Thank God we're not Russia

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message

And, again, I say: Thank God we're not in Russia. Let me amend this:
Go
live there if you want, and have a ball. Thank God I'M not in Russia.

Over a hundred people saw a missile go up and hit TWA800.

No evidence, huh?

http://www.twa800.com/index.htm

"The FBI was briefed by military missile experts in the Fall of 1996 that
Flight 800 was well within the range of a shoulder fired missile. The FBI
conducted a covert dredging operation for stinger missile parts between
November 1996 and April 1997. CDR. Donaldson brought this new evidence to
the House Aviation Subcommittee in testimony on May 6, 1999. Unfortunately,
the major media and the Congress are content to swallow the official line
without question. "

The website is "Associated Retired Aviation Professionals." But, I mean,
really...what do THOSE guys know about anything?

Nothing to see here. Move along.
-c

"William W. Plummer" wrote in message

This seems bizarre to me, as it makes a relatively pointless act
COMPLETELY
pointless -- but whoever said terrorists were very bright?

NPR is heavy on opinion and light on facts.

So, it appears, are you. With what do you support your opinion?

-c

"Corky Scott" wrote in message

Well that was yesterday's news. Apparently a Chechnian group has now
claimed responsibility according to a blurb I heard this morning.

Again I say, Thank God we're not Russia.

BTW, kudos to Greece. Americans, Iraqis, Afghanistan and Jews competing at
the apex of human capacity, and except for a few screwballs in tutus or
skirts, (and some dubious judges) nobody managed to screw it up.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
news:ch1u25

I don't want to start up all the what did/didn't happen to TWA800
stuff again, but if you're talking about eyewitnesses and being believed
and proof, the situation is a lot of eyewitnesses said "We saw a
missile",
and the authorities said "There's no evidence". That's all I'm saying,
not
whether either were right or wrong. It's not just in Russia that this
happens.

This is valid and fair; but I don't recall the FAA/NTSB coming out and
saying there was no evidence of an explosion when people everywhere were
saying they saw an explosion. The issue is not whether they said for
sure,
or that there was proof, but whether there was evidence.

The point is about evidence.

Latest news is that evidence of explosives has been found:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3612150.stm

Yep. Confirming what those incredible eyewitnesses said; the planes
exploded. Again I say I thank God we're not Russia and if my point isn't
clear, let me add that I thank God even more than I wasn't, say, a Russian
sailor lying at the bottom of the ocean in the Kursk when the Russian
government was too secretive and proud to allow for immediate help.


You mean like the FBI, CIA, NSA, AAA, all did squat about the terrorist
threat before 911 mainly because they did not want to talk to each other.

Russia and the US have more in common than you think, governments quite at
home lying to their people.

gatt wrote:

Oh, and look: The Russian officials finally figured out that that there
were explosions and terrorism. Golly, Wally, who'da thunk? The experts
finally figured out what the media knew immediately.


The media did not _know_ a damn thing beyond the fact that two planes
crashed under highly suspicious circumstances, period! Hell, even the
people who planted the bombs didn't _know_ that they had brought the
planes down until there was corraborative evidence - the planes could
have crashed from a coincidental cause unrelated to their activities.
They certainly would have a good reason to _expect_ that their actions
were responsible, but this is not the same thing as _knowing_ that
they did.

Your lack of critical analysis, coupled with your unwillingness to
even attempt to understand the point others are making about your
pronouncements, have me fervently hoping that you are not now, have
never been, and never will be associated with any forensic activity
of any kind. Having already determined for yourself what consitutes
'truth', you are only too likely to make sure your investigation
supports the conclusion you've already reached.

Rich Lemert

"gatt" wrote in message ...
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message

Aren't you a journalist, gatt?
Where's my rec.aviation.piloting paycheck?
So, you can't apply your knowledge of journalism unless you get paid
for it??? Wow. I truly hope the same rules don't apply to your
recreational flying..

Tell you what, "Ace" (really?), you don't tell me how to do my "job" and I
won't tell you how to do yours. (I work in computers, write novels, play
music and build robots for television shows. Why you folks ASSume that I'm
a professional journalism speaks of somebody else's ignorance, not mine.)

Read carefully, gatt. I'll type slowly so you can keep up. I didn't
assume you were a journalist – I simply asked the question. And I
wasn't telling you how to do your job. Based on your statements, I do
know that you've had some training in journalism. I was using irony to
point out how absurd it is for you to use your knowledge and training
ONLY when you are getting paid for it.

But my knowledge and experience in journalism says that when witnesses all
report something virtually identical and the government officials wrap the
whole thing in red tape and then stonewall, the truth is going to lie
somewhere closer to the witnesses than it is to the bureaucrats. "Nothing
to see here. Move along." Remember the Kursk.

If you want to rehash the Kursk example, start another thread since
that is a different matter.

There was nothing in the news article indicating what FSB officials had
found out at that point, or were even aware of, other than two aircraft had
crashed. Are you suggesting
that FSB officials should just take media reports at face value without
independent confirmation?

Are you putting words in my mouth, "Ace"? Do you do this to ATC too? ("I
surely hope the same rules don't apply to your recreational flying")

No – just trying to clarify what you are trying to say.

All I said is, when witnesses report explosions...write this down or sound it
out...there is EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIONS.

I agree that's what you said. But when someone else says someone else
said (in this case the media said that witnesses said) it is called
hearsay, not evidence.

Not proof, not fact, not conclusive data. EVIDENCE. The point is that
there was evidence, the bureaucrats ignored it and then, gee, Comrade...they
found evidence of explosions and of terrorism. WOW! I mean, that's some
real Sherlock work, isn't it?

Not really. It's called deliberate investigative work. Investigators
don't use hearsay as evidence (otherwise investigation would simply be
reading the newspaper). They use it to help find evidence and pursue
investigative theories. Look at the quote you used to start this
thread"

"FSB officials had not YET found evidence of a terrorist act or
explosion..." [my emphasis added]

The part of the quote you left off (conveniently) was "...but ruled
nothing out." Hardly what most people would call "stonewalling" as you
called it earlier, but you can believe whatever you choose to.

Getting back to my original point, the journalist that wrote that
original article did a fine job. He reported what he heard from
witnesses and gave government officials a chance to comment. The quote
he used showed that it was early in the investigation and that
government officials were keeping an open mind as to the cause.

Well that was yesterday's news. Apparently a Chechnian group has now
claimed responsibility according to a blurb I heard this morning.

Again I say, Thank God we're not Russia.

I love the way American mainstream media is covering the wave of terrorism
hitting Russia. They keep referring to the terrorists as "Chechen rebels" --
as if these barbarians were some sort of heroes.

Only ONE media outlet -- Fox News -- has openly (at least, while I was
watching) mentioned the fact that these *******s are Muslim extremists, in
the same vein (and probably on the same payroll) as Osama and his lot. See
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000238.php for some interesting
information on this "rebellion."

It's amazing. These people blow up subways full of innocents, take school
children hostage, and our warped media calls them "rebels."

And people wonder why Fox News is so popular. Gee, I wonder why?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"