Jet 'exploded into pieces' (Witnesses "Saw Explosion On One Side of Plane Before Crash")

BBC & CNN ^ | November 12, 2001 | BBC & CNN News Staffs

[justshutupandtakeit]

In fact, in many of those cases including WTC 2 responsibility was claimed (or admitted.) People around here can fill you in if you are interested.

[Asmodeus]

My post #172: "What's your rebuttal to this?"

Your reply: "Well, it's difficult to know where to start. I see multiple lies in the 1st couple paragraphs."

It appears you didn't even bother to click on the link in my posting. Try it now and you'll see that the lst couple paragraphs state as follows:

Most of those alleging a "missile shootdown" of the 747 misinterpreted the events observed by the witnesses because they assumed the Massive Fireball explosion was at 13,800 feet and that the fiery streak that immediately preceded and tracked to it was a missile.

But there is clear and compelling documented evidence that the Massive Fireball exploded far later in the sequence of events and far lower in the sky. The key to understanding what the witnesses actually saw is the altitude of the Massive Fireball explosion.

Now, click on the LINK, read it and extend the readers the courtesy of any meaningful rebuttal you might then consider appropriate.

[freefly]

"...read it and extend the readers the courtesy of any meaningful rebuttal you might then consider appropriate."

I DID read it (in spite of the "jittering" that the page displays on my browser).
The parts that I was referring to were on the 4th and 5th paragraphs, not the 1st two.
MY BAD.

The "explaination" that they are using is based on showing how and why ALL witnesses were mistaken in what they saw.
I hate to tell you -and them- this, but the missle shootdown theory is based on FAR more than just witnesses.
I pointed out 3 of the major problems with the theory of an exploding center tank that they are trying to support.
Many investigators go into MUCH more detail.
And there is PLENTY of additional info that is at odds with the "official version" that this site doesn't begin to address.
The information that I have seen strongly indicates that flt 800 was shot down by a missle.
The BIG question is whether it was by a terrorist (a fully operational medium-sized crew launched missle was found intact and abandoned by a sheriffs dept in a town just "down the road" a couple weeks before the flt 800 incident), a "friendly" nation (that nobody wanted to admit did the deed), or an accidental shootdown (the missle being tested in that area was the type that would cause the damage and "black box" info that was seen, it had tracking problems, pictures were taken of what appears to be a target drone in the area at the time of the 800 going down AND they had JUST closed off the air corridor adjacent to Flt 800's flight path just minutes before 800 went down.)
If YOU want to look at some of the additional information, feel free to do a search on alltheweb.com, google, etc.
You will find PLENTY. Also, there are LOTS of threads here on FR that address Flt 800 and debate the known facts and theories.
(I'd provide links but I'm at work and my time is limited at the moment. If you need some, I will try to point you to a few later.)
As I said, the link does address issues concerning the witnesses, but it certainly doesn't rebute the other known facts of the incident.
In other words, they have a lot more explaining to do.

[timestax]

Well ole fibber-Magee KALLSTROM would say"those witnesses are all drunk"....

[timestax]

Ask ole fibber Magee KALLSTROM about eyewitnesses..

[jonathonandjennifer]

My reply from the "No Signs of Engine Failure" thread:

This report was the first I heard of the incident. My buddy and I speculated that it sounds like a baggage compartment explosion. A few moments later, all the media outlets began to report that it was a mechanical failure, no reason to suspect anything other than a mechanical. Did anyone else hear this very articulate lady on the air? I have been puzzled by the disappearance of her account.

Yes, I heard this report and agree with your observations. As chance would have it, I've been home from work on the day of several recent tragedies, beginning with Columbine, and I'm concluding that there is a "window of truth" in national media broadcasts beginning at the event itself and lasting until the network spin is given to all the reporters. This lady's original interview fell into that window, but was pulled when the "mechanical failure" spin was handed down from the head office. Sadly, this window appears to be shrinking with each new event.

Why?
1. Flight 800: The Liberal Media (hereafter-LM) does not want the Clinton cover up of flight 800 talked about, which it surely will be if this event is declared terrorism.
2. Clinton blind eye to terrorism: The LM feels that more terrorist attacks will further enrage thinking people against Clinton's playing with Monica while Americans in the Mid-east and Africa were being bombed by terrorists.
3. President Bush's Policies: More terrorism will further unite the public behind President Bush and his War on Terrorism, and make the LM's goal of hammering the present administration on campaign finance reform, the economy, and other issues they loved prior to 9/11.
4. The LM is on the side of the terrorists: Have I gone too far with this one?

[timestax]

At least don't fly out of, into or over, or near N.Y. City.

And that 30-Knot boat you are talking about in the TWA-800 case--well fibber Magee KALSTROM had it morphed into a helicopter. Which he didn't know where it came from or went.

[timestax]

bttt

[Asmodeus]

Try this:

Remedial Reading

[Asmodeus]

The tinfoil hat conspircy theory skinheads will love this development.

Flight data recorder damaged.

[freefly]

Your link is broken.
Try this:HTML Bootcamp


YOU may buy their explaination, but, as pointed out, it leaves much to be explained.
Since you choose to get snotty with those who don't agree with you, you can take a flying leap.

[Tarakotchi]

"However, there is a certain perverse fun in all this."

Hundreds of people died, this is not time for your making fun.

[anniegetyourgun]

Which, of course, was not what I was talking about.

[tuesday afternoon]

The wings were going backwards and forwards like it was trying to balance itself."

This was described to me once as a "Dutch roll", the effect of a trailing wing losing lift and subsequently giving the opposite wing lift in a repeating motion similar to a swimmer's backstroke.

I'm having trouble picturing this. If the fuselage is the z-axis, are the wings alternately lifting in the x-y plane (like the plane was rolling on its belly) or alternating back and forth in the x-z plane?

[aruanan]

An obvious conclusion is that there were explosions and fire seen from both sides of the plane. Or that the fire was coming close enough to the middle of the plane that it could be described as being on either side. Whatever happened, it was pretty friggin catastrophic.

[ez2muz]

"Witnesses said they saw an explosion on one side of the plane before the crash, but different accounts placed the explosion on different sides of the aircraft. Ethan Moses said he saw the aircraft burning from its left side, then the aircraft's left engine fell off."

Now that the black boxes have been recovered, let's ponder the eyewitness accounts like seeing "the aircraft burning...then the...engine fell off."

Just a thought...

[t-shirt]

I especially enjoy bringing out the "best" of wingnut theories.
--anniegetyourgun

Yes you certainly do enjoy bringing out the "best" of your idiotic wingnut theories anniegetyourgun-- the numerous actual witnesses say they saw an explosion and yet government wingnut lackeys like you try to bring out all kinds of goofy, outrageous theories to explain away what the actual witnesses actuallly saw.

Maybe next, you will try to think-up some theory to explain that the some right-wingers or militia members or even some Freepers committed the attacks the world trade center and that the Arabs involved in it were actually innocent???