I took a fair look at the top two witnesses
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let’s see what you said.
“Myer was probably 14 miles away. Mike Wire was around 11 miles away.”
You seem to be trying to discredit the witnesses by saying they were too far away.
You can see aircraft (and missiles) at that distance easily. It was a very clear evening.
“They were almost on an identical line of sight.”
I do not know if this is true, other than your assertion. I don’t know how it would make a difference.
“Myer is inconsistent with his testimony, one time saying he saw 4 ordnance explosions and another time saying he saw 2 ordnance explosions, and concluding himself that would imply two missiles.”
Instead of a long search for rebuttal, let me simply post a link to an affidavit from Meyer dated 2003, which puts it 7 years after the event.
http://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/o-fred-meyer.pdf
The NY Times had an article dated 2 days after the event, mentioning Meyer saying something about 2 explosions.
In that article, they didn’t even get the aircraft that Meyer was piloting correct. Good ol’ NYT, hard-hitting journalism at its finest.
“If he saw 4 ordnance explosions then that would imply 4 missiles.”
The number of trails implies the number of missiles. I’m not a missile expert by any means, but I have heard of multiple explosions from a single strike, and seen some in war footage in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s still seeing a trail BEFORE seeing the explosions, which is absolutely impossible according to the CIA animation. Ear testimony (hearing the explosions) is only 5% of the total witness testimony, despite Kallstrom’s lie of it being 80%, and I don’t recall Meyer testifying that he heard anything before actually seeing the streak and the explosion.
“They both seem to be saying the aircraft came straight down after the final ‘non-ordnance’ fireball. However we know from the debris field that the back end of the aircraft did not come straight down. It kept flying and came down further east than the nose section.”
Colloquially speaking, it did come straight down. It flew like pieces of metal going a few hundred miles per hour fly when they’re launched into the sky.
There was a debris field before the nose and before the rest of the fuselage (the supposedly climbing/flying part). There was no center tank debris found in that field, even though its explosion was supposed to be the cause of the nose separation and the crash.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quantity [of witnesses] isn’t going to make up for that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If they all say the same thing completely independent from each other, and given the weakness of your “inconsistencies”, then I would tend to believe them rather than one source with vested interests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The problems with eye witness testimony are due to the nature of the human brain, rather than the character, intelligence or experience of the people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mass hysteria among hundreds of people far away from each other is a more rational explanation to you than having a Presidential administration lie to us.
Vaya con Dios, mi amigo. I hope you are more skeptical of Hillary than Bill, if she somehow becomes our next President... God help us all.
“Myer was probably 14 miles away. Mike Wire was around 11 miles away.”
You seem to be trying to discredit the witnesses by saying they were too far away.
You can see aircraft (and missiles) at that distance easily. It was a very clear evening.
“They were almost on an identical line of sight.”
I do not know if this is true, other than your assertion. I don’t know how it would make a difference.
...
I’m simply pointing out that they both had an almost identical view of the incident. It’s easily confirmed by using their testimony, coordinates from Wiki and Google Maps.
Another conflict between Myer’s testimony and that of Wire is that Wire saw his “firework” zigzagging, whereas Myer saw his “missile” moving smoothly.
Once again you’re being lazy by saying 500 witnesses all saw the same thing, when in fact it’s easy to show that not even the top two witnesses, who had an almost identical view of the incident, agree about what they saw.