That's fine. I'll just filter you and your friends out, just like everyone
else does. All this effort you make to disruupt this newsgroup and no one
will pay you the slightest attention. As the sayijng goes it must really
suck to be you.



"A.Melon" wrote in message
news:35793423965c7e7c4189a9f1ea453208@melontraffic kers.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 4 May 2005, "SoFarrell" wrote:
"A.Melon" wrote in message
news:24a8219db826a193d52ce5d19805ad12@melontraff ickers.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Tue, 03 May 2005, bb wrote:

Snipped

Do you really squeal like a pig when you get a big dick in your ass? I
heard you whine and moan and yell "more, more, deeper".


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.58ckt

iQA/AwUBQng6ySkklmLVsf/xEQLfjACgyWx6xn0MTXvx9T59o39W3/4nntYAoIrU
aofsaezB1wX3aa9p6EpBKR0c
=Gm3Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Would you please stop dumping your garbage in here? You seem to post here
with a 100 different names and most of your messages are exactly the same.
I
don't have time to set up all sorts of filters. Other than annoying
everyone
do you have a reason for doin what you are doing? I look in here a couple
of
times a week for interesting fishing or boat-fishing stuff, and what I
find
are hundreds of meaningless posts from you full of cuss words and insults.

Can't you stop this bad behavior?

No, not until a few OT spammers stop. Complain to Harry, Jim, bb, NYOB,
Walter Irvin, and the others. I told you all it will be a long year until
the OT posting stops. I am no ,more guilty than they. If they can spam and
troll, so can I. As long as they continue, I will continue. When this
becomes rec.boats and not an OT political sandbox for a very elite few,
I'll stop. In the meantime, I will keep ****ting in their sandbox.

So, **** off.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.58ckt

iQA/AwUBQnlyWSkklmLVsf/xEQK0CgCeMVoN/GimYOCOzVsmXfiFGSir1dwAoP8k
ClHvKmGCVAS4LmPo7tA36sz9
=pCmn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:45:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:


As to which incident? Oklahoma City or Flight 800? I'll admit that
with Oklahoma City there are some unanswered questions, but no where
have I read anything that credibly suggested Flight 800 was a terrorist
act.

http://twa800.com/pages/alhayat.htm

They cite articles by Reuters, NY Times, London Times, etc.

As I said, I think there are still unanswered questions about Oklahoma
City, but as to Flight 800 that site is thin, real thin. Flight 800 was
flying at 13,700 feet when it exploded. While there are stingers that can
reach that ceiling, I believe the stingers available to potential
terrorists (Afghanistan) would have been at or over their limit.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:45:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:


As to which incident? Oklahoma City or Flight 800? I'll admit that
with Oklahoma City there are some unanswered questions, but no where
have I read anything that credibly suggested Flight 800 was a terrorist
act.

http://twa800.com/pages/alhayat.htm

They cite articles by Reuters, NY Times, London Times, etc.

As I said, I think there are still unanswered questions about Oklahoma
City, but as to Flight 800 that site is thin, real thin. Flight 800 was
flying at 13,700 feet when it exploded. While there are stingers that can
reach that ceiling, I believe the stingers available to potential
terrorists (Afghanistan) would have been at or over their limit.


Assuming that it was a Stinger built in the mid 80's and supplied to Afghan
rebels to fight the Soviets, it was most likely the FIM-92B, with a range
15,600 feet. That means TWA 800 was within range of the shoulder fired
missile that al Qaeda was most likely to have in their arsenal.

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_for...1013_2_n.shtml

http://twa800.com/news/stinger10-8-99.htm

On Thu, 05 May 2005 15:04:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:45:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:


As to which incident? Oklahoma City or Flight 800? I'll admit that
with Oklahoma City there are some unanswered questions, but no where
have I read anything that credibly suggested Flight 800 was a
terrorist act.

http://twa800.com/pages/alhayat.htm

They cite articles by Reuters, NY Times, London Times, etc.

As I said, I think there are still unanswered questions about Oklahoma
City, but as to Flight 800 that site is thin, real thin. Flight 800 was
flying at 13,700 feet when it exploded. While there are stingers that
can reach that ceiling, I believe the stingers available to potential
terrorists (Afghanistan) would have been at or over their limit.


Assuming that it was a Stinger built in the mid 80's and supplied to
Afghan rebels to fight the Soviets, it was most likely the FIM-92B, with a
range 15,600 feet. That means TWA 800 was within range of the shoulder
fired missile that al Qaeda was most likely to have in their arsenal.

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_for...1013_2_n.shtml

Not so fast, look at the maximum *altitude* from that site.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 15:04:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:45:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:


As to which incident? Oklahoma City or Flight 800? I'll admit that
with Oklahoma City there are some unanswered questions, but no where
have I read anything that credibly suggested Flight 800 was a
terrorist act.

http://twa800.com/pages/alhayat.htm

They cite articles by Reuters, NY Times, London Times, etc.

As I said, I think there are still unanswered questions about Oklahoma
City, but as to Flight 800 that site is thin, real thin. Flight 800 was
flying at 13,700 feet when it exploded. While there are stingers that
can reach that ceiling, I believe the stingers available to potential
terrorists (Afghanistan) would have been at or over their limit.


Assuming that it was a Stinger built in the mid 80's and supplied to
Afghan rebels to fight the Soviets, it was most likely the FIM-92B, with
a
range 15,600 feet. That means TWA 800 was within range of the shoulder
fired missile that al Qaeda was most likely to have in their arsenal.

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_for...1013_2_n.shtml

Not so fast, look at the maximum *altitude* from that site.

The Stinger is a last resort weapon in air defense.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 15:04:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:45:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:


As to which incident? Oklahoma City or Flight 800? I'll admit that
with Oklahoma City there are some unanswered questions, but no where
have I read anything that credibly suggested Flight 800 was a
terrorist act.

http://twa800.com/pages/alhayat.htm

They cite articles by Reuters, NY Times, London Times, etc.

As I said, I think there are still unanswered questions about Oklahoma
City, but as to Flight 800 that site is thin, real thin. Flight 800 was
flying at 13,700 feet when it exploded. While there are stingers that
can reach that ceiling, I believe the stingers available to potential
terrorists (Afghanistan) would have been at or over their limit.


Assuming that it was a Stinger built in the mid 80's and supplied to
Afghan rebels to fight the Soviets, it was most likely the FIM-92B, with
a
range 15,600 feet. That means TWA 800 was within range of the shoulder
fired missile that al Qaeda was most likely to have in their arsenal.

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_for...1013_2_n.shtml

Not so fast, look at the maximum *altitude* from that site.


12,464 feet. Yes, if the altitude was indeed 13,700 feet, it appears that
TWA 800 was out of range of the Stinger FIM-92 missile...at least according
to Janes. Of course, when you state 13,700 feet number, you're relying on a
number given to you by the same people who claim it was an accident.
Richard Clarke has said on one occasion that the plane was at 15,000 feet,
and then contradicted himself in his book when he said it was at 17,000
feet. Even the altitude of the plane at the time of the explosion is in
doubt.

The shoulder-fired Anza MK-II (Chinese) has been in Pakistan's arsenal since
1990. The QW-1 (Chinese) is also in Pakistan's arsenal. The maximum
altitude for these portable shoulder-fired missiles is about 4km...which is
very close to, but just shy of TWA 800's *alleged* altitude.

Are there other shoulder-fired systems that could have hit the plane?
Possibly. I know that there are plenty of mobile Surface-to-Air missiles
that could easily reach that altitude (PL-9D, etc).

Can you think of a motive why the government wouldn't admit that it was a
terrorist attack on an airplane? I can. Especially in 1996...just 4 months
before a Presidential election.

On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:17:24 -0400, NOYB wrote:


Are there other shoulder-fired systems that could have hit the plane?
Possibly. I know that there are plenty of mobile Surface-to-Air missiles
that could easily reach that altitude (PL-9D, etc).

Could have? Yes. Did? I very much doubt it. Remember, Flight 800 came
down 8 miles of the coast. If you were trying to bring down a plane,
would you be sitting in a boat, at sea, waiting for a plane that would
pass overhead at the very limits of your weapons range? It would seem
there would be easier pickings, and more escape routes on land.

Anyway, if you are interested a link to the NTSB crash report:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/twa.800/reports/

Personally, I've always been impressed by their work. They seem to find
that needle in the haystack over and over again.



Can you think of a motive why the government wouldn't admit that it was a
terrorist attack on an airplane? I can. Especially in 1996...just 4
months before a Presidential election.

Sure, but then there is a double edge. An attack could be used to
political advantage.