Posted on 07/01/2008 10:54:32 AM PDT by neverdem
The director of the FBI is not happy with the Supreme Court's recent handgun ruling.
Robert Mueller says he tends to believe that "weapons harm people, and more often than not they harm the people carrying them."
Mueller said the high court's decision, which threw out a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., "does throw a lot of things up in the air."
Mueller said communities will now have to decide their own licensing programs.
Mueller was speaking at a convention of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators in Hartford, Connecticut.
He says with his grandchildren going to college, he hopes "those campuses will be weapons-free."
What a jerk.
My post at 73 notwithstanding, I have NO doubt Obamie is a mere front man for Soros and his ilk. Obamie just isn't that smart.
What makes me wonder about the eyewitness testimony is that the firing site for a missile would have to be on or close to Long Island and visible to hundreds of people. Have you ever seen a missile launch at night or twilight? It gets one's attention. Yet witness account after witness account is about seeing a streak, not a launch and a streak. There are only 18 out of 736 witnesses who claim to have seen a streak rising from near the surface to strike the aircraft, yet not one of them claims to have seen the easily visible launch itself. One woman even said she looked away from it to look at a boat that she thought might have fired it (she thought it was a distress flare), but she didn't claim to have seen a launch, and she definitely would have. A flare pistol, however, gives off no particularly large flash when it fires its round. Ergo, her conclusion that it was a flare at first.
It's possible these folks were mistaken, but it's impossible that a missile could be launched in that area without the launch being clearly visible to hundreds or thousands of people pretty much instantly. Also, the missile's flight would have taken several seconds to rise the aircraft's level--15 or so according to the DoD. ATC received a number of reports of an explosion, but none of these pilots (some of them vets trained for combat) called out anything about a missile in the time the missile would have been in boost phase, about 8 seconds. Note in this report how many pilots saw the explosion, but none of them reported a missile trail. Why would a missile trail be visible from Long Island but not from, say, 10,000 feet above the ocean near Long Island on a clear night? And why would guys who could see the explosion clearly from 25 miles (so clearly that some of them mistook it for being 5 or 6 miles away) not see the missile launch?
But the realy convincing thing is the physical evidence. Did a lab test find explosve residue? Yes. But the thing is, the seat it was from was in a part of the plane nowhere near the site of the explosion, and there was no structural damage on the aircraft or any injuries to the passengers that were consistent with a bomb or missile explosion occurring. Moreover, a test at the FAA's technical center showed that two days of immersion in sea water would have scrubbed the explosive residue off the parts anyway. Even the sound on the CVR tape was consistent with a fuel tank explosion and inconsistent with a bomb or warhead. It's a mystery where that residue came from, but it's no mystery that there couldn't have been a bomb. Which is easier to believe, a false positive on a chemical test, or a bomb that destroys an aircraft while violating the laws of physics?
Lastly, how many man-portable missiles are going to successfully nail a target at 13,000 feet, at a horizontal range about 15-18km from Long Island, when those weapons have a horizontal range of bout 5.5km and top out at around 10,000 feet? If it was a ship-borne SAM, who fired it?
Then, after supposedly faking all this evidence, the NTSB had the plane scrapped so no one could examine it and find them out, right? Nope, they kept every piece and put it in the facility at Ashburn, VA where they train their crash investigators.
So, we can believe in a falsified-evidence coverup that would have required hundreds of participants who've remained totally silent for 12 years, and involved leaving the evidence literally lying around. Or we can believe there was a bomb or missile that left no evidence of its detonation. Or we can believe something bad happened in that tank, either an electrical short or a scavenge pump failure. The thing is, only one of those fits the physical evidence, and physical evidence trumps eyewitnesses, especially when the eyewitness accounts don't describe what someone would have seen if a missile fired from the surface struck the aircraft. Of those 18 witnesses, none of their accounts match what should have been seen.
So that's the case, but let me address B-52s. Flight 800 went down in 1996. N93119 had 93,300 flight hours on her. Now, dig this: In 1999 the average B-52H had 14,500 flight hours on her. Today, the oldest B-52H has about 21,000, and the Air Force and Boeing have agreed that the planes will top out at 32,500 to 37,500 when the wing uppper surface structures finally begin to wear out.
So, 747-100 N93119 was, in a sense, more than four times "older" than B-52s that have now served for 47 years.
I also know that the folks at Boeing were furious with the findings. They felt the feds were trying to cover up for the feds incompetence.
No engineer wants to believe that his design killed 230 people, and no company wants to be liable for all those lawsutis. the thing is, they should have just sucked it up, because when they set those recommended service life parameters TWA should have followed them. Boeing wasn't at fault, even if it was a mechanical failure.
Guess the USSS will have another go at me***
Count me in that farmer's brigade! See ya in the re-education gulag!
If you can get it, watch the Investigative Reports episode on Chappaquidick. It won’t much change your view of Kennedy’s character, but it will change your view of events.
Not sure which Apollo blew up on the pad but I did see a news show where they had a film of the Blue tarp flapping in the breeze. One corner of the tarps tie down came loose. They showed it flapping in the breeze and all still was fine until they slowed down the film and as the corner of the tarp touched the nose of the spacecraft it ignited some of the vent gasses. Showed it big as pooh. and boom.
You say "stay focused," and then post this kind of crap:
"LOL! Yeah, I disagree with you about the cause of this mishap, so I MUST be a government agent! Gee, is there also a Red under your bed and a little yellow man in your head?So, yes, I do see that you are blowing a smoke screen for somebody. When you can give an organized, and detailed answer to the data that Cashill has presented, you will be at the entry level for an intelligent discussion.
And strawman? I ask about THE COVERUP and the condition of the AIRPLANE (you know, the AIRPLANE you say was destroyed by something other than what the people involved in THE COVERUP say destroyed it) and that's a strawman question?"
We have a winnah!
Actually, I prefer Teddys' version of the event, Mr. Silverback.
His 'Readers Digest' explanation seems to have disappeared ............. FRegards
Jeez, Bob, they told me I was too stupid to learn anything more, and now I gotta go back to school? Damn! I'm too old for this shit ............... FRegards
OK, Pete - I choose tyrants!
We get to choose, right? Stay well, pall ... ah crap - I can't spel now ............. FRegards
Heinrich Mueller was Hitler’s Gestapo. I guess we now have our own Mueller.
Just because you were once a Marine, that doesn’t inoculate you from becoming an idiot.
Yellow jack murtha should be proof enough for anyone.
People should remember, and the young'uns should learn .............. FRegards
So, it's not valid to point out that you're assuming I'm a government agent based solely on the fact that I'm questioning your conclusions about this mishap? It speaks to your ability to evaluate evidence.
The fact that you called my questions "strawman" questions goes to your ability to evaluate evidence as well. A strawman question or argument is one that paints the opponent as having a position they don't have, yet my questions dealt directly with what you say has happened: A government coverup.
So, if you accusing me of being a government agent doesn't mean you're paranoid, it means you're basically clueless.
So, yes, I do see that you are blowing a smoke screen for somebody.
Could you please explain how me asking you questions about the case on an internet forum would in any way prevent someone from discovering the truth of this case, if there was a coverup? It seems you're greatly overestimating your own importance, or mine.
When you can give an organized, and detailed answer to the data that Cashill has presented, you will be at the entry level for an intelligent discussion.
Yeah, I'm really loving his theory about the terrorist plane that was going to hit Flight 800, so instead of warning the two people in the world who could do the most about an impending collision (the Captain and First Officer of TWA 800) the Navy shoots missiles into some of the most densely occupied airspace on Earth. Yeah, there's a theory that makes sense.
Lastly, you dodged the question. Your estimate of 5% is laughable. Do you really think that (for example) an Aegis cruiser can fire off a SAM and less than 20 people on board will know it happened? But you left out the NTSB guys, the FBI guys, the administration guys, and all the Navy personnel who would have had to help cover up the fact that a ship came back with missiles from her complement.
So...how many people would really have to be involved? And why is a conspiracy of hundreds or thousands easier to believe than the idea that a plane with 93,303 flying hours had a mechanical failure? And how did a missile destroy the aircraft without leaving structural evidence?
People who have a strong case make the case, they don't stick their nose in the air and say, "You don't get to ask questions, peasant."
If an Apollo blew up on the pad, i’m not aware of it, and it would have been an unmanned bird, since the only manned casualties before 1986 were Apollo 1.
Could you have seen a shot from another program...Gemini, Mercury?
Hey Joe, could it have been this...found it in a list of space program mishaps on Wikipedia:
April 14, 1964 Cape Canaveral, USA 3 Delta rocket ignited in assembly room, killing 3 technicians and injuring 9 others. The ignition was caused by a spark of static electricity
Think of this as a Bob Newhart skit ...
Moral: I carry a gun because a copper is too damned heavy, AND, there ain't no Dunkin' Donuts on my street!
This is not legal advice - it's just my opinion. Learn the difference!
Must be an election comin' up. The TV's turnin' brown ................. FRegards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.