a heat seeker would have hit an engine not the body of the plane... that's what they do is seek the hottest heat source, and that was not the fuselageIf that is true, wow.
It was either that, or Al Qaeda. I’ll take this one as the better of the two options, frankly.
How long before the Clinton apologists chime in?
It was a center fuel tank explosion...yeah......riiiiiight
So how many US sailors on that ship?
And the odds of 100% ability to cover up?
a heat seeker would have hit an engine not the body of the plane... that's what they do is seek the hottest heat source, and that was not the fuselageBut...But...what difference does it make???
The least likely scenario of all. Center fuel tank explosion is more likely than this. Too many people to keep quiet. Didn’t happen that way
If Im not mistaken I THINK I remember someone’s having said they had taken photos of the event....and were forced to give up their negatives and the prints they had made from same [ back in the almost all film era of photography]
This is what I was pretty confident had happened since a few months after the event.
They should have come clean and taken their lumps.
We’ll see if this is born out over time. If so, Bill Jeff and a passel of liars need to go to Fort Leavenworth. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200 dollars.
Kahlstrom, you fat ——, I do so hope you get yours, the just rewards, if you were doing what I think you were.
The eye witnesses said they saw a fiery trail up to the plane. Since the plane would have been at the edge of a shoulder launched missile's range it would not have had a trail like that in either sustain or coast phase when it hit. That means if it was a missile it would have been a larger one.
I’ve never been a fan of the low-voltage spark exploding the center fuel tank theory... It’s hard to believe. But I’m not buying this either.
a.) It’s WND. One big problem right there. Note the lack of any actual new evidence. Just the same warmed-over opinions.
b.) There is just no way— no way— that a whole navy ship full of hundreds of sailors could keep a secret this juicy for this long. Ain’t happening.
I’d still believe it was a surface launched missile, but from a terrorist boat somewhere, not the navy. Much easier to keep a secret within a smaller group of FBI and Boeing investigators. Also a good way to get the CIA of all people to make you a sweet graphic movie. The motive is even a little bit noble... If you hide the terrorist angle and you deny them their prize.
Has WND ever been right or had legitimate sources? Seriously, I am just curious.
The mother of all coverups. If it was an accidentally fired missile, probably a safety switch was in the wrong position during a simulated fire exercise, then the entire crew of the ship would have to know.
A lot of us figured, from the git-go, that this was either a terrorist or we accidentally did it ourselves. There was a practice going on and our missiles are all that could have done it easily.
I leaned in that direction but thought it would just be impossible to cover up.
A common assumption early on. A conspiracy nut would strike ‘accidental’ given the manifest.
Had it been an accidental SeaSparrow firing, a direct hit to the centerline fuel tank area might cause a catastrophic failure but hiding physical evidence of such a strike seems improbable to me.
That was one of the top theories at the time. There was supposedly a naval or submarine exercise that went awry, and it hit the plane. Another one was that Iranians on a boat with handheld modified SAMs from Afghanistan, to avenge the civil plane shot down in the Gulf. There were so many stories out there that it was impossible to know which one was the truth. However, I do strongly believe that it was shot down by a missile. Too many people saw it, and there was a lot of funny business with the wreckage. Cashill was on it back then. Clinton covered it up to prevent harm to his reelection campaign.