This is fascinating and further cements why no sane person who has read a smattering of the CIA's history should ever trust what it does or its methods. It is a rogue agency in the truest sense of the word.
They had Osama bin Laden on their payroll from 1978 to 1998 and tried to lure him back into the fold in 2001 when they had a $5 million reward for his capture. They always knew where he was. A pox on Bush, Rumsfeld and Panetta.
Keep at it, Jack. You will get there. It took Michelangelo three years to chip away enough marble to create the statue of David, and he wasn't fighting the CIA, FBI and NSTB. It'll take you longer, but tenacity guarantees a win.
I suppose the passage of time is the CIA’s best friend. Jack Cashill sure isn’t. But as the author notes in these comments, what is the U.S. Navy’s role and response to all this obfuscation ?? There must be records of all the U.S. Navy ships equipped with surface-to-air missiles within a 15-25 miles radius of the detonation.
I listened to one caller account after another from am770 WABC New York describing the same thing from my car radio in Michigan that night. Something that resembled a missile streaked across the sky and struck Flight 800 resulting in an explosion and the airliner breaking apart and falling into the ocean. Why was a coverup necessary?
What exactly was their reasoning that a plane which lost the front part of its fuselage could climb another 3,000 feet? I have a private pilot license and know a little bit about airplanes. Military aircraft such as fighters are the only planes that possess the excess horsepower to overcome the crippling effects of structural failure and continue to fly (the Israeli top gun who landed his jet with one wing after the other wing broke off due to a midair collision is crazy evidence for raw power making up for a loss of aerodynamic lift: https://youtu.be/wxJcEz3h4tU?si=V7dzat6jRQoH_mhX). There’s also the problem regarding how a normally powered airplane climbs. A pilot doesn’t “pull back” on the yoke, You leave the trim alone and increase power. You do the opposite to descend. With a fuel tank explosion there would be zero chance those four thirsty turbofans would have instantly shut down with no climbing ability that would carry the plane a 1/2 mile higher (along with several miles further they’d be covering over the ocean). Maybe I’m missing something, but it sounds like what might happen to a balloon if it lost a good portion of its ballast, not a heavier than air plane that requires propulsion to stay in the air.
But what do I know? These IC analysts are the best and brightest recruited from our Ivy League universities.
I suppose the passage of time is the CIA’s best friend. Jack Cashill sure isn’t. But as the author notes in these comments, what is the U.S. Navy’s role and response to all this obfuscation ?? There must be records of all the U.S. Navy ships equipped with surface-to-air missiles within a 15-25 miles radius of the detonation.
"While I ponder weak and weary", a number of questions this unconvinced person would like answered:
1. What Navy vessel allegedly fired the missile?
2. What type of missile was it?
3. What evidence was found on the fuselage and interior of the plane that would clearly demonstrate a missile strike?
4. Why would Clinton, with an almost insurmountable lead in the presidential polls, attempt an enormous coverup rather than fess up to a Navy screwup? (See key examples of corporation and political crisis management for examples of how such a crisis would work in Clinton's favor.)
5. Why has not a single crew member on the navy vessel alleged to have shot the missile (or anyone in all of the government involved) ever come forward under oath either in person or anonymously? What is the probability of such silence continuing for thousands of people for 29 years?
6. Given the number of witnesses who claimed to see a streak of light/missile/rocket ascending to shoot down TWA 800, has the government or any independent individual group/individual ever triangulated the reports to precisely pinpoint the origin?
7. This missile strike theory is ripe for investigation. Why hasn't any (MSM or otherwise) investigative journalist ever pursued this line of inquiry?
8. For those that put their faith in eyewitness testimony--two things: Check out the number of death row inmates freed by DNA analysis after being convicted by eyewitness testimony. Also, watch the next little video and see how you do--https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8hXDJaj/
While I applaud my brother for his research, writing ability and, most definitely, his stick-to-it-tivness, I'm still not convinced.
Sounds like a tough family relationship. I’m not convinced on the Navy participation part, but the fuel tank explosion, the odd explanation of the post explosion aircraft behavior, and stories like the FBI agent who apparently never interviewed the witness (and the discrepancies between interview one and two) as discussed in this post are enough to raise doubts about the official narrative. A shoulder launched anti-aircraft missile can reach the altitude the 747 was flying; you can’t keep a frigate or destroyer’s crew quiet, but a handful of well trained operatives?
Some of your questions aren’t pertinent. As much as you might want to know certain details, like what kind of missile, it’s neither here nor there to the central question. As for evidence in the plane itself, if any, no one was let near the wreckage except those controlling the investigation. Sure, eyewitnesses are unreliable. But in your example, they fail to see what is there, rather than making something up that isn’t.
Knowing the type of missile would give an indication of the explosives involved and the effect on the fuselage. The people who picked up the wreckage from the ocean saw the plane parts as well as countless others. I seriously doubt that someone high up called a meeting to tell people to lie. The thesis of the video is to show how the eyes can be easily be deceived...https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2020/03/08/eyewitness-testimony-reliable-or-unreliable/
All of my comments are pertinent. Answer them and I might by into yhe arguments presented. Your "tut-tutting" is the typical response to difficult questions.
This is fascinating and further cements why no sane person who has read a smattering of the CIA's history should ever trust what it does or its methods. It is a rogue agency in the truest sense of the word.
They had Osama bin Laden on their payroll from 1978 to 1998 and tried to lure him back into the fold in 2001 when they had a $5 million reward for his capture. They always knew where he was. A pox on Bush, Rumsfeld and Panetta.
Aye a bloody pox.
Keep at it, Jack. You will get there. It took Michelangelo three years to chip away enough marble to create the statue of David, and he wasn't fighting the CIA, FBI and NSTB. It'll take you longer, but tenacity guarantees a win.
I suppose the passage of time is the CIA’s best friend. Jack Cashill sure isn’t. But as the author notes in these comments, what is the U.S. Navy’s role and response to all this obfuscation ?? There must be records of all the U.S. Navy ships equipped with surface-to-air missiles within a 15-25 miles radius of the detonation.
I listened to one caller account after another from am770 WABC New York describing the same thing from my car radio in Michigan that night. Something that resembled a missile streaked across the sky and struck Flight 800 resulting in an explosion and the airliner breaking apart and falling into the ocean. Why was a coverup necessary?
Good question? Maybe there wasn't one.
So, the government chooses an extremely complicated cover-up, rather than just tell the fykin truth. Some things never change.
Just like with Epstein!
Exactly.
Truth involves facts, not fabrications like magic bullets or, in TWA 800’s case, magic fuel tanks.
Truth is also extremely durable: it has no statute of limitations.
What exactly was their reasoning that a plane which lost the front part of its fuselage could climb another 3,000 feet? I have a private pilot license and know a little bit about airplanes. Military aircraft such as fighters are the only planes that possess the excess horsepower to overcome the crippling effects of structural failure and continue to fly (the Israeli top gun who landed his jet with one wing after the other wing broke off due to a midair collision is crazy evidence for raw power making up for a loss of aerodynamic lift: https://youtu.be/wxJcEz3h4tU?si=V7dzat6jRQoH_mhX). There’s also the problem regarding how a normally powered airplane climbs. A pilot doesn’t “pull back” on the yoke, You leave the trim alone and increase power. You do the opposite to descend. With a fuel tank explosion there would be zero chance those four thirsty turbofans would have instantly shut down with no climbing ability that would carry the plane a 1/2 mile higher (along with several miles further they’d be covering over the ocean). Maybe I’m missing something, but it sounds like what might happen to a balloon if it lost a good portion of its ballast, not a heavier than air plane that requires propulsion to stay in the air.
But what do I know? These IC analysts are the best and brightest recruited from our Ivy League universities.
I suppose the passage of time is the CIA’s best friend. Jack Cashill sure isn’t. But as the author notes in these comments, what is the U.S. Navy’s role and response to all this obfuscation ?? There must be records of all the U.S. Navy ships equipped with surface-to-air missiles within a 15-25 miles radius of the detonation.
After 29 years the ships name and crew roster should have been known.
Holy cow. I thought I was cynical enough, but apparently not.
"While I ponder weak and weary", a number of questions this unconvinced person would like answered:
1. What Navy vessel allegedly fired the missile?
2. What type of missile was it?
3. What evidence was found on the fuselage and interior of the plane that would clearly demonstrate a missile strike?
4. Why would Clinton, with an almost insurmountable lead in the presidential polls, attempt an enormous coverup rather than fess up to a Navy screwup? (See key examples of corporation and political crisis management for examples of how such a crisis would work in Clinton's favor.)
5. Why has not a single crew member on the navy vessel alleged to have shot the missile (or anyone in all of the government involved) ever come forward under oath either in person or anonymously? What is the probability of such silence continuing for thousands of people for 29 years?
6. Given the number of witnesses who claimed to see a streak of light/missile/rocket ascending to shoot down TWA 800, has the government or any independent individual group/individual ever triangulated the reports to precisely pinpoint the origin?
7. This missile strike theory is ripe for investigation. Why hasn't any (MSM or otherwise) investigative journalist ever pursued this line of inquiry?
8. For those that put their faith in eyewitness testimony--two things: Check out the number of death row inmates freed by DNA analysis after being convicted by eyewitness testimony. Also, watch the next little video and see how you do--https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8hXDJaj/
While I applaud my brother for his research, writing ability and, most definitely, his stick-to-it-tivness, I'm still not convinced.
Sounds like a tough family relationship. I’m not convinced on the Navy participation part, but the fuel tank explosion, the odd explanation of the post explosion aircraft behavior, and stories like the FBI agent who apparently never interviewed the witness (and the discrepancies between interview one and two) as discussed in this post are enough to raise doubts about the official narrative. A shoulder launched anti-aircraft missile can reach the altitude the 747 was flying; you can’t keep a frigate or destroyer’s crew quiet, but a handful of well trained operatives?
Never tough, just interesting.
Some of your questions aren’t pertinent. As much as you might want to know certain details, like what kind of missile, it’s neither here nor there to the central question. As for evidence in the plane itself, if any, no one was let near the wreckage except those controlling the investigation. Sure, eyewitnesses are unreliable. But in your example, they fail to see what is there, rather than making something up that isn’t.
Knowing the type of missile would give an indication of the explosives involved and the effect on the fuselage. The people who picked up the wreckage from the ocean saw the plane parts as well as countless others. I seriously doubt that someone high up called a meeting to tell people to lie. The thesis of the video is to show how the eyes can be easily be deceived...https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2020/03/08/eyewitness-testimony-reliable-or-unreliable/
All of my comments are pertinent. Answer them and I might by into yhe arguments presented. Your "tut-tutting" is the typical response to difficult questions.