Replies

Well then, since you've called me--a 37 year old father of three and a former heavy jet aircraft mechanic--a "little boy," I am now convinced beyond doubt that you are correct about Flight 800. It was your pointless name calling that put you over the top. Bravo!

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.