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
Apologize for what? For being right? I ask you to answer the following honestly...did you read the document at the link I provided for you?
"You suggest that maybe I'm "stupid," which is, of course, last refuge of someone with nothing to say, and no answers to give."
No. I specifically stated I chose to believe you just didn't read the document. You accused me of making a false assumption. Based on your continued questions, you've given no reason to indicate I'm wrong.
"You cite the NTSB report"
You continue to prove my assumption is 100% correct. I have not cited the NTSB report. The link I provided for you was not the NTSB report. It was a copy of CIA correspondence and a transcript of an interview with CIA investigators. And as it clearly states, and as I have clearly stated, the CIA video and their participation in the TWA 800 incident had nothing to do with the NTSB investigation.
"(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 dialog, so you ignored the question and told me again to read the NTSB report.)"
First, yes I believe TWA 800 climbed after the initial explosion. Second, as I already stated in this thread, the CIA video did not accurately depict the break up sequence (which includes the flightpath of the aircraft). How could anyone possibly have something resembling useful dialog with you when you not only won't read the evidence they provide you...you won't even read their own posts. Furthermore, not once on this thread have I told you to read the NTSB report. I guess making things up is par for the course for a conspiracy advocate, but it doesn't work well on an internet thread where every post is preserved for review.
"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.)"
Typical of a conspiracy advocate. Make a claim and then ask someone else to prove it. All part of "honest dialog" I suppose. Here's a suggestion...as part of a continued "honest dialog", how about if one of us makes a claim we actually provide evidence we both can look at to back it up.
"As for Cashill, sadly I have to agree with you."
Glad to hear it.