>Now she did not say "Navy vessel," nor does she seem 100% positive it was
>from a boat, however, when we also consider that the area off-shore was
>reserved for navel maneuvers that night, and that such were reported early
>on, and that witnesses saw flares being dropped before the explosion
>(flares are used to divert the course of heat-seeking missiles), it
>follows logically that the Navy must be a suspect. It is not unreason-
>able to speculate that the Navy was conducting missile related exer-
>cises in the area and a missile hit an unintended target.
If the U.S. Navy routinely conducts missile tests in or sufficiently near
the direct flight paths of commercial airliners, and the safety of the
airlines depends solely on someone in the Navy picking up the phone and
talking to someone at the FAA, then I would certainly admit this could have
happened.
However, I would like to see some credible evidence that this is how it is
done. While Navy documents are not generally made public, I believe FAA
documents are.
Finally, I would think there would be no one more anxious to exonerate TWA
than TWA. (The aircraft manufacturer -- was it Boeing? -- would be a close
second.) Has TWA commented on this theory? Wouldn't they know whether
Navy missile tests sometimes take place in this area? Would they have a
reason to cover-up a mistake made by the Navy -- a mistake that caused
great harm to their business?
Do you believe TWA is part of the conspiracy? If not, I am willing to call
their media relations department next week and see what they say.
No hard feelings at this end, Ian. I really don't think I have been
attacking you; that has certainly never been my intent.
Even if I do sometimes ridicule the idea that A = -A (which I do), remember
I am ridiculing an *idea*.
Feel free to attack my views, but not my person.
And feel free to redistribute this message, but not my income. <g>
Ira Brodsky
Datacomm Research Company
Wilmette, Illinois