Replies

"...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.