New TWA800 Documentary

Oh, boy! This one again.

1st The FBI did in fact take over the investigation from the NTSB and ROYALLY screwed it up. They heard "airplane explosion" and immediately assumed that a terrorist bomb must have been the cause. They ran roughshod over the NTSB, who actually knew how to investigate airplane disasters. After some time, the utter lack of evidence of any explosive device forced them to reevaluate and hand the investigation back to the NTSB. This is a classic case study in letting initial assumptions direct an investigation down the wrong path. The FBI actually uses this investigation as a teaching tool for their agents to not assume anything that is not supported by the evidence.

This is evidence of incompetence, not conspiracy.

2nd The Navy missile shoot down theory is plausible at first, but fall apart over time. There is a Navy missile test range not far from the accident site, and it is certainly possible that someone could have screwed up like the USS Vincennes. The biggest problem with this theroy is that no one seriously believes that the government could keep this a secret for this long. There are about 250-350 crewmen on a DDG or CG, and you expect me to believe that NOBODY has come forward to admit that their ship killed all those people?

What about a shoulder fired missile? These were designed to shoot down low level attack jets and helicopters, not 747s climbing through 10,000 feet. Theoretically a stinger can hit a target at 10K, but I personally spoke to a qualified missile gunner in the Corps and he said it would be a near impossible shot even by a trained expert. Even it it had hit the plane, despite what the movies say, airplanes to not instantly explode into a fireball when hit by a missile. A MANPAD might have taken out one of the plane's engines such as happened to the DHL A300 in Bagdad, but that plane remained flyable and landed in one piece.

The second problem is that lack of shrapnel damage to the wreckage. There just isn't any physical evidence supporting a missile strike.

3rd Hundreds of eyewitnesses can be and often are completely wrong. All the eyewitnesses are reporting what they THOUGHT they saw, not what they actually saw happen. This is true in this case and every other investigation. The human brain stores images as parts of a story. So when it sees something unusual it creates a palausable story to explain what it saw. A bright streak of light headed upward, followed by a flash and loud noise is most easily explained by a missile and that is what they told investigators. They are not being dishonest, but they are not correct either.

4th Yes, JetA can explode! Or more accurately, kerosene vapors under pressure and heated to the flashpoint can explode. There have actually been 2 other center fuel tank explosions of Boeing aircraft on record. Both cases were the result of empty center fuel tanks, and were believed to be ignited by a stray spark. I agree with MikeD that the NTSB was stretching to identify the exact source of ignition, but it is still the least unlikely scenario.

5th If things didn't happen like the official report, then what did in fact happen?
 
Last edited:
ATN_Pilot said:
I know this may be hard to understand for conspiracy nuts, but those of us who are capable of rational thought don't feel the need to respond to crackpots with anything more than ridicule. People can claim all sorts of ridiculous crap. If actual evidence isn't presented, then it's not worth my time.
Click to expand...

But you are responding, only you're doing so with a pointless, condescending air. If your words had any meaningful conviction here, you'd either not reply at all or you'd destroy any doubters with your masterful "rational thought".

I'm not a conspiracy nut, and I'd wager that I'm probably more skeptical than you. The point of this thread is a discussion of the movie and its claims about the accident. You either respond to the discussion in a meaningful way or you troll the other folks with your ridicule that you're apparently so proud of.

Look at the last line of your post. It seems that by your own definition, you are wasting your time by continuing to reply (again, in completely meaningless and trollish fashion) to this thread... again and again and again. Why should any respect anything you post in this thread? Because you talk down to everyone?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You haven't presented any evidence. You've presented claims from a moron.



Being a gullible idiot isn't perjury.
Click to expand...

So, refute that moron's words! Right now what stands on your side is emotion, slander, and aparant lack of acknowledging admisible opinion in the debate.
 
n57flyguy said:
So, refute that moron's words! Right now what stands on your side is emotion, slander, and aparant lack of acknowledging admisible opinion in the debate.
Click to expand...

I know this may be hard to understand for conspiracy nuts, but those of us who are capable of rational thought don't feel the need to respond to crackpots with anything more than ridicule. People can claim all sorts of ridiculous crap. If actual evidence isn't presented, then it's not worth my time.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I know this may be hard to understand for conspiracy nuts, but those of us who are capable of rational thought don't feel the need to respond to crackpots with anything more than ridicule. People can claim all sorts of ridiculous crap. If actual evidence isn't presented, then it's not worth my time.
Click to expand...

So I am crackpot for wantes to get to the bottom of an issue? You are claiming quite a bit of "ridiculous crap" youself again based off of emotion, slander, and refusal to examine all things relating to case, dimissing it rather than providing a poised evidence based response. Labeling others as an inferior attempt to disengage the subject from debate proves weakness to your position.
 
n57flyguy said:
So I am crackpot for wants to get to the bottom of an issue?
Click to expand...

If you take the word of a movie director over the report that a small army of professional accident investigators spent the better part of 3 years compiling, then yes you are a crackpot.

If you see this documentary, and investigate for yourself with an open mind then you will see how far fetched these consipriancy theorists are.

Read the NTSB report, it's public record. Look up the range of an SA-7 MANPAD. Talk to a police investigator and ask him how unreliable eyewitnesses can be. Heck, you can even ask permission to visit the reconstructed fuselage and look at the framework of the center fuel tank (I haven't but there are plenty of pictures).

ATN's (and mine) disgust is directed toward the professional crackpots who willfully ignore the mountain of evidence that they are incorrect.
 
Apophis said:
So with the vast quantities of evidence you claim to possess, why don't you tell us what really happened that night?
Click to expand...

I never claimed that I did, but am rather researching evidence available on public record that you and I both have access to.

ATN_Pilot said:
No, you're a crackpot for believing easily refutable nonsense instead of listening to the team of professional investigators.
Click to expand...

Did I ever say I believed it? You still have, by the way, not helped guide that request.
 
USMCmech said:
If you take the word of a movie director over the report that a small army of professional accident investigators spent the better part of 3 years compiling, then yes you are a crackpot.

If you see this documentary, and investigate for yourself with an open mind then you will see how far fetched these consipriancy theorists are.

Read the NTSB report, it's public record. Look up the range of an SA-7 MANPAD. Talk to a police investigator and ask him how unreliable eyewitnesses can be. Heck, you can even ask permission to visit the reconstructed fuselage and look at the framework of the center fuel tank (I haven't but there are plenty of pictures).

ATN's (and mine) disgust is directed toward the professional crackpots who willfully ignore the mountain of evidence that they are incorrect.
Click to expand...

I have, and as you said earlier, the basis of investigation is flawed by not reviewing all of the evidence or misconstruing it.
 
n57flyguy said:
I have, and as you said earlier, the basis of investigation is flawed by not reviewing all of the evidence or misconstruing it.
Click to expand...

All of the credible evidence WAS examined by the NTSB, and the content found in the accident report was the most logical conclusion drawn from the evidence they uncovered. Any objective investigator of an accident like this will come into said investigation with a clean slate, and let the evidence and other information gathered during said investigation form the conclusion.

The conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, ALWAYS starts with a conclusion (that the original explanation was inadequate or false), and seeks to examine only that evidence which supports said conspiracy theory, while disregarding the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Guess what. Usually the mundane, boring explanation for why something happened IS the correct one. I guess reality isn't exciting enough for people like yourself.
 
Apophis said:
All of the credible evidence WAS examined by the NTSB, and the content found in the accident report was the most logical conclusion drawn from the evidence they uncovered. Any objective investigator of an accident like this will come into said investigation with a clean slate, and let the evidence and other information gathered during said investigation form the conclusion.

The conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, ALWAYS starts with a conclusion (that the original explanation was inadequate or false), and seeks to examine only that evidence which supports said conspiracy theory, while disregarding the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Guess what. Usually the mundane, boring explanation for why something happened IS the correct one. I guess reality isn't exciting enough for people like yourself.
Click to expand...

Who is like unto myself? I have made no position to my beliefs, yet because I have not argued in the affirmative, asked questions and sought answers among slander and emotional appeal to incur and evidenced based debate and discussion, I am labeled because you believe that I crave an exciting conclusion to the event that occurred? What I have done, is quite the contrary to what the accepted definition of a "conspiracy theorist" would do.

The document I did post, does not start at the conclusion. The one posted after me from Jim Speer, does not start at the conclusion. It asks questions based on what was seen and what occurred. With notable promulgated belief that the FBI did not handle the investigation correctly. That is what intrigues me. After fact, not conclusion. If the investigation was skewed by some factor that did not allow the NTSB to formulate a comprehensive report, is that conclusion correct?
 
upload_2013-11-5_22-12-1.jpeg
 
tomokc said:
For those of you who don't accept the report, what brought it down?
Click to expand...

Few will break orthodoxy and omerta and say it very loudly, or out loud at all, but in that branch of the international constabulary who play with ships most of those individuals whose perspective would make their opinion matter reckon (or better) it was missile. As in most cases such as this one, the questions that should be asked are generally not the questions that are asked. Given the quacks-like-a-duck, swims-like-a-duck, flys-like-a-duck, has-feathers-like-duck, has-DNA-like-a-duck nature of this case, the question that should be asked is not what happened, but rather why did this event happen?
 
USMCmech said:
Oh, boy! This one again.

1st The FBI did in fact take over the investigation from the NTSB and ROYALLY screwed it up. They heard "airplane explosion" and immediately assumed that a terrorist bomb must have been the cause.
Click to expand...

Close, but there's more to that. By federal law, the FBI takes over an aircraft accident investigation from the NTSB if there is any question or suspicion of a crime; no secret there and nothing nefarious about that. The NTSB then assumes a supporting role to the FBI, while still conducting their investigation of the aircraft-related details. When and if a crime is ruled out, then the NTSB will again assume the lead role. BL is, the NTSB does not investigate crimes or criminal activity. Same goes with an NTSB investigation into a commercial road, rail, or other transportation accident. I want to put that concept to bed, because it appears that many people don't actually know that. But that's not where the problem lies here.

Both the FBI and the NTSB botched the investigation in different ways. FBI evidence handling was incompetent, but there's also suspicion that it was nefarious, a suspicion that can't be proven necessarily, but can't be discounted either. The NTSB was under alot of pressure to "come up with something", and as such, came up with their CWT theory, which I emphasize is ONLY a theory and to which they themselves admit in their own probable cause. This is where I widely differ with the NTSB, in that , instead of pushing the CWT theory, as fact; the more accurate probable cause would be "could not be determined with the available evidence". This has been done in many other accidents, even very high profile ones like the Sierra Pacific Convair accident in Bishop, California. But to present a theory as fact, which it will be accepted as eventually, and to which research and design is going into (albeit in an airframe that really isn't used widely at all anymore), is not only inaccurate, but borders on unethical.

The NTSB overall handled this accident, with as much general competence as CASB did on the Arrow Air/Gander accident, which ultimately resulted in the demise of CASB as a whole. Whether due to FBI pressure, or other political or industry pressure, the NTSB definitely got a black eye over this one.

Ive made the rest of my thoughts clear in the other thread linked.
 
Last edited:
ATN_Pilot said:
Gravity is also "just a theory." Want to go jump out a window to test it?
Click to expand...

Which is a red-herring argument as it comes to 800.

The NTSB even admits that their own probable cause is just a theory. Where the disconnect is, is that theory has been accepted as dead-on fact, when it is anything but. Thats what I have issue with. It is dishonest to make that link of theory = fact, when it's even admitted to only be a theory. While the CWT did explode, why it exploded or what caused it to explode........whether a primary event or a secondary event as a result of something......is still not truly known. Whether you or I like that or not, that is the fact.
 
Last edited:
ATN_Pilot said:
Having talked face to face with the people who did the investigation, I can tell you that they treat it as far more than "just a theory."
Click to expand...

Having done the same and also having done field and technical investigation on my own as part of my job, yes, it's just a theory still. A potential one, mind you; but not fully factually proven. Again, the NTSB admits this in their own probable cause statement. What you're getting is what upsets me that 800 has become.....a theory that has morphed into "cold, hard fact" over time, when it is anything but; merely because people don't want an open book on this one, when that's what it really is in terms of the exact what and why details. And worse, current NTSB personnel, as well a many in the aviation community, have been believing this to be cold hard fact, even though their own probable cause states that its merely a theory. The NTSB has done a severe disservice in not keeping the two ideas separate.
 
Last edited:
MikeD said:
Which is a red-herring argument as it comes to 800.

The NTSB even admits that their own probable cause is just a theory. Where the disconnect is, is that theory has been accepted as dead-on fact, when it is anything but. Thats what I have issue with. It is dishonest to make that link of theory = fact, when it's even admitted to only be a theory. While the CWT did explode, why it exploded or what caused it to explode........whether primary or as a result of something......is still not truly known. Whether you or I like that or not, that is the fact.
Click to expand...

Even if that were the case, that doesn't mean it isn't by far the most likely cause of the accident. Some people don't understand that and as conspiracy thinking people are want to do, chase after any "evidence" that supports their "theory" while ignoring the rest of the data.
 
darrenf said:
Even if that were the case, that doesn't mean it isn't by far the most likely cause of the accident. Some people don't understand that and as conspiracy thinking people are want to do, chase after any "evidence" that supports their "theory" while ignoring the rest of the data.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it wasn't the cause, dead on. All I'm saying.... and which I think you're understanding from my comments......is that while possible, it really isn't known enough to be cold, hard fact that it has since become. I wish the NTSB had done a better job emphasizing their theory as being just that, so it couldn't have morphed into cold hard fact, that it isn't.

Sure, some conspiracy people have seized upon what Im saying and have gone a different direction with it. I personally don't know why the FBI mishandled evidence, removed evidence to and from the hangar at Calverton without any documentation, what their angle was with how they did business; as I can't believe they are "merely incompetent". And why the NTSB didn't call them out on their complete lack of evidence security and integrity.

Many TWA pilots themselves and other 747 pilots and engineers also agree that there isn't enough evidence to fully conclude that the stray voltage theory within the CWT was the hard cause. All that's truly, factually known is that the CWT did indeed explode. A more accurate probable cause would've been "......explosion of the 747s Center Wing Tank. The initiating event of this explosion could not be conclusively determined with the available recovered evidence." That would actually be a true statement; as it ends where the available facts end. All else beyond that.......from other potential technical, or to conspiracy.......is varying conjecture with no actual conclusive factual basis. And there may never be.
 
Last edited:
Saw the documentary last night. Raises very disturbing questions...especially regarding the investigation. That 'citizenship' account was very disturbing. The 'Zoom Climb' animation was childish...and tampering with evidence...moving pieces from one debris field to another...hammering on them...just very questionable.

Mike isn't there a category that investigators use when they are interviewing witnesses...a category used to separate someone from the general population...like 'trained observer'. IOW...police officer shows up to an accident scene...a bunch of people are ready to give there account of what happened. But a couple of the witnesses are an off duty cop...and maybe an engineer or 2. Are they not categorized differently?

Because among the observers....there were pilots...and an engineer I believe. All apparently having 'memory tricks' going on.
 
Apophis said:
The zoom climb was actually caused by the tractor beam of an alien spacecraft hiding in low earth orbit.
Click to expand...

And yet, still more believable than the missile theory nonsense that the conspiracy theorist crackpots are pushing.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
And yet, still more believable than the missile theory nonsense that the conspiracy theorist crackpots are pushing.
Click to expand...

This is like religion...no one ever agrees. But all you keep seeming to do is post personal attacks on people who question the storyline. You won't waste your time with idiot crackpot theories...but you have a lot of time to keep posting here and liking everyone who agrees with you.
 
Louie1975 said:
This is like religion...no one ever agrees. But all you keep seeming to do is post personal attacks on people who question the storyline. You won't waste your time with idiot crackpot theories...but you have a lot of time to keep posting here and liking everyone who agrees with you.
Click to expand...

I'm a big believer in an old quote from Saul Alinsky: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Ignorant people who push things like conspiracy theories, creationism, climate change denial, and the like all expect people to just "agree to disagree" and allow them to keep spreading their ignorance unabated. Sorry, but not going to happen. Alinsky was right. Ridiculing the ridiculous is a potent weapon indeed.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm a big believer in an old quote from Saul Alinsky: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Ignorant people who push things like conspiracy theories, creationism, climate change denial, and the like all expect people to just "agree to disagree" and allow them to keep spreading their ignorance unabated. Sorry, but not going to happen. Alinsky was right. Ridiculing the ridiculous is a potent weapon indeed.
Click to expand...

The problem is....you decided who is an ignorant crackpot. I agree with you about some of what you said. I am not a creationist. I don't believe the government rigged the WTC. But questioning how the FBI could resort to the tactics they did(the stuff I saw on the documentary...I thought that ended with the J. Edgar Hoover days)...combined with eyewitness accounts...does not make people an ignorant crackpot. Go reread your posts. Then read Mike Ds. See the difference. Respect, intelligence and reason go a long way. It's what your cloaking your attack posts in. But none of which you have demonstrated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Louie1975 said:
Saw the documentary last night. Raises very disturbing questions...especially regarding the investigation. That 'citizenship' account was very disturbing. The 'Zoom Climb' animation was childish...and tampering with evidence...moving pieces from one debris field to another...hammering on them...just very questionable.

Mike isn't there a category that investigators use when they are interviewing witnesses...a category used to separate someone from the general population...like 'trained observer'. IOW...police officer shows up to an accident scene...a bunch of people are ready to give there account of what happened. But a couple of the witnesses are an off duty cop...and maybe an engineer or 2. Are they not categorized differently?

Because among the observers....there were pilots...and an engineer I believe. All apparently having 'memory tricks' going on.
Click to expand...

In witness interviews, it's noted what the particular background of the witness is; but more importantly, the question will be, and the litmus test I strive for in my interviews is:

Does what the witness describe answer any of the following:

1. Does their observation match with any known factual evidence?
2. Does their observation refute or rule out any suspected or unknown causal factors?
3. Does their observation open up previously unknown factors or evidence that either have not yet been discovered, or have only been suspected?
4. Is their observation close, somewhat close, or not close at all; to the observations of other witnesses? What details and why?

Witness observations can either be very good, or very bad, and everything in between; so they need to be matched against the above questions. With non-experienced witnesses, the challenge is deciphering what they saw exactly in lay terms, and converting that into useful aviation information accurately. With experienced witnesses, the challenge is to ensure that they're telling you only what they saw, NOT what they think they saw because due to their experience, their mind "filled in the blanks". I need observations only, not conclusions from them during the interview; afterwards I'll listen to whatever else they have to say or think.

The BL is, witnesses shouldn't be completely discounted, nor should they be completely praised as totally accurate. They are simply a form of oral/visual evidence. That evidence....their testimony.......HAS to be matched against the 4 questions I posted above. Doing that, again, they may be extremely accurate, somewhat accurate, or inaccurate. Or....as Ive experienced before.......you may get different "puzzle pieces" from different witnesses who saw different parts of the same event, or saw things from a different geographical perspective that another didn't, and that can either corroborate or refute testimony or even other suspicions/hunches.

As I said, there have been times when something a witness said in an interview, led investigators down a path they hadn't considered yet, because physical evidence had not yet been discovered along that path yet. So witnesses just need to be compared to the 4 questions.
 
MikeD said:
In witness interviews, it's noted what the particular background of the witness is; but more importantly, the question will be, and the litmus test I strive for in my interviews is:

Does what the witness describe answer any of the following:

1. Does their observation match with any known factual evidence?
2. Does their observation refute or rule out any suspected or unknown causal factors?
3. Does their observation open up previously unknown factors or evidence that either have not yet been discovered, or have only been suspected?
4. Is their observation close, somewhat close, or not close at all; to the observations of other witnesses? What details and why?

Witness observations can either be very good, or very bad, and everything in between; so they need to be matched against the above questions. With non-experienced witnesses, the challenge is deciphering what they saw exactly in lay terms, and converting that into useful aviation information accurately. With experienced witnesses, the challenge is to ensure that they're telling you only what they saw, NOT what they think they saw because due to their experience, their mind "filled in the blanks". I need observations only, not conclusions from them during the interview; afterwards I'll listen to whatever else they have to say or think.

The BL is, witnesses shouldn't be completely discounted, nor should they be completely praised as totally accurate. They are simply a form of oral/visual evidence. That evidence....their testimony.......HAS to be matched against the 4 questions I posted above. Doing that, again, they may be extremely accurate, somewhat accurate, or inaccurate. Or....as Ive experienced before.......you may get different "puzzle pieces" from different witnesses who saw different parts of the same event, or saw things from a different geographical perspective that another didn't, and that can either corroborate or refute testimony or even other suspicions/hunches.

As I said, there have been times when something a witness said in an interview, led investigators down a path they hadn't considered yet, because physical evidence had not yet been discovered along that path yet. So witnesses just need to be compared to the 4 questions.
Click to expand...

I read that twice. Thanks Mike.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm a big believer in an old quote from Saul Alinsky: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Ignorant people who push things like conspiracy theories, creationism, climate change denial, and the like all expect people to just "agree to disagree" and allow them to keep spreading their ignorance unabated. Sorry, but not going to happen. Alinsky was right. Ridiculing the ridiculous is a potent weapon indeed.
Click to expand...
Isn't he the guy that molested all those boys while at Penn State? I remember he claim consiracy from the beginning too......:confused2:

Seriously though, one thing never addressed by the NTSB or FBI was the damage to the fuselage opposite the explosion side. The photos are pretty convincing. Their "theory" was that the explosion was so severe and sudden that it caused the opposite side skin to be "sucked" inward (rather like a vacuum). This damage was never specifically addressed but was included in their theory. I agree 100% with @MikeD, theories should never be logged as fact; it would have been better to leave this one "undetermined".
 
Louie1975 said:
The problem is....you decided who is an ignorant crackpot. I agree with you about some of what you said. I am not a creationist. I don't believe the government rigged the WTC. But questioning how the FBI could resort to the tactics they did(the stuff I saw on the documentary...I thought that ended with the J. Edgar Hoover days)...combined with eyewitness accounts...does not make people an ignorant crackpot. Go reread your posts. Then read Mike Ds. See the difference. Respect, intelligence and reason go a long way. It's what your cloaking your attack posts in. But none of which you have demonstrated.
Click to expand...

At what point do you draw the line though? I'm sure you'd consider any conspiracy theorist who believes the world is still flat to be an ignorant crackpot. The same can be said about people who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

So why can't we relegate these crackpot TWA 800 theories to the same category? The CWT fuel explosion is the MOST likely explanation for this event, and none of the conspiracy theorists can come up with anything that even remotely explains the accident as well as what's contained in the official report. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and NONE of the conspiracy theorists can provide this.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Anybody who didn't have access to the evidence, but thinks he knows better than the trained and experienced investigators who reached a conclusion, is a crackpot.
Click to expand...
And this is how you win friends and influence people! I agree with you for the most part, but come on, man. Vinegar, honey, blah, blah, blah.
 
DPApilot said:
I can't say what brought TWA 800 down, but the way the investigation was handled sure makes you go 'hmmmmmm'.
Click to expand...

I disagree... I don't think it makes anybody go "hmmmm" but rather say "wow... even trained investigators can let an investigation get away from them from time to time". There is a HUGE difference between people actively suppressing/changing the direction of an investigation and people just doing a crappy job.
 
DPApilot said:
I can't say what brought TWA 800 down, but the way the investigation was handled sure makes you go 'hmmmmmm'.
Click to expand...
It's like saying FLT 93 was shot down. Cheney gave the order. They intercepted the plane (ATC gave warning to FLT 93). 3 mins later it was on the ground. Was it really shot down?
 
ComplexHiAv8r said:
It's like saying FLT 93 was shot down. Cheney gave the order. They intercepted the plane (ATC gave warning to FLT 93). 3 mins later it was on the ground. Was it really shot down?
Click to expand...

It is almost the same call as the TWA 800 investigation, having a few on the 9/11 Commission openly state that the investigation was underfunded, incomplete, and rushed.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Not even close. Which is why I trust the experts in their fields. You know, like accident investigators who have actually examined the wreckage, interviewed the witnesses, conducted tests, and come to a consensus conclusion.

But I'm sure a guy who flies airplanes for a living and "spent a lot of time hanging around control towers" knows much better about what he's seeing on a radar tape. We should listen to him instead. I mean, he's got an affidavit! That's much better than actual evidence! :sarcasm:
Click to expand...

The affidavit could corroborate eyewitness testimony, however. So the FBI has knowledge on reading radar tapes then?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yeah, we're really shocked that that's the "side" you picked. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well, if I picked your side, it wouldn't be much of a debate now, would it.

Maybe I'll just go ahead and agree with you then, I can't sit here and do this all day. I gotta go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top