"...McCain’s most horrendous loss occurred in 1967 on the USS Forrestal. Well, not horrendous for him. The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies. Investigators and survivors took the position that McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk’s fuel tank, released a thousand pound bomb, and ignited a fire that killed the pilot plus 167 men. Before the tally of dead and dying was complete, the son and grandson of admirals had been transferred to the USS Oriskany..."
Just to make clear, I despise McCain and am not defending him. That isn't the point.
The point is, when I read tripe like this, it makes me completely and totally discount everything else in the article, no matter how valid.
And that is precisely what any anyone reading is going to do.
There are two important flaws with this, and they are not to be ignored, because if we allow idiotic things like this into the discussion, it is ALL going to be completely discounted, and we shouldn't allow that.
First, this person who wrote this is COMPLETELY IGNORANT of what happened, because a "wet start" does not involve a flame of any kind to cook something off. A wet start is when the pilot starts the engine by starting the fuel flow and hitting the igniters, but the fuel does not light up and both pools in the engine and comes out the tailpipe. When the pilot sees that the EGT does not rise, they stop, and the fuel must be dissipated by various means before another start is attempted. It is TRUE that a "Wet Start" can turn into a "Hot Start" if the fuel is ignited by the pilot, but that is NOT what the author states.
Even more importantly is the statement that his "wet start" (which, if one were to believe this idiotic thing actually happened, could only be caused by a "hot start") is supposed to have cooked off a Zuni rocket in a Phantom behind him.
I ask you: Look at this graphic of the plane's positions as they were spotted on the flight deck. This spotting location is part of the OFFICIAL record, verified by hundreds of witnesses who were on the flight deck:
How does a flame shooting out the tailpipe of McCain's Skyhawk, which is spotted with the tail pointing over the side, light off any Zuni rocket? And if so, how does that Zuni rocket fly into the drop tank of the plane next to him, rupturing it, dumping the fuel all over the deck and getting ignited? How?
Nothing personal with you, I think you just posted an article and probably didn't even see this, but this conspiracy stuff about McCain on the Forrestal just pisses me off, because it makes us look like conspiracy theory nuts, when we are correct that McCain should be attacked on this.