TWA flight 800, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 29-4-2010 @ 12:27 PM by hooper

Originally posted by REMISNE

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.

Then please explain to me what the other possible meanings are for this statement of yours:

"....to cover any and all possible reasons for the crime scene."

If we were to apply your standards then we would still be trying to figure out what happened to Able.

reply posted on 29-4-2010 @ 01:07 PM by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
If we were to apply your standards then we would still be trying to figure out what happened to Able.

If you do not know the 9/11 criminal investigation is still ongoing.

As statad a hundred times now. A proper investigation must be done.

reply posted on 29-4-2010 @ 02:00 PM by hooper

reply to post by REMISNE

Yes, I know the investigation is still ongoing, it is one of the many reasons why the FBI, among others, doesn't send you copies of all their reports.

And then that should end this - you say its still ongoing, and as a self-professed expert in criminal investigation procedures you know they will not release information from an open investigation and if it is still ongoing then that should satisfy your standards of investigating "any and all reasons".

So the investigation is proper and the information is properly secured, that should make you happy, right?

reply posted on 29-4-2010 @ 07:59 PM by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Yes, I know the investigation is still ongoing, it is one of the many reasons why the FBI, among others, doesn't send you copies of all their reports.

So the investigation is proper and the information is properly secured, that should make you happy, right?

No, as stated before we have no information that a proper investigation is being done.

reply posted on 29-4-2010 @ 08:33 PM by mikellmikell

800 Was a training mistake the gov asked Boeing to take the heat and they would make it right with them. Yes guy worked with us was a little closer to the plane afterwards than he wanted to be. It was an out of the blue statement then nothing more.

reply posted on 30-4-2010 @ 12:23 AM by REMISNE

Originally posted by mikellmikell
800 Was a training mistake the gov asked Boeing to take the heat and they would make it right with them.

Do you have sources for this?

reply posted on 30-4-2010 @ 07:27 AM by hooper

reply to post by REMISNE

No, as stated before we have no information that a proper investigation is being done.

You realize at this point that statement has no meaning, you have openly admitted that the investigation is still ongoing and yet you are passing judgement as if the final product has been produced and submitted for your review and approval.

You also have no "proof" that the investigation is not being conducted properly and as an expert in law enforcement procedures you should know that agency do not release raw data, information or speculation during an ongoing investigation. So what is your complaint?

On the one hand you insist that they follow what you describe as standard regulations and protocol and on the other hand you insist that they breech that protocol by prematurely releasing information. And when they refuse to run an improper investigation, you then accuse them of running an improper investigation. Make up your mind.

reply posted on 30-4-2010 @ 09:21 AM by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You realize at this point that statement has no meaning, you have openly admitted that the investigation is still ongoing and yet you are passing judgement as if the final product has been produced and submitted for your review and approval.

I am passing judgment on what we have so far and what we cannot get but should be able to.

On the one hand you insist that they follow what you describe as standard regulations and protocol and on the other hand you insist that they breech that protocol by prematurely releasing information.

No, i only insist they give us what we should be able to get.

reply posted on 30-4-2010 @ 10:44 AM by hooper

reply to post by REMISNE

You insist that it is an ongoing investigation - why therefore would you expect them to release information prematurely in direct conflict with standard protocol?

We all know that law enforcement does not release data about ongoing investigation, but in this case you want them to make an exception, so if they make an exception and prematurely release the information then they will be subject to accusations of running an improper investigation.

Again, make up your mind. Do you want a "proper" investigation or not?

reply posted on 30-4-2010 @ 12:04 PM by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You insist that it is an ongoing investigation - why therefore would you expect them to release information prematurely in direct conflict with standard protocol?

Gee, how many ways can i say it that you can understand a simple thing such as getting to information that should be released that DOES NOT conflict with standard protocol?

reply posted on 6-5-2010 @ 01:21 PM by agenten

reply posted on 7-5-2010 @ 06:47 AM by REMISNE

Originally posted by REMISNE
Gee, how many ways can i say it that you can understand a simple thing such as getting to information that should be released that DOES NOT conflict with standard protocol?

Bumped, waiting for an answer.

reply posted on 7-5-2010 @ 07:50 AM by hooper

reply to post by REMISNE

I guess we are now going by the "REMISNE's rules for criminal investigation" wherein it is proper and correct to release information from ongoing investigations if that information is requested by anonymous posters on internet forums.

reply posted on 7-5-2010 @ 11:30 PM by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
I guess we are now going by the "REMISNE's rules for criminal investigation" wherein it is proper and correct to release information from ongoing investigations if that information is requested by anonymous posters on internet forums.

Gee i can see and everyone else can how little you know about the real world.

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 05:46 PM by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

reply to post by johnathanalexanderpike

As far as the Egyptian military, no, that wasn't the plane. TWA800 was on route to France, the majority of victims being French and American. But yes, there were many ground witnesses who say they saw a missile or a bright streak fly up and hit the plane.

There were certain suspicous intercepts and communications from certain terrorist groups in the Middle East before and right after the attacks.

reply posted on 22-6-2011 @ 12:19 AM by AGWskeptic

Terrorists take credit for everything they do, it's the whole point of terrorism for gods sake. So there is no way it was terrorism.

But everything I've seen points to a Navy training missle.

There is so much information out there now that I'm kind of shocked the cover story appears to be holding.

The biggest issue for me, Why did the CIA get involved?

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 >> ^^TOP^^