TWA Flight 800 - "Our Must See Video"

Accuracy In Media ^ | 7 May 2002 | Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid

[Asmodeus]

Circular logic - "a logical error, caused by first making some assumption that can't be proven true, then, on the basis of that assumption, deriving some result that is then used to "prove" that the first assumption is true".

You and all the rest of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats made the same "logical errors" at the outset of the investigation, the ASSUMPTIONS [1] that the streak of light seen by many witnesses was the ascending fiery exhaust of a missile in flight and [2] that the Massive Fireball was the Initiating Event when "the missile" intercepted the jetliner. Therefore, it became your duty as Patriots to prove you were right. Therefore, those who disagreed with your interpretation of the witness reports in particular and other evidence in general became government agent disinformationalists engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of a heinous crime, the missile shootdown of TWA Flight 800.

In short, you've brainwashed yourselves. As the inevitable result, you've all become reality impaired. Anything that appeared to you to be compatitible with "the missile shootdown" was decreed to be "supporting evidence of the missile shootdown". Anything incompatible with "the missile shootdown" became disinformation spread by government agents engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of heinous crimes. And in your clumsy efforts to pound square pegs into round holes to try to prove you're right, you've run off ALL members of congress, past and present, the press [with the exception of the green men from Mars branch] and the public has walked away.

Simply put, the credibility of all the "shootdown" tinfoil hats self destructed long ago.

The efforts made you and some of the other "shootdown" tinfoil hats to decree that a CWT explosion is impossible have ignored the reality that only your fellow "shootdown" tinfoil hats agree with you. Most objective lay observers haven't the foggiest idea - but veteran jetliner pilots and the component parts manufacturers disagree with you, as the following continues to demonstrate.

____________________

Taipei Times 27 May 2002 [excerpts][emphasis added]
[quote] One veteran pilot who contacted the Taipei Times yesterday said Saturday's crash bore striking similarities to the crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island, New York in 1996. The pilot sought to keep his identity private for fear of reprisals from the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA). "Talking to several other pilots after we heard about the crash, we all agreed it suffered the same fate as TWA Flight 800 -- a center fuel-tank explosion", the pilot said. After nearly four years of investigation, US inspectors said an explosion of vapors inside a fuel tank caused TWA Flight 800 to plunge into the ocean -- in a safety problem that may involve thousands of commercial aircraft built by a number of different manufacturers. The Taiwan-based pilot alleged that China Airlines knew its 747-200 was vulnerable to the safety problem surrounding the troublesome fuel tank but failed to eliminate the risk. [end quote]

[quote] China Airlines flight CI611 also took off with its center tank nearly empty -- a procedure that Boeing recommended be discontinued after the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 1998 said fuel pumps on older model 747 planes were a possible source of faulty wiring that could have ignited the TWA blast. [end quote]

[quote] China Airlines vice president of flight safety, Samson Yeh, confirmed that the airline had received notification from Boeing not to run the center tank dry, but that they made their own safety modifications to eliminate any potential point of ignition. "At the time ... I remember we changed the procedure. In terms of empty fuel tanks we were not supposed to use the fuel pumps [when we flew with dry tanks], otherwise you will overheat it. I believe [the maintenance department] also put some insulation on the wiring, to isolate [potential sparks]," Yeh said. [end quote]

____________________

Your allegations that "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" appear to be unique even among the handful [about a half dozen?] of your fellow "shootdown" tinfoil hats who have claimed they saw a "shootdown" video on TV.

Stan Clark, for instance, claims a "shootdown video" was shown repeatedly on the CNN the night of the disaster and he stayed up to watch the replays - but didn't turn on his VCR. He vaguely described what he says it portrayed, a streak of light ascending and the Massive Fireball then descending after some unspecified time while indicating there were neither any structures nor the surface shown. Stan also claims to have been contacted by some U.S. Navy sailors, "whistleblowers" who made him promise not to disclose their names.

You contend the "shootdown video" was in some way related to a cocktail party. Where us your reference source URL. You have been asked to describe in detail what it supposedly portrayed and have Replied twice without doing so.

There is NO credible evidence that any such "shootdown video" ever existed. If it didn't, those claiming to have watched it on TV are hoaxers.

Since 9/11, the people of the United States have not been in the mood to tolerate anyone spreading misinformation about airliner crashes, much less hoaxers.

Can you prove your allegations about the "cocktail party videotape" you supposedly watched on TV?. If you can't, say so. Otherwise, start proving it by answering the questions you were asked and present the readers with a supporting reference source URL.