17-03-2017, 06:26 PM
What do people think of this article, from whatreallyhappened.com?
[URL="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CASE_AGAINST.html"]http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CASE_AGAINST.html
[/URL]
Some issues (for after you read the article):
1) James Sanders and his wife fairly much proved that rocket solid fuel residue was found on seat fabric. However, explosives residue has been the most divisive issue, affecting everyone in authority who has been differed on this case. There is no firm answer on whether it was found. Or was explosives residue found? Any conclusive research on that?
2) Description of the bodies has been lacking. Were there burns on persons and surfaces consistent with a activated warhead strike, or only those consistent with ignited fuel? Anybody recall this from their reading?
It strikes me that the cover story of the "fuel tank wiring spark," plus the backup leak that it was a shoulder-fired missile might be twin cover-ups for a Navy mishap.
[URL="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CASE_AGAINST.html"]http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CASE_AGAINST.html
[/URL]
Some issues (for after you read the article):
1) James Sanders and his wife fairly much proved that rocket solid fuel residue was found on seat fabric. However, explosives residue has been the most divisive issue, affecting everyone in authority who has been differed on this case. There is no firm answer on whether it was found. Or was explosives residue found? Any conclusive research on that?
2) Description of the bodies has been lacking. Were there burns on persons and surfaces consistent with a activated warhead strike, or only those consistent with ignited fuel? Anybody recall this from their reading?
It strikes me that the cover story of the "fuel tank wiring spark," plus the backup leak that it was a shoulder-fired missile might be twin cover-ups for a Navy mishap.