Posted on 05/07/2002 10:59:01 AM PDT by Asmodeus
September 1997 The American Spectator
Letter from John B. Roberts II in reply to an earlier one from James Hall - Chairman of the NTSB
Early this summer Hall testified before Congress that a meteorite may have blown up TWA, an event about as likely as an attack by a UFO. Apparently, Mr. Hall is prepared to got to any length to avoid confronting evidence of terrorism in the crash of TWA 800..... minute traces of PETN and RDX were found in TWA 800. Hall would have us believe they came from a bomb-sniffing dog test. But the St. Louis Police Department test record says only that a "wide-bodied jet" was used in the test, and provides no serial number for the aircraft......As TWA's 800's debris was being hauled ashore, it was being tested by the EGIS high-tech explosives detection system operated by FBI technicians and BATF bomb experts. Within five days of the crash, EGIS registered the first of more than a dozen "hits" for PETN on the aircraft. The FBI laboratory--whose work, even before it was subsequently criticized by the Justice Departments's inspector general, was questioned by FBI agents working on EGIS--confirmed only two findings. Do the EGIS findings mean that there was once much more explosive residue .... Whether there were two positive findings or a dozen, the dog-test explanation is almost as zany as Hall's meteorite theory..... Hall states that the U.S. lacks intelligence leads, but at least one terrorist has claimed credit for the TWA 800 bombing. World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Ahmed Yousef told authorities his group is responsible. Yousef's claim has not been made public, but it is in the FBI file.
FBI Chief Metallurgist Blows Whistle On Kallstrom's Wild Goose Chase
Truth is always dependent on facts - not suspicions, speculations, allegations or accusations.
Well, you certainly are a staunch defender of the Clinton-Reno theories about what happened to TWA 800.
I find it fascinating that you joined Free Republic right after 9-11. And you seem to have a very keen interest in making us here believe that TWA 800 was just a "misfunction" and NOT a terrorist attack. I find that interesting.
The bottom line is that it's irrelevant to the "missile shootdown" issue because the promoters of that notion have never been able to find even ONE bonafide expert witness report analyst who will agree with their "missile witnesses" allegations - the indispensable cornerstone of their supposed "case". They've never been able to publicly present any physical evidence either and there is an array of government material damage experts who contend there wasn't any as documented here and in the voluminous NTSB report.
Worse, if that was possible, the "shootdown" tinfoil hats completed the destruction of their credibility with their wildly reckless accusations that thousands of government agents, government shills, government sympathizers, government contractors and military personnel have been engaged in a felonious criminal coverup of the truth, accusations they have never been able to support with any evidence.
To sum it up, any expert who disagrees with the CWT Theory is going to have a major chore just trying to find people with influence to even listen to him, much less to help him get a sufficiently high profile public platform to re-awaken any meaningful congressional, major press or public interest because the untenable accusations of so many of the promoters of the "missile shootdown" notion and their stream of never kept promises to produce smoking gun evidence has so disgusted them that just the mention of Flight 800 : triggers a conditioned reflex to walk away.
Well, why don't you offer an opinion and stop being such a wuss. Besides, libelling anyone who does not accept the CWT spontaneous combustion theory a "tin foiler" is hardly evidence of not taking a position.
Simply put, those disputing the CWT Theory have to pit their experts on that subject not only against the NTSB's own experts but the manufacturing experts too, among others, and it appears to me that the chances of that ever happening are between slim and none for lots of reasons.
Since the government "experts" failed to make their own case, it is emminently good and proper that We The People to demand a second opinion and a better explanation.
There will be no rolling over on the part of those of us who seek a better explanation.
The NTSB can go pound sand.
As often and loudly as needed.
Repeat, if necessary.
One reason people are not using airline services is because they think they are being lied to. This includes Flights 800 and 587. How many people just on this forum know someone who saw something in the sky that evening in 1996?
A better bet is to get an instrument rating, and purchase or rent a ship for any cross country jaunts. Despite the much higher accident rate, at least your life is in your own hands when you've done your own pre-flight check and have the stick in front of you.
For a well reasoned rebuttal to your quite professional, but sadly misinforming, reply to my "rant".
We kept hearing there was no vadalism of the White House, that was not exactly true either was it. Truth is not exactly the Belt Ways strong suit. So I don't blame anyone for speculating.
I do this in my backyard to burn bonfires all the time, so I know what I am talking about. Take a Kerosene can and shake it up real good (to form vapors in the can) then toss a match inside... The match will probably just go out.
Try the same thing with GASoline and you will be getting a guick trip into low earth orbit because gasoline is explosive, and KERosine is not.
The 'electrical arc in a fuel tank (???)" theory was put out because most sheeple are too stupid to understand.
Oh, and I SAW THE 'cocktail party' VIDEOTAPE of the streak of light shooting upward followed by the explosion. (saw it with my own two eyes lou) It was shown once (that I know of) on TV and then promptly dissappeared. Other freepers here saw it too.
Odd that the world's airlines are complying with the FAA's fuel tank precautionary measures. Are they all "too stupid" too? Or are they all "engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of heinous crimes" that most of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats have been alleging for almost 6 years now.
"Oh, and I SAW THE 'cocktail party' VIDEOTAPE of the streak of light shooting upward followed by the explosion. (saw it with my own two eyes lou) It was shown once (that I know of) on TV and then promptly dissappeared. Other freepers here saw it too." [caps yours]
You realize, of course, that your allegation now makes you subject to subpoena as a witness by the lawyers for the legally interested Parties. Unless you choose to recant. If not, why don't you tell us all exactly what you claim you saw on the "cocktail party videotape" that you contend you personally saw "on TV". Things like what channel, when - including about what time, who else watched it with you and will verify your allegations about it, approximately how long was the "videotape" on the TV screen while you watched it, approximately how long did "the streak of light" last as you watched it, approximately how long after "the streak of light" did "the explosion" follow it, describe "the explosion" in as much detail as possible, those things and anything else you might consider important enough to add.
Q2: Why would I be concerned that "...your allegation now makes you subject to subpoena as a witness by the lawyers for the legally interested Parties. Unless you choose to recant...." I saw what I saw, Bring on the subpoena. What do I have to gain? Why on earth would I 'recant'? Oh and you ALSO did not address the content here either...
Why do you make such a statment (as a threat..???)
Your comment [...Odd that the world's airlines are complying with the FAA's fuel tank precautionary measures. Are they all "too stupid" too? Or are they all "engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of heinous crimes" ...] is funny as well as stupid. The worlds airlines are naturally complying with a new (albeit useless) tank safety regulation. That does NOT make them "engaged in felonious coverup", simply complying with a new and ridiculous regulation.
What choice do they have? Do you expect all the airlines to stand up and protest that they are NOT going to comply with a new fuel-tank safety regulation out of protest because they don't believe flight 800 stories?
I appreciate your debate skills (unless it is just stupiditiy) because you have managed to twist the argument AWAY from my valid and PROVABLE statements regarding the non-explosive nature of kersone into one about "All the airlines are complying- so it must be true" - unfortunately you lose points (in my book) for not addressing my two original issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.