TWA flight 800

reply to post by theability


Look up the "logic" defintion of complete.

Anyway, the point is, there was an investigation, as far as I know the investigation is still open and ongoing, however, the areas where you are most concerned, looking for thermite or explosives or nukes at ground zero - well that is "complete" because it was completely uncalled for.

reply to post by theability


Look up the "logic" defintion of complete.

Anyway, the point is, there was an investigation, as far as I know the investigation is still open and ongoing, however, the areas where you are most concerned, looking for thermite or explosives or nukes at ground zero - well that is "complete" because it was completely uncalled for.

reply to post by hooper



Please share with me your credentials of how you know what the "Complete and accurate investigation of all the evidence should be considered?"

You keep trying symantecs with me, this isn't going to work.

There was undermining, defalsifying and defamation of evidence that was for the cover-up. It doesn't take a Phd to figure this out.

But please by all means share with me how you should do a complete and accurate investigation in the flight 800 situation. Will that include leaving testimony out?

I am listening to your expertise! Please share!

reply to post by theability


Just because someone "testifies" doesn't mean it must be investigated. Hell, I could "testify" with regard to Flight 800. I mean, I was nowhere near the crash site, never saw the plane, didn't know anyone on the flight, live hundreds of miles away, but lets say I "testify" that I had a dream and saw a spaceship blow the plane out of the sky - does that mean that the investigation is incomplete until my testimony is part of the report and my dream is thoroughly investigated?

reply to post by hooper

Just because someone "testifies" doesn't mean it must be investigated.

Except when many individuals see missiles fly up and the plane explodes!

Right? If you had family members on board and information like this was around you'd be upset that it was burried as well!

reply to post by theability


So in your mind the investigation is not "complete" until they are proven to be correct?

reply to post by hooper

So in your mind the investigation is not "complete" until they are proven to be correct?

Well again if your family was on that plane you'd want the evidence all the evidence to be included, correct? The claims were substantial that missile were involved and to discredit those claims they used tactics of claiming the persons that observed and Photographed the streaks of light to the sky, by saying they are drug addicts, drunks or hallucinations!

Now that is a debunkers agenda right?

Now isn't it interseting that the claims of the center tank exploding and the inert systems that should be invoked, haven't been included in new designs?

Originally posted by hooper
Just because someone "testifies" doesn't mean it must be investigated.

What ths difference between the flight 800 witnesses and the flight 77 or 93 witnesses?

Seems like you are picking and choosing what witnesses are real witnesses and which are not.

reply to post by REMISNE

What ths difference between the flight 800 witnesses and the flight 77 or 93 witnesses?

Seems like you are picking and choosing what witnesses are real witnesses and which are not.

Awesome response!!!

Originally posted by theability
Awesome response!!!

Thanks, someone has to keep it real.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Just because someone "testifies" doesn't mean it must be investigated.

What ths difference between the flight 800 witnesses and the flight 77 or 93 witnesses?

Seems like you are picking and choosing what witnesses are real witnesses and which are not.

Flight 93 and Flight 77 witnesses testimony and the Flight 800 witnesses. What evidence does anyone have that these testimonies were not considered in the investigation?

Originally posted by hooper
Flight 93 and Flight 77 witnesses testimony and the Flight 800 witnesses. What evidence does anyone have that these testimonies were not considered in the investigation?

Your the one who seems to have a problem with the flight 800 witnesses who stated they saw a missile

Originally posted by theability


You keep trying symantecs with me, this isn't going to work.

Can I just ask what is a "symantec" (besides being a software company) and how can it be applied to someone?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Flight 93 and Flight 77 witnesses testimony and the Flight 800 witnesses. What evidence does anyone have that these testimonies were not considered in the investigation?

Your the one who seems to have a problem with the flight 800 witnesses who stated they saw a missile

To tell the truth, I don't remember all that much about the Flight 800 situation and I really don't feel like looking it all up and reading all the material. Suffice it to say, I believe the witnesses made remarks to those effects, you know about it so its no big secret and if you know about it then I am sure the governing investigative bodies heard about it and the fact that the cause of the crash was ultimately non attibuted to a "missile shoot down" is not, in of itself, evidence that the witnesses were ignored or there was some grand conspiracy.

I know everyone else here abides by the definition of "complete" meaning the same as "agrees with my pet conspiracy scenario" with regard to investigations, but that is not how it works in the real world. In the real world not every suggestion about possible alternative conclusions is a mandate to apply unlimited resources until the metaphysically impossible standard of proving a negative, that is to say that something did not happen, has been fully and unanimously acheived and approved by every citizen and person with access to the internet.

reply to post by trebor451


I am sorry I have been "misspelling the word"

Definitions of semantics on the Web:

•the study of language meaning
•the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text; "a petty argument about semantics"

I am only human!

Originally posted by hooper
In the real world not every suggestion about possible alternative conclusions is a mandate to apply unlimited resources until the metaphysically impossible standard of proving a negative, that is to say that something did not happen, has been fully and unanimously acheived and approved by every citizen and person with access to the internet.

Probelm is that people also seem to have a problem with the fact that a criminal investigation means a complete investigation and every asspect must be investigated not just what they believe happened.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
In the real world not every suggestion about possible alternative conclusions is a mandate to apply unlimited resources until the metaphysically impossible standard of proving a negative, that is to say that something did not happen, has been fully and unanimously acheived and approved by every citizen and person with access to the internet.

Probelm is that people also seem to have a problem with the fact that a criminal investigation means a complete investigation and every asspect must be investigated not just what they believe happened.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by REMISNE]

What do you mean "every aspect"? That sounds almost exactly what I just said; that an investigation can be considered complete even thought not every citizen with access to the internet may agree.

Originally posted by hooper
What do you mean "every aspect"? That sounds almost exactly what I just said; that an investigation can be considered complete even thought not every citizen with access to the internet may agree.

Simple, it means that a criminal investigation is done by a certain set of rules and regulations to cover any and all possible reasons for the crime scene.

But as stated many times we have not seen proof of a completed criminal investigation.

reply to post by REMISNE

Simple, it means that a criminal investigation is done by a certain set of rules and regulations to cover any and all possible reasons for the crime scene.

I was going to ask you for something to back up the above statement, however, the statement is apparently so preposterous that I am sure you are regretting saying something so ridiculous.

Really, you think investigatory agencies are obligated to continue "investigating" until they have disproven every possible permutation that may have contributed to the physical conditions that are observed?

Originally posted by hooper
Really, you think investigatory agencies are obligated to continue "investigating" until they have disproven every possible permutation that may have contributed to the physical conditions that are observed?

No, and thats not what i stated.

Please look up what a criminal investigation is if you do not know.