Posted by Busted on September 23, 19100 at 07:05:03:
In Reply to: To: All Cmdr. Donaldson Supporters posted by The Navy Did It on September 23, 19100 at 06:15:46:
Everyone should read "The Case of Witness 649" on Donaldson's home page (twa800.com). This witness watches the "smoke trail" rise up initially at a 90 degree angle (vertical - straight up). A shoulder fired stinger missile would not be fired at a 90 degree angle. Maybe 45 or 60 degrees but certainly not at a 90 degree angle. A missile fired from a Navy surface ship or submerged submarine CAN have an initial 90 degree angle of climb. Also, everyone needs to visit "The Drone Faxes" at the following url web address: (http://www.multipull.com/twacasefile/marnews.html). This web site describes "a resident who mistakenly received faxes of official documents related to the federal TWA Flight 800 investigation". The web site also states "the fax, actually multiple faxed pages, concerns rear structures of a drone aircraft Teledyne Ryan manufactures for the U.S. military: the Firebee drone". It's time for Donaldson to investigate the U.S. Navy.
(The following was posted by acehai):
From the Art Bell show 12-01-98 I quote a certain revered retired Naval Commander.
"The one thing that I do want to address about the redeye and the stinger is that I don't think that either one of those missiles could have possibly been the culpret here because they have tiny warheads. They're very small and they're obviously designed to be shoulder fired. You couldn't put a nine hundred pound missile on your shoulder and launch it. But you could disguise something like that very easily on a boat, under a lifeboat, or a life raft, unmask it and fire it when you're in range. So, I just wanted to say that it's not likely that it's a shoulder fired heat seeker cause it would have to be the golden beebee to even get to the altitude number one. And when it got there about the best it would do is cripple one engine. The pilot would turn around and go back and land and probably everybody would have been fine.
Bell: -So it would take a lot more explosive power?
Donaldson - Oh yeah, what I,m looking at in this debris field is far more than what you're going to get out of a kerosene pop in a tank, or a shoulder fired, small little missile.
Then he said:"There are people on Long Island that very firmly believe that the Navy was involved, and that maybe even the Army was in it, and a whole bunch of other folks. But I can't find the evidence and I trust the people that I was in the service with. I mean I personally know the chief of Naval operations. I haven't talked to him about this. But, that's all I can tell you. I know I'm an ex-Naval officer and it sounds like I'm making excuses if you believe the military's involved...'
He also said: "As to the first part, that book had a large leap in logic on that military exercise. There just isn't any real evidence that that occurred, that there was a big military exercise out there."
...and topped it off with: there's no facts that support any military activity of any significance that you could put your finger on. Now there were some submarines operating within that area, but basically our submarines don't have those kind of weapons onboard. I never seriously considered this, once I talked to the chief of staff down in Norfolk. I mean I know the guy socially and he said, hey we had a cruiser about a hundred and thirty miles out and they were coming home. They were out of range. We just didn't have any assets in the area. There was a P3 airborne in the area that shows up on the radar tapes and so on. Remember, I'm a naval officer. I'm in retirement as a regular officer. I could be recalled tomorrow if the commander in chief said he wanted to do that."
One final item: He said "And the way to do it would be to use a ship..."
I suggest we all review the Rules of Disinformation (which I so thoughtfully posted for Rod's benefit) in the light of the foregoing statements and the ensueing push for 'terrorists with shoulder fired MANPADS in speedboats' and see which ones could concieveably apply. Then for credibility, apply the old 'duck' test. I submit that the frenzied swoosh of a feathered creature with web feet paddling through the water accompanied by strident quacking will be deafening.