No. I don't. And that is exactly what I'm demonstrating on this thread. I don't read idiocy like that published by Cashill and believe it's true until I do my own research. Which leads me to read published documents like the one I linked to you. And once I do, I learn the exact answers to questions like the ones you've posed on this thread. And rather then just give you answers, and expect you to take my word for it, I give you a link to the source from which I got my information so that you can read it yourself. And what do you do? Ignore it and ask the same questions you obviously really don't want answers to.
With regard to making assumptions about you...I provided you with a link to a document that specifically answers your questions. Your response is to ask more of the same questions. Now I can either assume you haven't read the document, or assume you read it and are too stupid to understand what it says. In this case, I chose to take a more gentle approach and assume you just didn't read it. Perhaps I should have taken the other choice.
Now I know you think you are clever calling the CIA animation a "cartoon", but really you are just repeating a phrase commonly used by the TWA 800 conspiracy community to refer to the CIA video. I suppose conspiracy nuts believe the CIA should have flown an actual 747, blown it up and shot video of that. I think animation was a better choice. What conspiracy nuts won't discuss regarding the CIA video was that it was never a part of the NTSB investigation, had ZERO to do with the conclusions of the NTSB investigation, and does not accurately represent the NTSB/Boeing/TWA/ALPA joint effort at reconstructing the break up sequence. In other words, conspiracy nuts focus a good part of their "investigation" on a video that was irrelevant to the NTSB TWA 800 accident investigation.
But feel free to rant on about it. Since the entire conspiracy investigation is irrelevant, it is only appropriate that its followers focus on the least relevant aspects of the case.
I think you should go back and look at what you wrote, and then maybe apologize.
You suggest that maybe I'm "stupid," which is, of course, last refuge of someone with nothing to say, and no answers to give. You cite the NTSB report, which I have read though certainly not in its entirety and not last night, as if it were some sort of Holy Grail. I wonder what cover-ups of the past you can point to that never issued their own exonerating documents.
As for the use of the word, "cartoon," I believe that I was the first to so-characterize the CIA video in this manner. I did so while publicly speaking with James Kallstrom on Bob Grant's radio program. Kallstrom was not amused. (I once saw a description of this call on usenet. Maybe you can find it.) Part of the reason he was not amused is that it is such an accurate description. (I asked you if you believed the plane soared upwards as depicted in the video, but you seem best at blowing smoke rather than entering into an honest dialogue, so you ignored the question and told me again to read the NTSB report.) I'm pleased that so many have copied my use of the word cartoon.
As for Cashill, sadly I have to agree with you. His writings are a mixture of fact, fiction, and supposition, which strike me mostly as an income source for him, or maybe a sort of disinformation backfire.
ML/NJ