reason 1: our government is full of evil SOBs and they wanted to test a new weapons system on a real world target
This makes absolutely no sense, live fire testing is routinely done on flying targets (minus humans being within them). It's just absurd to believe that the government is composed of people so stereotypically evil, that they would actually enjoy using one of their new toys on the population. Also, I'm pretty sure that anyone in the government has very little to do with the day to day operations of the military.
reason 2: it was a terrorist attack and they did not want to give credit to that theory because the mass hysteria would have crippled the airline industry like after 9-11 and nobody would feel safe flying anymore if a couple guys with shoulder fired rockets could start picking off planes all over the country at will
All I can say is that the point of terrorism is to make a statement, making your statement would require taking responsibility for what you did. If it was a terrorist attack, where were the people claiming responsibility? And don't say they were arrested and silenced, because that would imply they knew where to find them within a very short amount of time.
reason 3: accidental shoot down during a routine military test (which I find to be totally implausible)
This has happened before, responsibility is always assumed. The US Navy accidentally shot down Iran Air 655, they assumed responsibility and paid damages.
saying it was a freak accident keeps pubic fears down and the airline industry booming...until of course 9-11 occurs which they couldn't claim to be anything else...I personally buy scenario #2
A "freak accident" does not cause a panic, nor would it drastically effect the airline industry. Planes crash every year for various reasons, there would be no reason to cover this one up and none of the other ones.
What is so crazy about the NTSB report? I'd guess that nobody on this thread has read or yet alone has the technical knowledge to understand it.
What makes a bunch of people in long island who saw the same general sequence of events, but with some distinct variations, more credible than a team of highly qualified and experienced engineers?
Accusing the entire investigation team of organized unethical behavior is just not sensible, engineers take ethics very seriously.
How is the scenario of three SIMULTANEOUS missile strikes, from three DIFFERENT locations more plausible than an electrical malfunction?
One final question I will ask is: Did that reconstructed fuselage look like it took THREE missiles?
What most likely occurred was a sloppy investigation caused by hostility between FBI and NTSB over who was in charge. The plane still crashed as was reported. Read the report about the faulty electrical wiring over the fuel tank.
reply
share