Flight 800: Breakthrough!

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 13, 2003 | Jack Cashill

[MindBender26]

center OF gravity

[savedbygrace]

Read Post #42 and my reply to it.

[dmz]

24 posts til OKC brought up...surprised it took that long.


Did you know that there are the same number of letters in sirhan sirhan as in john hinckley? hmmmmmmm.

[GEC]

Again with the name-calling.

3000 feet in altitude?

Suggest a good aerodynamics book and I will read it.

I'm still waiting for an argument, with supporting evidence.

[Deguello]

"Read any good aerodynamics book on shifting the center og gravity aft of the center of lift and kinetic energy conversion."

Yes, combine the change in attitude, the blown off front section with its massive resistance and you get 'stall'.

[InterceptPoint]

But the title of this second book smells a little....opportunistic.

I must agree. I haven't read Sanders' book so I really can't say but the Navy was out there in force that night and the "Navy accident" theory still looks good to me.

[Non-Sequitur]

Order 1000 crewmen not to talk under penalty of court martial. How many of them will talk on the record? Perhaps you can answer this, but I cannot.

Based on over 25 years service with the United States Navy on both active duty and reserve I can safely say that if you order 1000 crewmen not to talk under penalty of court martial then only 950 or so will actually talk. The rest will think you're serious.

I've read all the theories and all the eyewitness accounts and based on that, plus adding my experience with guided-missile armed warships in the Atlantic Fleet, I can say that none of the accounts sounds remotely like a Navy missile. You'll have to find another source for your perpetrator. Sorry.

[dmz]

did all of the 100+ witnesses who saw the first missile also report the second? Did any? What percentage?

[AnAmericanMother]

That's cool. I couldn't justify accessing Lexis for the EDNY rules, so you DID tell me something I didn't know!

Thanks!

[coloradan]

Could you please tell me why, when Sanders acquired a piece of wreckage to test it for elemental analysis because the investigation was dragging its feet (ccording to an insider) he is prosecuted for felony wrekage removal, a law ostensibly passed to prevent souvenir hunting, while James Kallstrom, who was head of the FBI team assigned to TWA 800, escaped prosecution for souvenir taking, even though he presented a flag taken from the wreckage to a surviving family member of one of the victims, during a ceremony, explicitly as a souvenir and providing no value to the investigation?

Thanks in advance.

[GEC]

You'll have to do better than saying, "Take my word for it."

Do you have a better theory as to why the plane blew up?

[GEC]

There were over 700 witnesses.

I don't know what all 700 saw.

Neither does the FBI or the NTSB because they didn't bother to ask them.

[Non-Sequitur]

You'll have to do better than saying, "Take my word for it."

But of course we should take yours? An explosive laden private plane? That's a new one on me. Imagine this theory showing up after 9/11. What's the chance of a coincidence like that, huh?

Do you have a better theory as to why the plane blew up?

I haven't a clue. All I know is that I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that sopports that it was a Navy missile. What is your background in matters like this, just our of curiosity? No military experience obviously, what is it that you offer in the way of expertise?

[Houmatt]

So, I guess all those witnesses who saw an object come from below and hit the plane were actually seeing falling debris, right?

Elmer, is that you? Again?

[lawyamike]

That's not correct. The complete and accurate answer is as follows:

"When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule [nb: by affidavit and other proof], an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party."

It's the last sentence here that is probably most relevant in this case. It sounds like the Government [the adverse party] did not respond, and so if appropriate, then it will have summary judgment entered against it.

When would summary judgment be "appropriate"? If the Government had failed to create a genuine factual dispute (through the submission of an affidavit, etc.) on an issue of material relevance to the case, then it would be appropriate. Summary judgment works like this: the judge determines whether, on the facts as submitted and undisputed, the law requires judgment for one party or not.

I'll put it in concrete terms: if WND-Guy alleged that Flight 800 was blown to pieces by a missile, but whether the flight was blown to pieces was not the question at issue, then the Government was right not to respond, and it will not lose the case as a result. For example, if the legal issue is whether a government agency possesses any of the materials sought, then it doesn't matter whether Flight 800 was attacked by terrorists.

Keep in mind throughout that not responding to an allegation in a motion for summary judgment does not -- emphasis: *does not* -- concede a point as a moral or metaphysical matter.

For example, if I were to sue Mr. Opinion8r on the legal theory that I deserve a judicial declaration that I am Freerepublic's most brilliant lawyer, I might submit the relevant facts in support of my case: I would claim that I attended a better law school, won more cases after trial or on appeal, earned more money from clients, garnered more professional accolades, etc. Were he to fail to respond to any of those factual assertions, and the judge decided that the assertions were relevant to the question whether I was the more brilliant attorney, then Rule 56(e) would kick in, and I would be entitled to summary judgment.

On the other hand, had I alleged that I am more handsome than Mr. Opinion8r -- a matter that is not relevant to the question of legal brilliance -- then Mr. Opinion8r could decline to respond (to my scurrilous and likely meritless claim to being better-looking) and it would not matter to the merits of his legal claim. Of course, it also would not be the equivalent of Mr. Opinion8r's conceding that I am, in fact, more handsome than him. It's this last sentence that I think WND-guy is misinterpreting Rule 56(e) -- of which Rule 56.1 is probably a local variant -- to demonstrate or to imply.

[timestax]

bump to the top

[GEC]

Not to be mean, but anyone can come on here and claim gobs of expertise. At no time have I ever claimed any expertise in these discussions. At no time have I asked anyone here to "Take my word for it."

I am simply reporting on the evidence that was in a previous video and the recently published book. This includes the following:

A national guard pilot is on record saying that he saw military ordinance explode near TWA800.

They have a source, who so far refuses to go on record, claiming it was a Navy missile.

Until someone presents a plausible theory backed up by evidence, I can't dismiss this theory.

If you would like a copy of either the video or the book, I would be happy to send either or both to you free of charge so that you can decide for yourself.

I have made this offer at least 3 times on FR so far, and no one has ever responded.

Civil court proceedings take a long time, but I would submit that 6 years is a long time for a case of mechanical failure due to faulty wiring to be made against Boeing. If it really was due to a fuel tank explosion, Boeing will lose this case and pay big bucks to the insurance companies. I doubt that this will ever happen.

[Swordmaker]

Sometimes for the good of Bush's own reputation I wish he would take the gloves off.

Perhaps Bush's Justice Department's decision to NOT contest the Summary Motion for Judgement IS "taking the gloves off!" Consider that they could have obfuscated this issue for even more years with flurries of counter motions, discovery demands, postponements, etc. Instead, they are allowing a judge to enter a judgement AGAINST the United States Government and some of its minions. It is the civil equivalent of a "no contest" plea...

On the other hand, the Justice Department may have elected to not fight the case lest the powers of the court FORCE them to bring evidence and testimony under oath that would force them to further incriminate those presenting and testifying.

In either case, the summary judgement WILL be on record.

[Houmatt]

These are the crooks you are supporting.

Crooks, huh? And what crime did they commit, exactly?

Oh yes, they got an airline pilot to secure a couple pieces of seating from the plane to be tested for missile residue.

The Sanderses were neither charged nor convicted of tampering with evidence, just of having it.

[Non-Sequitur]

They have a source, who so far refuses to go on record, claiming it was a Navy missile.

A source which refused to go on record, so we're supposed to 'take their word for it'?

When it comes right down to it I don't give a damn what you believe. You claim 700 eyewitnesses, have you read their claims? They saw yellow missiles, red missile, orange missiles. They saw missiles launched from sea, missiles launched from shore. Missiles headed north, south, east and west. So which one of those eyewitnesses were right and which were wrong?

Until someone presents a plausible theory backed up by evidence, I can't dismiss this theory.

No matter how inplausible it is?

If you would like a copy of either the video or the book, I would be happy to send either or both to you free of charge so that you can decide for yourself.

Post the information and I'll look them up on my own. I don't need your charity.