Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) conspiracy is the first and primary cause, before any evidence available
2) all evidence is sifted to ensure 1 is not called into question using confirmation bias
3) extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence are the norm
US navy had a live fire exercise
THEN US navy locked onto a commercial jet
THEN us navy fired
THEN US Navy and crew covered it up
THEN the FAA, FBI, and Media went along with it
THEN the crew of the Navy ship went along with it
It requires a huge house of cards
And the six original govt investigators described in the OP said none of those things.
Thanks for emphasizing that they are NOT "conspiracy nuts".
I always thought the US Navy accidentally shot the plane down and then we had a cover up. With recent revelations we've learned that the feds are capable of lying and hiding the truth.
US navy had a live fire exercise
THEN US navy locked onto a commercial jet
THEN us navy fired
BTW, for what reason have you left out the possibility that the Navy might have fired at a normal dummy target, then the missile detected a big blip overhead with four nice, hot engines, and turned and went after that instead?
Still highly unlikely, as I said earlier - I don't see how the Navy, or any Navy, could do a live fire in a heavily traveled commercial zone without coordinating with all ATC facilities AND sweeping the sky for a hundred miles around with radar to ensure there were NO aircraft operating in the vicinity... or that the HUNDREDS of people involved in such a scenario, could later achieve a perfect, 100% score for keeping their mouths completely shut about so monstrous a thing for 17 years.
ANY scenario involving the US Navy, requires such a long string of unlikely mistakes and screwups, as to make the possibility vanishingly small.
Alsmost as small as the chance of an internal spark in a fuel tank.
The article I read seemed to indicated they examined the wreck when working but were not investigators really. Like of sounds like they were like a beat patrolmen at a murder scene. Also they disagreed with not one investigation teams that based much of their finding on evidence by examination by experts I lab; not the eyeball. Happens all the time with witnesses and investigators theories based on observation versus scientific testing of evidence.
And the six original govt investigators described in the OP said none of those things.
Thanks for emphasizing that they are NOT "conspiracy nuts".
Some of the replies on this thread are amazing. Do people realize that the people coming forward were PART of the accident investigation team? I put much more credibility in to their opinions than any of the people crying "conspiracy theory!!".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
