Posted by Michael Hull on September 10, 19100 at 07:02:48:
In Reply to: Re: "That is what we call a bandwagon" posted by rod on September 10, 19100 at 04:03:56:
: These are facts? This is the highly charged rhetoric of the Egyptians, whose bias in this case was quite obvious from the beginning.
: Indeed, this is what we call the bandwagon. Even to compare the two is outrageous.
: You can't ride two wagons at the same time, Michael. If you are going to be faithful to the TWA 800 cause, then stay focused on the facts.
: I suspect, however, that unlike most of the members of this board, you are motivated mostly by politics. Which is sad really. Because that is exactly the human failing of those who have perpetrated this TWA cover-up since day 1.
: Politics first. Truth last, if need be.
: Rod
Rod:
1) TWA 800 WAS part of a bigger series of attacks in the NY Metropolitan area. I have presented a lot of evidence to support this position on my website. The facts are that it is the Egyptians who are insisting that the three pilots (British, German and Jordanian) be interviewed. This can be clear up in quick time once the pilots are interviewed. The two eyewitnesses on the ground were placed into the same category as the TWA 800 eyewitnesses were by one of the NTSB members at the recent hearing when he insinuated they were inebriated.
2) I saw a missile launched under the flight track out of Newark prior to the TWA 800 downing. This proves to me personally that TWA 800 was part of a wider picture.
3) The facts are that the radar tapes in the Egyptair 990 have been seen by experts who say there are high speed objects on those tapes approaching 990. The government refuses to release the tapes. (We have the same situation with the radar tapes in TWA 800).
4) SwissAIR 111 lost all radio contact with the East Coast controllers as it past over the spot where TWA 800 was down. On the FDR the pilots were keying their microphones trying to make contact with the controllers. The Canadian NTSB is looking at a lighting strike as a possible explanation - I say they need also to look at a possible nearby missile explosion.
5) Of course I am motivated by "politics". State-sponsored terrorism is state-sponsored politics! So if I have developed a case for state-sponsored terrorism why should I not present the politics that drives it? Was the bombing of the World Trade Center state-sponsored terrorism? If yes then "truth" and "politics" are one and the same.
6) Your opinion of what is "outrageous" may be of great value to you in keeping your thinking with the TWA 800 box - so be it. The problem that I have with comments like this is that they are opinion-based ad hominem comments. If you want to participate in a pursuit of the truth, then let's keep the personal biases of what is, or is not, "outrageous" our of the debate.
Now I will pose to you the same question I have posed to others and which no-one including yourself wants to address.
In "The Tale of the Tapes" at
http://members.aol.com/bardonia2/tapes.htm
I provide FAA recordings and transcripts of several missile incidents in the NY metropolitan area both prior to and after the TWA 800. How do YOU explain these incidents? Or are you and others going to avoid this question and hide behind the assertion that we have to "stay focused on the facts"?
But then I suspect you and others haven't bothered to listen to the tapes or read the transcripts because they belong to another "bandwagon"!
Regards
Michael