Replies

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 error" 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 airliner. Therefore, it became your duty as Patriots to prove you were right. Therefore, those who disagreed with your interpretation of the witness reports are government agent disinformationalists engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of a heinous crime, the missile shootdown of TWA Flight 800.

"WHO told you that I assumed the "massive fireball" was the initiating event??? To assume that would be to ignore the evidence, the statements of the witnesses, and the science. Anyone who reads the eyewitness testemony of those who saw the entire event and looked at the reports would find that the initiating event was one or two white flash, high explosive, high velocity ordnance like detonations... followed some seconds later (not an insignificant amount of time), by the ORANGE, deflagration of the fuel/air mix of the 'massive fireball'." [emphasis added - caps your]

More textbook examples of your Circular Logic. NONE of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats have ever been able to prove that the streak of light ascended, much less that it was missile exhaust or that it preceded the Initiating Event or that it was "a missile" or that there were ANY "ordnance" explosions.

What is it you don't understand about "at the outset of the investigation"?

WHEN did the first actual "witness reports" become publicly available? What are the dates of "the most detailed witness reports" you've indicated would determine your selection of the witnesses you refuse to identify but contend should have testified at the NTSB Hearing in Baltimore?

"Using our knowledge of how shoulder launch missiles perform, let's examine what a hypothetical missile attack would've looked like. The rocket motor of the missile would be visible and it would look like a light ascending rapidly for about 8 seconds. Then the motor would burn out and the light would disappear for as much as 7 seconds. After this, a second streak of light, the airplane in crippled flight would become visible. It would be different from the first streak moving slower, then it would develop into a fireball. We carefully reviewed the witness accounts to determine if anyone described a scenario like this, one that began with two sequential streaks of light and concluded with a fireball. We could not find anyone who was describing this scenario. [emphasis added] SOURCE.

The credibility of you and all the rest of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats self destructed long ago and ALL the allegations of the tinfoil hats have been suspect unless or until proven otherwise since - including your own about jury duty and the Judges' instructions.

"The rest of your response is just more obfuscation and demands that I take on the role of prosecutor or investigator, and then denigrating me when I cannot take on those roles."

How would you describe - " . . . followed some seconds later (not an insignificant amount of time), by the ORANGE, deflagration of the fuel/air mix of the "massive fireball"? Clarifying? Obfuscation?

You didn't need to admit you have no experience as an investigator, It's been obvious.