Post 329 awaits your wisdom.
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."
I’ll try to find it, I believe the crew of this mission were lost in the ships explosion.
I thought it was an early Apollo but I could be wrong about which series it was.
I’m getting old I guess.
You can watch the NRA video by going to http://www.glennbeck.com/
No Mr. Quixote, You have not questioned my conclusions, you have not even addressed or acknowledged them.
Instead you post a series of strawmen that indicate that you apparently do believe that the Navy was responsible, even though I stated that I believe that it was a civilian terrorist.
The bulk of the evidence says in a loud voice that it was a shoulder or tripod fired expanding rod missle that hit TWA 800.
This was just one of many Clinton era security failures, each of which led to millions being spent in cover-ups. It was just business as usual for them.
He says with his grandchildren going to college, he hopes “those campuses will be weapons-free.”
So, Mr Mueller, are you another one of those lame-brains who thinks that evil thinking people see “This Is a Gun-Free Zone” and say to themselves “Oh, man, I was gonna rob that girl at the dorm, but I can’t because it’s a gun-free zone”?
Can the head of the Federal Bereau of Investigations be THAT stupid?
See #322
FReegards... IR
Thanks, Bob ................ FRegards
You know, you would look smarter if your posts were based on what I've written. Actually, I've questioned the only conclusion you've offered, which is that Flight 800 did not suffer a mechanical failure. In order to question that, I asked you about two things: The size of the conspiracy necessary and whether that conspiracy would be easier to believe in than the idea that a plane with 93,300 flight hours would have a mechanical failure.
The bulk of the evidence says in a loud voice that it was a shoulder or tripod fired expanding rod missle that hit TWA 800.
But wait a minute...You pointed me to the brilliance of Cashill, who has decided that the Navy was shooting missiles into crowded airspace at a plane trying to collide with Flight 800. You said I had to address his findings before I could even discuss this subject. Yet you've come up with something completely different. How strange...So, if you don't believe the Navy was playing Russian Roulette in the airlanes, why does Cashill? (I don't either, but you're the one who brought up Cashill.)
Oh, and can you identify the type of missile? I'm not aware of any production missiles that were shoulder/tripod fired and had an expanding rod warhead, and it's not terribly likely terrorists would have access to experimental models, is it? You might also want to consider the fact that there are only a couple of models of man-portable SAM that can hit a target at 13,000 feet...and they have the wrong warheads.
Lastly, how is it that this continuous-rod extra long range missile took the plane out without leaving evidence of structural damage? None was found on the fuselage...oh wait, I forgot, it was a huge coverup. So, once again we're back to me asking you how many people would have to be involved.
While you're calculating that, consider that the NTSB has placed the wreckage of N93119 in their training center in Virginia, an awfully funny thing to do with a bird that's had a continuous rod pass through the forward fuselage. You might also want to take a look at post 303.
Little boy, I said that you had to address Cashill to reach the entry level of the discussion, which you have still failed to do.
Seriously, though, I'm going to reiterate that people who have a strong case (such as one where "bulk of the evidence says in a loud voice" that his position is correct) make the case, they don't stick their nose in the air and say, "You don't get to ask questions, peasant."
So, let's review the issues I've raised, phrasing them as questions if they weren't phrased as such before. You haven't attempted to answer any of them, with the exception of number 1, which you only gave a partial answer to, and which was related to the Navy theory anyway, which you've (rightfully) rejected.
1. Could you give me an estimate of the number of people in the investigation who would know that the plane did not suffer a fuel tank explosion, and remained silent? (When calculating this, don't forget the NTSB team, the FBI team, TWA personnel, etc.)
2. Which is easier to believe: That such a large group of people would remain silent for 12 years so far, or that a plane that was 33,000 flight hours and five calendar years past the recommended retirement age might have a wiring problem?
3. 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?
4. How did the missile destroy the aircraft without leaving any structural evidence?
5. Why have you and Cashill come to such widely differing conclusions?
6. Can you identify the missile used? I'm not aware of any production missiles that were shoulder/tripod-fired SAMs and had a continuous rod warhead.
7. Do you have any comment on the fact that there are only a couple of MANPADS models that can hit a plane at 13,000 feet, and they have the wrong warheads?
8. If a continuous rod struck the forward fuselage, why would the NTSB display the wreckage of the plane at its training center instad of scrapping it?
9. Here's one more for good measure: Why would a terrorist group that could bring down an American airliner in such a fashion decide not to ever do it again or tell anyone they had done it?
Let's hear it, since "the bulk of the evidence" is speaking "in a loud voice" for your theory.
Post 329 awaits your wisdom.
A punk kid like you wouldn’t have a clue about that photo. It was people just like you that gave us crap like that.
You do seem to be firmly ensconced under your desk, though. You've thrown plenty of insults, but you haven't answered any questions. So how about you adjust your shorts, come out from under the desk and answer up?
Mueller wants to show Obama his file so he can keep his job. The Hoover maneuver.
Not that it has anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, but conspiracies are rarely theory. The U.S. Justice department spends over 75% of its budget investigating, and prosecuting conspiracies. They are man’s favorite way of doing business.
As for insults, It is you that insulted the intelligence of every person reading this thread with your absurd assertion that TWA 800 was not brought down by a terrorist.
The only other viable explanation was a missile that originated from a US Naval vessel.
You fuel tank puppies are particularly amusing, in that the fuel tank wiring harnesses to all pumps are still intact, and in proper condition. Shame on you for not dealing with the evidence presented by Cashill.
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.