Keep your blinders on silverback, God help us if the truth should sneak out onto one of these threads.
Your gratuitous insult makes your point much more persuasive.
Two questions:
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. Depending on your chosen theory of destruction, you may have to include most of the crew of a Navy ship and/or members of the Navy dive team.)
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?
When answering, keep in mind that I used to be responsible for putting a 40 year old Boeing product in the air each day. I'm not likely to be buffaloed.
You can take it as an insult if you wish, but this story was heavily covered by some of the best investigative reporters, and the key piece of evidence on the plane itself was the seat upholstery next to the hole that the missle made was loaded with propellant residue of the type used on expanding rod missles.
The eye witness accounts and video of the missle flare were pretty convincing too.
It was either the Navy, or a terrorist. My money is on the terrorist.
You sound like a cover man with the silly strawman questions that you post. We’ve had so many federal cover-ups that this one just lands in the pile.
Why did the ntsb not call upon any of those who saw and insisted they saw a rocket hit the jet for their testimony?
A coverup?
Also you know that B52s are what thirty years past their demise date.
And you know how through these jets maintainence schedules are.
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.