Obfuscation, bubba style.

[John Milmont]

I never said anything of the such. I just said its the latest conspiracy.

 

[Jim Craik]

John,

Sorry,

There appears to be many folks here who automatically buy into these CRAZY Conspiracy Theories.

I'm glad to hear you are not one.

Conspiracies have become “the default explanation for almost any given event” regardless of how bizarre and unlikely the theory might be.

 

[Mark]

And denial that conspiracies may even exist, has become the default stance of people who seem to think that everything in the world is peachy and those in charge need not be accountable for their actions other than at election time. To even suggest that something may be afoot, is to be labelled CRAZY.

Never fear to question.

Once again guys, I ask you all to consider the third option..............YOu can all be right, just not at the same time.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Agreed Mark, never fear to question. History will tell you that conspiracy does occur.
But so does paranoia. How one strikes a balance between the two is the question.

 

[Keith]

Another high speed shift into reverse! How long before his box goes completely?

And the moral is: Always read posts carefully before replying.

 

[Jeff Young]

And denial that conspiracies may even exist, has become the default stance of people who seem to think that everything in the world is peachy and those in charge need not be accountable for their actions other than at election time. To even suggest that something may be afoot, is to be labelled CRAZY.

Never fear to question.

Once again guys, I ask you all to consider the third option..............YOu can all be right, just not at the same time.

Certainly. And I think this situation highlights that.

1. Chance that the investigative team was right and TWA Flight 800 blew up due to a spark in the fuel tank? Probably pretty high but not certain.

2. Chance that the dissenters on the team are right and an external explosion of some sort, either due to an errant Navy missile test OR a terrorist attack caused the explosion? Unlikely, but certainly in the range of possibilities and something that should be investigated fully even this long after the fact.

3. Chance that the President ordered the shootdown of TWA 800 as the esteemed Lonesome Nutjob suggests? Practically zero, and his crossed over into paranoia land. Which prompted my "you're crazy" remark.

In fact, Lonesome Nutjob's immediate move to option 3 has ALREADY made it difficult ot have a reasonable discussion about 2.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Once again, the liberal prevaricator puts words in my mouth.

Where, soul man, have I ever said clinton ordered flight 800 to be shot down???

Where, liar?

What I did state is that his regime covered something up. They're very good at that.

 

[Jim Craik]

Mr Fechter,

You are certain that there was a cover up, OK big talker.....

What did President Clinton and the hundreds of investigaters cover up!

 

[Mark]

I think the point is Jim, who knows? I don't think Bob states that he KNOWS?

Irrational defence is as stupid and unwise as irrational accusation. And by the way, quit with the constant 'big-talker' remarks! Take a pill, have a beer, or get a tug. Whatever, try letting all that frustration ebb away............

 

[Bob Fechter]

Thanks, Mark. Exactly. The poor guy has probably spent a lifetime defending himself against a world of bullys, and doesn't know anything else. Like they say, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nails.

 

[Jim Craik]

I think the point is Jim, who knows? I don't think Bob states that he KNOWS?

Mark,

Mr Fechter stated this:

(QUOTE)What I did state is that his regime covered something up. They're very good at that.[/QUOTE]

He stated that they are "covered something up"..................WHAT?

He must have had SOMETHING in mind when he said that, what are they covering up?

Its a simple question.........................

 

[Bob Fechter]

I know, its a tough word.

ob·fus·cate (bf-skt, b-fskt)
tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates
1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: "A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth" (Robert Conquest).
2. To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.

 

[Jim Craik]

Mr Fechter,

You started this thread about TWA 900, you stated that this tragady was "fishy" and "Clintonian in scope"

In post #11 you said "This was covered up"

In post #27 you said 'his regime covered something up'

Now Mr Fechter, you imply that Clinton, is involded, if not in the actual act, that he knew what happeded and "covered it up"

This is easy, just tell us what he covered up!

You have a history of presenting absurd attack after attack on the left, virtually every one has proved either greatly exagerated or down right false.

I say this is just one more lie.

Mr Fechter, Is this just one more lie?

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

I think we could have a discussion without the personal attacks..........then perhaps not.

With eye witness reports allegedly seeing a rocket contrail I personally think that it is likely
That either a terrorist attack or a simple mistake by someone on the ground caused the plane to explode. A spark in the fuel tank is unlikely, much more likely on the ground during
Refuelling and that is as rare as Dodo eggs.
Why cover either up? Well if a terrorist attack it may have been thought more prudent to cover it up for the sake of not triggering WW3, or it may have been an ally which is why the passenger list could be interesting.
If it was a simple mistake the compensation costs would have run to billions and maybe a change of Government, all good reasons for a cover up.

 

[Mark]

Yes Pete. It is called blame. Sometimes, most times, no one wants to accept the blame. Result? Cover up. Is that a Conspiracy? Technically yes, as soon as multiple people sign up to the lie. Conspiracy as in aliens and everyone is out to get us? No.

 

[Jim Craik]

I think we could have a discussion without the personal attacks..........then perhaps not.

With eye witness reports allegedly seeing a rocket contrail I personally think that it is likely
That either a terrorist attack or a simple mistake by someone on the ground caused the plane to explode.

***************

Pete, there are several problems with the terrorist missile theory.........

Shoulder launched missiles of the type that terrorist would have used have an altitude of approx 11,000 feet.

TWA 900 was at approx 13,700 feet when the event happened (per NTSB it should have been higher, but traffic delayed its climb), experts say that a shoulder launched missile could have hit at that altitude, but it is chancy.

Had the aircraft been at the altitude it should have been at that point, it would have been out of range.

My questions

(1) If you have a missile, a boat and want to shoot down an aircraft, why would you go so far from the airport that the aircraft was out of range? Why were they not much closer to the airport?

(2) Why take a chance of waisting your one missile on an aircraft that is virtually out of range?

(3) If you go to all this trouble and actually shoot down a plane, why not claim it? Terrorism that looks like an accident does not serve the purpose.

(4) This type of missile would hit a heat producing engine, not a center fuel tank. The engines show no evidence of a missile hit.

************
Some conspiracy advocates say it was a US Navy ship that fired the missle (by accident or on purpose). They checked all Military ships in the area, all missile were accounted for. Additionally, these ships have crews in the hundreds, why has no one come forward?

Sure you could say they are all so scared of the Government that hundreds and hundreds have kept quiet...................sure!

Even after BushII became President...........................sure!

Even now, the makers of this "Guessumentry" must have interviewed sailors, right?

************

A spark in the fuel tank is unlikely, much more likely on the ground during
Refuelling and that is as rare as Dodo eggs.

No its not.................

(1) 1990 Phillipine Airlines Boing an empty center fuel tank exploded on the ground, killing 8, they were not refueling.

(2) 2001 a Thai Airlines Boing an empty center fule tank exploded in Bangkok while taxiing.

(3) 2006 a Transmile Air Boing had an empty fuel tank explode on the ground (not refueling).

As of 2000, the FAA had compiled a list of 26 aircraft fuel tank explosions since 1960 in commercial jet aircraft. That is a rare occurance but hardly unlikely. Boing has since provided a system that adds an inert gas to its fuel tanks.

*********************

Why cover either up? Well if a terrorist attack it may have been thought more prudent to cover it up for the sake of not triggering WW3, or it may have been an ally which is why the passenger list could be interesting.
If it was a simple mistake the compensation costs would have run to billions and maybe a change of Government, all good reasons for a cover up.

********************

Once again, a coverup as you discribe it would require knowing before hand that the terrorists would keep quiet and not clame the act.......

That is incredable unlikely.

The only scenario that fits all the available facts is what happened, a center fuel tank explosion!

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

All good points Jim, re fuel tank explosions I said they were rare I didn't say they never occurred, and before you say Dodo eggs don't exist that was a figure of speech like rocking horse shit.
It it was a navel mistake and the administration wanted to cover it up of course all missiles would be accounted for. A nod and a wink and a six pack to the quartermaster used to get me extra ammo for my SLR.
I agree if it was a terrorist attack by Al Quada they would shout it from the roof tops, but what if it was an Assasination by Mossad or another of our allies, or the CIA?

 

[Keith]

The CIA is an ally? :stunned:

 

[Jim Craik]

I agree if it was a terrorist attack by Al Quada they would shout it from the roof tops, but what if it was an Assasination by Mossad or another of our allies, or the CIA?

Pete,

Yes, It could have been an assassination. A ridiculously complicated, incredabley expensive, very chancy and if caught totally inexcusable! As we all know, bullets at close range are a very effective way of killing.

To kill someone or even a group in this manner is a very complex undertaking, requireing many, many people, much planning and much equipment.

You would have to be very rich and very stupid to evolve a plan this complex and Mossad is not stupid! In fact anyone who had the access to the equipment that you suggest, could not be that stupid!

It was a warm summer evening, just a few miles off Long Island, lots of boats and lots of people. Just imagine, you fire a missile from a boat, the chances of people seeing it are huge!

Folks call the Coast Guard, they say we saw a missile come from that boat, they easily find the boat (hard to dissapear in a boat) and it is full of................

Mossad.........
CIA..............
Terrorists......

Anyone with the type of equipment you suggest would have done this later that night over the dark Atlantic!

Yes they could of had a submarine, they also could of had a spaceship.

In reality launching a missile from a submurged submarine on a summer day, off Long Island, bad idea!


Now as for the witnesses who saw a Missile........................next time on Myth Busters

 

[Bob Fechter]

Well, a gun at close range got real complicated for Vince Foster too. Good point. They learned from that one.