Marine to John McCain: "I Would Have You Arrested for Treason"

page: 3
54
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Mikeultra

Disregard the Wikipedia cover-up account of what happened, McCain was the one responsible for the whole episode.


First I have ever heard your version.

I'm sure you have something credible to back up your claim.

Source please.




posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Drunkenparrot

Mikeultra

Disregard the Wikipedia cover-up account of what happened, McCain was the one responsible for the whole episode.


First I have ever heard your version.

I'm sure you have something credible to back up your claim.

Source please.


You have to remember that McCain was a loose cannon and that his father was an admiral. Remember where this loser is today. So when you read this account trying to say it wasn't him, remember that cover-ups do happen. This is from factcheck.org. Covering for slimeballs like McCain.

"McCain also expressed considerable uncertainty when investigators questioned him on Aug. 5 1967, just a week after the fire:"

"Q: Did you think in your own mind at this point that something had hit your airplane or not?"

"McCain: Yes, sir. The reason, looking back on it, I think I felt… I would like to add about my testimony, after seeing the bomb go off and the injuries involved, I was a little bit emotionally upset and some of the things that I may remember, I may not remember exactly. But when I saw LCDR Hope on the hangar deck, and I believe you can ask him about this, the first thing I said to him was, ‘Herb, I thought I had killed you.’ So I must have believed that it was from my aircraft at that time. Then I heard so many other stories as to what happened, I didn’t believe it was my aircraft. But at the time, I think, I believed that it was my aircraft or the one right next to it."

We can’t resolve with perfect certainty which version is correct. Film of the disaster taken by a Navy camera cannot decide the matter because it was pointed away from the point of impact at the time the missile fired. By the time the camera swung quickly aft both McCain and White’s planes were enveloped in the spreading flames. (A narrated version has been posted on YouTube.)

Much physical evidence was of course destroyed by the series of bomb explosions that began 90 seconds after the first impact. It is possible that the missile hit White’s plane and that fragments of it also hit McCain’s.

"We judge that the missile most likely hit White’s plane, not McCain’s. We base this on the unequivocal finding of the official investigation and the uncertainty that McCain expressed just a week after the event. His memory 32 years later, at the time he published the book, we consider less reliable. In fact, his 1999 version departs from the official report in other respects as well. He writes in his book that his plane carried 200 gallons of fuel, but the official report says the A-4s carried 400 gallons. McCain writes that “two of my bombs” were knocked to the deck, but the Judge Advocate General’s summary mentions only one bomb, a 1000-pounder that “fell onto the deck from A-4 #405,” White’s plane. McCain doesn’t mention bombs falling from his own plane in the testimony and statement he gave immediately after the disaster."

"No 'Wet Start"

"A special note is in order here. We have seen some baseless claims that McCain was somehow responsible for the Forrestal disaster. One incorrect but widely quoted theory has him triggering the Zuni missile with the exhaust of his own plane by "wet-starting" – deliberately dumping fuel into the afterburner before starting in order to shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft. This is a preposterous notion. For one thing, A-4 jets flew at subsonic speeds and were not equipped with afterburners. According to the Military Analysis Network site maintained by the Federation of American Scientists, the A-4 was powered by a "Single, Pratt & Whitney, J-52-P-408A non-afterburning, turbojet engine." The manufacturer's description of the aircraft also describes the powerplant as "One 11,187-pound-thrust P&W J52-P408 engine," with no mention of an afterburner.

And while pilots tell us that a “wet start” is possible even without an afterburner, the theory fails for another reason. The tail of McCain's plane was pointed over the side of the carrier and away from other planes at the time, and the F4 Phantom fighter that fired the missile was facing McCain's plane from the opposite side of the deck, as shown in Caiella’s diagram, in other diagrams, and in Navy film of the fire.

This bogus theory appears to have gotten its start from a report by New York Times reporter R. W. Apple. Jr, who reported on July 31, 1967 – two days after the fire – that the Forrestal’s captain, John K. Beling, believed an “extreme wet start” had created “a thick tongue of flame” that set off the Zuni. Beling did not identify McCain’s plane as the source, however, and said only that the aircraft was “parked near the carrier’s island,” which would have put it far forward and on the opposite side of the flight deck from where McCain’s plane was getting ready to launch. Not usually noted by the conspiracy theorists is that Capt. Beling “repeatedly said that he had been unable fully to sort out the conflicting reports” that circulated on the 5,000-man vessel in the hours after the fire, according to Apple, who also called the wet-start theory “tentative.” In any case, Beling’s early theory was soon dismissed by Navy investigators, who found that the Zuni had been touched off by a stray electrical charge, not by a jet exhaust. Author Freeman summarizes the findings succinctly in in "Sailors to the End:"

www.factcheck.org...

So I believe McCain did it. You think Navy investigators were going to nail the admirals son and ruin their careers?
edit on 26-10-2013 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Also another source here has some damning possibilities of truth, because McCain couldn't get his story straight.

"A camera on the deck recorded images showing that the Zuni rocket struck White’s plane. The Navy report later attributed the dropped bomb to White’s plane, although the film footage does not seem to establish this definitively. However, McCain has said many times that the Zuni rocket caused the bomb (two bombs in McCain’s version) to fall from his own craft."

"Some of those who were on the Forrestal and other persons familiar with the ordnance told me that because the rocket did not hit McCain’s craft, only actions by the pilot could have caused any bomb to fall from McCain’s Skyhawk. These sources—who spoke under the condition that they not be publicly identified—agree with each other that, if any bomb fell from the McCain airplane, it was because of actions that he took either in error or panic upon seeing the fire on the deck or in his hasty exit from the plane. Two switches in the cockpit of a Skyhawk need to be thrown to drop such a bomb, according to the sources."

"Whatever the circumstances of the fire’s origins, McCain did not stay on deck to help fight the blaze as the men around him did. With the firefighting crew virtually wiped out, men untrained in fighting fires had to pick up the fire hoses, rescue the wounded or frantically throw bombs and even planes over the ship’s side to prevent further tragedy. McCain left them behind and went down to the hangar-bay level, where he briefly helped crew members heave some bombs overboard. After that, he went to the pilot’s ready room and watched the fire on a television monitor hooked to a camera trained on the deck."

"McCain has never been asked to explain why he claims that the Zuni rocket struck his plane. If a bomb or bombs subsequently fell from McCain’s plane as he has said, it seems to strongly suggests pilot error, and if a bomb or bombs did not fall from his plane, it suggests rash disregard for important facts in his accounts of the accident."

"There is plenty more about this story that raises questions about McCain’s truthfulness and judgment. In the first hours after the fire, he apparently did not claim to have been injured. New York Times reporter R.W. Apple, who helicoptered out to the ship the day after the tragedy and sought out McCain as the “son and grandson of two noted admirals,” never mentioned him being wounded, although he reported on him more than on any other crew member. This would be an odd omission on Apple’s part if McCain indeed had been wounded, given that service wounds are usually highlighted in such reports during wartime. McCain’s own father, after seeing his son several weeks later, sent a letter to relatives and friends about the fire saying, “Happily for all of us, he [John] came through without a scratch.”2 - See more at: hnn.us...

Read the whole article from the above link, if that doesn't convince you of McCain's guilt, nothing will.
edit on 27-10-2013 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Is this an old vid? I'm sure I've seen it before.

Think it is.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I don't even think it matters. It doesn't look like any of those old people even care, like this is some sort of entertainment or something.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


After reading the Factcheck.org entry in its entirety I would refer you to the header at the top of the article...


Q: Did McCain crash five planes? Did he cause the 1967 Forrestal fire?

A: No. Chain e-mails and Internet postings that make that claim are mistaken. One crash was found to be his fault, but the Navy commended his piloting skills.


McCain’s Plane Crashes/FactCheck.org

It would be an important historical footnote if he had indeed been responsible for the USS Forrestal fire but it looks to me at this point that there is an agenda at work trying to skew historical facts to serve their own interests.



edit on 27-10-2013 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Proud of the Man having the courage to speak the truth to McShame! An Adulterer (ask his first wife) that has sold our country out so many times over.

Prisoner of war is some thing we wish no one to endure, though this man is no war hero anymore, he is a traitor, and should be put in prison, our prison on this land, without TVs, Gyms, Libraries, or anything that may give him what he may call freedom.

Oh, he can also have Obamacare to take care of his further medical needs.

God is a just God!



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Drunkenparrot
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


After reading the Factcheck.org entry in its entirety I would refer you to the header at the top of the article...


Q: Did McCain crash five planes? Did he cause the 1967 Forrestal fire?

A: No. Chain e-mails and Internet postings that make that claim are mistaken. One crash was found to be his fault, but the Navy commended his piloting skills.


McCain’s Plane Crashes/FactCheck.org

It would be an important historical footnote if he had indeed been responsible for the USS Forrestal fire but it looks to me at this point that there is an agenda at work trying to skew historical facts to serve their own interests.



edit on 27-10-2013 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



Did you read anything from this link?
hnn.us...

Then read this L.A. Times article.
articles.latimes.com...

You seem to think it's a left/right thing why I hate this traitor. I don't care what party he belongs to. There are at least 3 examples of him being a bad pilot. But his dad and grandfather were both admirals. Don't you think he had someone covering his mistakes? Why did he leave the Forrestal with the news reporter so quickly after the fire?
From HHN;
"McCain’s actions after the fire show a determination to exit the ship as quickly as possible. When New York Times reporter Apple finished gathering his notes on the fire, McCain boarded a helicopter with him and flew to Saigon. Given that fires still burned on the ship and some of his fellow airmen were gravely wounded and dying, McCain’s assertion that he left the carrier for “some welcome R&R” in Saigon has a surreal air. Apple, now dead, said nothing in his news reports about inviting McCain to leave the ship, although he did report talking to him in Saigon later that day. McCain does not mention receiving permission to leave the still-burning ship. Merv Rowland, a commander and chief engineering officer of the Forrestal at the time of the fire, told me that he had not known that McCain left the ship within 30 hours of the fire and that he found this “extraordinary.” Rowland added that only the severely wounded were allowed to leave the ship and that no one, as far as he knew, would have been given permission to fly to Saigon for R&R. McCain’s quick flight off the Forrestal meant that he missed the memorial service for his dead comrades held the following day in the South China Sea.

Not long after McCain left, the Forrestal set off without him on its somber voyage to Subic Bay in the Philippines, where it would undergo initial repairs. He rejoined the ship a week later when it was docked at Subic Bay. There he gave an official statement and asked for a transfer to the aircraft carrier Oriskany."
hnn.us...

Fellow POW’s say John McCain Was a Coward and a Traitor in Viet Nam.
polidics.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Putin responds to the insane McCain, after McCain threatens Putin via twitter that he'll end up like Khadafi.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


aiding al-qaeda and getting called on the carpet for it, would sure have me struggling to respond as well



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I kaint resist watching/listening to this - nice! I mean McCain you are worthless no matter how much the stinkin unfederal gold collar criminals give you.





top topics
 
54
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join