Posted by Rod on August 29, 19100 at 21:08:06:
Let us start off by asking, What happened to your cargo door theory, Elmer?
You spent four years peddling that technically contrived concoction on the net and now you seem to have no interest in that anymore.
Your corazon.com effort was transparent at best.
And that effort, connected to your input on TWA 800 discussion forums, is tantamount to a cover-up in itself. The same source purporting two different theories for the same famous disaster under two different guises.
What does that spell? It spells disinformation.
The fact that the short-circuit theory was intricately connected to an internet entity that peddled the contrary cargo-door angle, is tantalizing insight into the deliberate falsehood of the fuel tank theory and, consequently, with any government body that adopts it.
Your corazon efforts did much to cement the idea that the short-circuit theory was borne from a cover-up.
If two different stories come from the same source, then the source must be corrupt. And corruption "covers-up" itself where as is needed.
But let us discuss the issue at hand.
The term "cover-up" may contain a connotation of paranoia to some. To me it doesn't. A cover-up is exactly that. And any investigative officials of the TWA 800 case who claim which conviction that there is no evidence of a projectile strike, are part of that cover-up themselves. Considering, you see, that there is no evidence of anything other than a missile hitting that plane.
We know that there is no evidence of a short-circuit hitting it.
The missile theory has done its part. It provided reams of eyewitness evidence. In legalese, this is called preponderance of the evidence. And so by this preponderance of the evidence, that 747 was struck by a projectile.
Then, by default of logic, the burden of proof now rests with those that wish to fault the eyesight of several hundred people.
In a court of law, criminal or tort, that would be how a judge would rule if this case was malleable enough to be tried in a court of law under similar circumstances and elements.
The burden of proof now rests with those who wish to purport a short-circuit theory.
But there is no contrary evidence of a short-circuit.
Yet the official report concluded that against the preponderance of the available evidence, the cause was a short-circuit.
Illogical. In a court of law, that "decision" would be overturned on technical merits alone.
When an institution under executive control, not judicial or legislative, adopts a formal conclusion at odds with logic, there is only one reason for doing so.
And the reason is not stupidity.
The reason is cover-up. The very same phrase you claim is controversial among those who have adopted the logical position with respect to the available evidence, is the only phrase the fits.
I, myself, come to this issue with no bias. I have no quarrel with the US government, any of its agencies, nor any of its policies or aims.
I am not even an American.
Nor do I believe there is anything sinister in a cover-up of this nature. It serves a legitmate political purpose. A purpose it seems, which has been deemed much bigger than the mere truth of the technical details of why 230 people died prematurely.
I arrived at my belief, not from political highways, but from four pedestrian avenues:
1) The logic of the missile theory technicals.
2) The understandable reason for an official denial.
3) The lack of any evidence proving any other theory, i.e., short-circuit.
4) The preponderance of the available eyewitness evidence supplied to me, by none other than the mainstream press.
The only element that works in favor of the cover-up is that some of those who support that contention, do so for their own political reasons, none of which having anything to do with a desire to revealing truth for the sake of it.
They are the subculture of American politics, right-wing malcontents ever suspicious of the US government, believing it to be under the control of foreign influences and heading into the direction of armageddon.
Anarchists believe all government to be fundamentally tainted by evil aims. Yet it is their political agenda which taints the search for honesty by all the rest who seek only the truth, irrespective of politics, and nothing more.
For those people, TWA 800 is an opportunity to shout old slogans.
For the rest of us, TWA 800 is another example of poltical expediency purchased at the cost of truth.
Not a slogan. A story as old as politics itself.
Philosphically, none of us is guaranteed any length of life. Everyone who travels takes a certain risk of shortening it. But the risks are supposed to be inherent ones that are accepted at face value. If one is killed in such an activity, then that is the random injustice of fate itself.
That we must accept.
But that random injustice of fate, should not be compounded by the insult of death mislabeled simply because doing so facilitates a political need of those who get to label the headstones.
That we can not accept.
If they must suffer the indignity of a horrible death, at least let the dead have the truth written in their epitaphs of why they suffered this indignity. Then everyting is in balance again.
Some truths are sacred. And should not be impinged at the expense of expediency, no matter how pressing that need or how powerful the needful.
Some truths are more important than the diplomacy of the moment. And few things call out for truth more than a dead man buried before his time.
What happened to TWA 800, is one of those truths.
Rod