Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "" video.

  1.  @Sovereign-of-silly  Well as I said, I am not completely ruling out a missile. -Navy conducting exercises: I'm aware there were Navy ships in the general area, and claims of a naval exercise. But I don't recall ever seeing a proof there was an ongoing exercise. Can you direct me to that proof? -no 747s grounded: first off, this was not considered a 747-specific fault. 2nd, and directly because of this and other CWT events, fuel-inerting systems have since been required on new commercial aircraft. So the claim is not quite accurate or relevant. -tons of 747s have been standing in the same hot conditions with their AC on and none of them exploded?: This is the "only time" argument. But there have been others too: 9/11 was unique, no matter how you slice it. Same for Air France 447. UA 585 was so unique at the time that it was unsolved until another crash happened. The odds were millions to one. The dive of TWA 841 has never been replicated no matter which scenario you go with. Many other examples of one-offs exist, such as the BA 777 crash landing in London. Birginair was a first, and so was Aeroperu 757 crash. You can also make the same argument with the shoot down theory: first time in history US Navy friendly fire in the US off a major city. - but it's not explosive: Yes, but the argument is that the vapors were volatile. Different scenario. I've researched this and there's plenty of evidence that fuel vapors are indeed flammable. So that's another misconception.
    2
  2.  @Sovereign-of-silly  Well you got me there!
    2
  3. Maybe. But when you consider many of the details, the shoot down is also not without its problems, prime among them the unaccounted for 30-40 seconds by witnesses, suggesting a late stage event that looked a lot like fireworks.
    1
  4. Possibly.
    1
  5.  @Sovereign-of-silly  Not in my book. Discussion welcome.
    1
  6.  @Sovereign-of-silly  Like I said, you can make for a case for amissile. You can also make a case there was no missile "They're flammable yes but why did it violently explode instead of starting a fire on board?" They already did a test proving it can happen. It's on a Youtube video series called Best Evidence. "Also even if it wasn't the 747s fault, they still would be needed to be grounded" There would be nothing new there. Witness the 737Max. Even after the SECOND crash, the FAA still said there wasn't enough evidence to ground the plane. As to witnesses, the main problem I have is they don't match the known event timeline. This is especially true for Fred Meyer, for example. He and his fellow pilots all agreed it took just 10 seconds for the massive fireball to hit the ocean. That suggests a late stage event. My own theory, shared by the NTSB, is that few if any saw the initial explosion at 13,000 ft. It was not until the plane dropped to about 6,000 ft that a huge fireball occurred, which is what drew people to look at the sky. As William Tobin put it, the explosion could have been the culmination of an omni-directional explosion. Imagine a falling firework as streaks of light continue to shoot upwards. The entire event was about 50 seconds, but the witness statements don't seem to corroborate a 30 second gap between the end of the streak and an explosion.
    1
  7.  @Sovereign-of-silly  Here's the Best Evidence link https://youtu.be/zwWzRFsrqAE see 31:30
    1
  8. Another big lie is the failure of missile theorists to consider the evidence that clashes with their views. Prime among it being the witness descriptions don't account for the roughly 40 seconds between the initiating event and the huge fireball.
    1
  9. The only book I found under that name on Amazon is by Randall Brooke. What are your main pieces of evidence?
    1
  10. It can be argued either way.
    1
  11.  @Sovereign-of-silly  Confused. Why did you just reply in another thread it was definitely a missile?
    1