4 ms·

I'm really not convinced, the linchpin of the missile argument is that the CIA and FBI were put in charge to cover up a missile shootdown, but it's pretty well

I'm really not convinced, the linchpin of the missile argument is that the CIA and FBI were put in charge to cover up a missile shootdown, but it's pretty well documented that they were put in charge because it was a suspected terrorist attack. Everything else is circumstantial evidence at best. I'm certainly interested in what shakes out of this court case, but as of right now it just seems like a typical conspiracy theory to me.

leetrout 4y ago
From the paperwork: 45. Two other eyewitnesses, Air National Guard pilots, Captain Christian Baur and Major Frederick “Fritz” Meyer, similarly stated that they witnessed events that indicated a missile struck TWA 800. 46. On the day TWA 800 went down, Captain Baur and Major Meyer were flying in a Black Hawk helicopter near the area of the TWA 800 incident. Captain Baur recalled seeing an object with a “rocket type motor . . . moving quick” toward TWA 800. After the crash, Captain Baur flew to the area and conducted a search and rescue.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  None of that is new. They said that at the time. Dozens/hundreds of witnesses said same. Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before and would know what one looks like.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    In fact many of the witnesses were active duty military and military veterans who knew exactly what a missile looked like.
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      Just like in civilian life, most people in the military are truck mechanics, cooks, and suchlike. Imputing expertise upon such people is misdirection, just the same kind of misdirection this filing is using to impute authority on a person by citing him as "a physicist" and consistently referring to him as "doctor" out of context.
      - sudosysgen 4y ago
        Even truck mechanics, cooks, and the like have plenty of opportunities to see missile launches. EDIT : Missiles are far faster, and crucially, are on fire from the ground up. They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically. They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much is not. They really do look and sound very different. I would expect someone who has seen and heard dozens of launches of that exact missile to be able to make it out quite easily. There are plenty of videos of that online and the difference is quite obvious. Especially someone who is used to this exact model of missile would be able to tell them apart.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Yes, but how many have seen a mid-air explosion of a 747 to compare against? "It looked like a missile" may be entirely true. It may also be true that a burning, rapidly climbing half of a 747 looks a bit like a missile from afar. Re: edit: > Missiles are far faster Speed is notoriously hard to measure visually. Watch a A380 come in for a landing and you'll swear it's barely moving. > are on fire from the ground up Most of the eyewitnesses were over the horizon from any potential launch site. > They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical for a bit with the entire nose missing. > They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much is not. People largely reported hearing an explosion, not a sonic boom.
        avh02 4y ago
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Missiles don't really look any different to what you'd think it would. They look just like very big fireworks until they burn out (and then they are basically invisible, just like fireworks).
  - ErikVandeWater 4y ago
    Pretty sure plenty of people have seen missiles on the evening news at some point in their lives.
    - jonnybgood 4y ago
      Missile launches perhaps, but not missiles in flight.
      - barbacoa 4y ago
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wsujROvXg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wsujROvXg Missile videos like the one above are common. 1996 was soon after the gulf war, tons of missiles were broadcast in the news during that time.
        jeffbee 4y ago
        At the point of impact, 15000 feet in the air and 120 miles downrange, it would not have looked anything like that. The missile would have been in a terminal glide and there would have been a huge trail of smoke all the way back to Philadelphia.
  - 13of40 4y ago
    Ah, I'm finally in my element here. I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles, and there's nothing so unintuitive about them that a layperson would confuse them with, say, a cloud. In other words, it's a thing in the sky with fire and smoke coming out one end, traveling way faster than you would expect. Probably making a loud, high-pitched roar, depending on where you're sitting. I can't imagine 40 people giving the same mistaken testimony. On the other hand, mass hysteria is a thing, so who knows.
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      The witness accounts of the supposed missile cited in the official account all describe the missile as ascending, but to fit the theory of this lawsuit it would have been fired from 120 miles away - let's just ignore that this is far out of the effective range of the rocket in question - and would have appeared to have been travelling horizontally to observers on the ground.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles... How many exploding, breaking-up 747s, though?
      - 13of40 4y ago
        I don't think we ever had the training budget for that.
      - salawat 4y ago
        Come now. If you've seen one detonation compromosing a man made structure, nevermind one that is carefully constructed specifically to repeatedly take off under its own power you've seen about all you need to see.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Quite simply, “that looks like a missile” and “that is a missile” are not the same. Especially from 20+ miles away.
  - synu 4y ago
    I’ve now seen hundreds of missiles striking their targets thanks to the Ukraine war. It looks pretty much exactly like you would guess it looks like.
    - PraetorianGourd 4y ago
      In person or via videos online? I have to imagine a video, where you know ahead of time what the topic content are, is different than mowing the lawn one evening and seeing an explosion with no context or immediate explanation.
  - icehawk 4y ago
    What exactly differentiates a missile from any other sort of rocket, that someone who hadn't seen a missile before would not know what it looks like?
    - jonnybgood 4y ago
      A missile in flight looks like a small aircraft from the ground.
  - tgflynn 4y ago
    > None of that is new. What appears to be new is the claim that they have FOIA documents describing radar tapes that show something hitting the plane. > Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before and would know what one looks like. I think the two Air National Guard officers cited in the parent comment likely had seen missile launches before.
  - fortran77 4y ago
    > Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before and would know what one looks like. I'm very skeptical of these claims, but many, many people--including people on Long Island--have seen missiles. I've seen many, and I've seen them get diverted out of the air by anti-missile systems, and I've seen them strike the ground near me. (This is all from spending at least 4 month/year in Israel over the past 59+ years.)
sonotathrowaway 4y ago
The linchpin of your argument seems to be that we need to believe the official reason given, and that the CIA would never lie to the American public. That sounds naïve to anyone with even a passing familiarity with American history.
- thfuran 4y ago
  Whereas the lynchpin of your argument, inasmuch as there is one, is "pfff, who needs evidence when you can have allegations instead".
  - sonotathrowaway 4y ago
  - tremon 4y ago
    Rather, the linchpin of their argument is "a public explanation given by the CIA carries less weight than no explanation at all".
dTal 4y ago
And why was it a suspected terrorist attack?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  https://www.state.gov/1993-world-trade-center-bombing/ https://www.state.gov/1993-world-trade-center-bombing/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings Because terrorism exists. If there are reports that an aircraft suffered from an explosion while in flight what would you think?
- growse 4y ago
  > And why was it a suspected terrorist attack? Because when a plane explodes with zero warning, or indication of fault, it's the first thing people suspect.
dontknowwhyihn 4y ago
It sounds to me like some legal, social media PR is happening in this case.
Gamecollector 4y ago
> they were put in charge because it was a suspected terrorist attack. Good thing the US government doesn't have a long history of using terrorism as an excuse to expand its own power beyond all reasonable limits. Oh wait...

leetrout 4y ago

From the paperwork: 45. Two other eyewitnesses, Air National Guard pilots, Captain Christian Baur and Major Frederick “Fritz” Meyer, similarly stated that they witnessed events that indicated a missile struck TWA 800. 46. On the day TWA 800 went down, Captain Baur and Major Meyer were flying in a Black Hawk helicopter near the area of the TWA 800 incident. Captain Baur recalled seeing an object with a “rocket type motor . . . moving quick” toward TWA 800. After the crash, Captain Baur flew to the area and conducted a search and rescue.

jeffbee 4y ago
None of that is new. They said that at the time. Dozens/hundreds of witnesses said same. Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before and would know what one looks like.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  In fact many of the witnesses were active duty military and military veterans who knew exactly what a missile looked like.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Just like in civilian life, most people in the military are truck mechanics, cooks, and suchlike. Imputing expertise upon such people is misdirection, just the same kind of misdirection this filing is using to impute authority on a person by citing him as "a physicist" and consistently referring to him as "doctor" out of context.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Even truck mechanics, cooks, and the like have plenty of opportunities to see missile launches. EDIT : Missiles are far faster, and crucially, are on fire from the ground up. They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically. They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much is not. They really do look and sound very different. I would expect someone who has seen and heard dozens of launches of that exact missile to be able to make it out quite easily. There are plenty of videos of that online and the difference is quite obvious. Especially someone who is used to this exact model of missile would be able to tell them apart.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Yes, but how many have seen a mid-air explosion of a 747 to compare against? "It looked like a missile" may be entirely true. It may also be true that a burning, rapidly climbing half of a 747 looks a bit like a missile from afar. Re: edit: > Missiles are far faster Speed is notoriously hard to measure visually. Watch a A380 come in for a landing and you'll swear it's barely moving. > are on fire from the ground up Most of the eyewitnesses were over the horizon from any potential launch site. > They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical for a bit with the entire nose missing. > They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much is not. People largely reported hearing an explosion, not a sonic boom.
        avh02 4y ago
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Missiles don't really look any different to what you'd think it would. They look just like very big fireworks until they burn out (and then they are basically invisible, just like fireworks).
- ErikVandeWater 4y ago
  Pretty sure plenty of people have seen missiles on the evening news at some point in their lives.
  - jonnybgood 4y ago
    Missile launches perhaps, but not missiles in flight.
    - barbacoa 4y ago
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wsujROvXg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wsujROvXg Missile videos like the one above are common. 1996 was soon after the gulf war, tons of missiles were broadcast in the news during that time.
      - jeffbee 4y ago
        At the point of impact, 15000 feet in the air and 120 miles downrange, it would not have looked anything like that. The missile would have been in a terminal glide and there would have been a huge trail of smoke all the way back to Philadelphia.
- 13of40 4y ago
  Ah, I'm finally in my element here. I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles, and there's nothing so unintuitive about them that a layperson would confuse them with, say, a cloud. In other words, it's a thing in the sky with fire and smoke coming out one end, traveling way faster than you would expect. Probably making a loud, high-pitched roar, depending on where you're sitting. I can't imagine 40 people giving the same mistaken testimony. On the other hand, mass hysteria is a thing, so who knows.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    The witness accounts of the supposed missile cited in the official account all describe the missile as ascending, but to fit the theory of this lawsuit it would have been fired from 120 miles away - let's just ignore that this is far out of the effective range of the rocket in question - and would have appeared to have been travelling horizontally to observers on the ground.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles... How many exploding, breaking-up 747s, though?
    - 13of40 4y ago
      I don't think we ever had the training budget for that.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Come now. If you've seen one detonation compromosing a man made structure, nevermind one that is carefully constructed specifically to repeatedly take off under its own power you've seen about all you need to see.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Quite simply, “that looks like a missile” and “that is a missile” are not the same. Especially from 20+ miles away.
- synu 4y ago
  I’ve now seen hundreds of missiles striking their targets thanks to the Ukraine war. It looks pretty much exactly like you would guess it looks like.
  - PraetorianGourd 4y ago
    In person or via videos online? I have to imagine a video, where you know ahead of time what the topic content are, is different than mowing the lawn one evening and seeing an explosion with no context or immediate explanation.
- icehawk 4y ago
  What exactly differentiates a missile from any other sort of rocket, that someone who hadn't seen a missile before would not know what it looks like?
  - jonnybgood 4y ago
    A missile in flight looks like a small aircraft from the ground.
- tgflynn 4y ago
  > None of that is new. What appears to be new is the claim that they have FOIA documents describing radar tapes that show something hitting the plane. > Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before and would know what one looks like. I think the two Air National Guard officers cited in the parent comment likely had seen missile launches before.
- fortran77 4y ago
  > Exactly zero of whom have ever seen a missile before and would know what one looks like. I'm very skeptical of these claims, but many, many people--including people on Long Island--have seen missiles. I've seen many, and I've seen them get diverted out of the air by anti-missile systems, and I've seen them strike the ground near me. (This is all from spending at least 4 month/year in Israel over the past 59+ years.)

sonotathrowaway 4y ago

The linchpin of your argument seems to be that we need to believe the official reason given, and that the CIA would never lie to the American public. That sounds naïve to anyone with even a passing familiarity with American history.

thfuran 4y ago
Whereas the lynchpin of your argument, inasmuch as there is one, is "pfff, who needs evidence when you can have allegations instead".
- sonotathrowaway 4y ago
- tremon 4y ago
  Rather, the linchpin of their argument is "a public explanation given by the CIA carries less weight than no explanation at all".

dTal 4y ago

And why was it a suspected terrorist attack?

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
https://www.state.gov/1993-world-trade-center-bombing/ https://www.state.gov/1993-world-trade-center-bombing/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings Because terrorism exists. If there are reports that an aircraft suffered from an explosion while in flight what would you think?
growse 4y ago
> And why was it a suspected terrorist attack? Because when a plane explodes with zero warning, or indication of fault, it's the first thing people suspect.

dontknowwhyihn 4y ago

It sounds to me like some legal, social media PR is happening in this case.

Gamecollector 4y ago

> they were put in charge because it was a suspected terrorist attack. Good thing the US government doesn't have a long history of using terrorism as an excuse to expand its own power beyond all reasonable limits. Oh wait...