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.
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:"
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)