Most folks would be capable of understanding that someone could hold off judgement on a certain incident and still be supportive of the service over all.

I don't see how. You would have us believe that you support our military while at the same time believing they're capable of shooting down a civilian airliner and engaging in a massive coverup to deny responsibility. I don't see that as supportive, expecially since there is no evidence to support it.