Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TWA FLIGHT 800: Pilot takes NTSB to court: CIA lied, expert eyewitnesses come forward
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, December 12, 2003 | Jack Cashill

Posted on 12/12/2003 2:25:10 AM PST by JohnHuang2

Airline captain takes NTSB to court

Posted: December 12, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

On Monday, Dec. 15, Retired United Airline Capt. Ray Lahr takes his case against the National Transportation Safety Board to court, the last adversary this unlikely activist ever expected to face.

Lahr has no illusion about the challenge he faces, but he is focusing his attack on the most vulnerable point of the NTSB's defense – what he calls "the zoom-climb scenario" – and he has marshaled some impressive forces to help breach it.

The government first advanced this scenario six years earlier – Nov. 18, 1997, to be precise. That was the day that the FBI closed the criminal case on TWA Flight 800 and did so in a dramatic fashion. It was also the day that forever changed Lahr's life.

To negate the stubborn testimony of some 270 FBI eyewitnesses who had sworn they saw a flaming, smoke-trailing, zigzagging object ascend, arc over and destroy TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island, the FBI showed a video prepared by the CIA.

The video had all the grace of a Cold War jeremiad on atomic fallout. The music was ominous, the narration overbearing, the graphics cheesy and anachronistic. "The following program was produced by the Central Intelligence Agency," said the narrator at the outset, with more pride in ownership than seems right for any government agency, let alone a secret one.

The narrator explained there had been three major theories as to what brought down TWA 800: bomb, missile or mechanical failure. Of particular concern to investigators were reports "from dozens of eyewitnesses" who saw objects in the sky usually described as flares or fireworks.

"Was it a missile?" asks the narrator? "Did foreign terrorists destroy the aircraft?" The answer is quick in coming: No – "What the witnesses saw was a Boeing 747 in various stages of crippled flight." The CIA wanted the audience to come away with one understanding. And this was stated explicitly on screen: "The Eyewitnesses Did Not See a Missile."

The video climaxed with an animation purporting to show what the eyewitnesses did see. According to the CIA, the nose of the aircraft blew off from an internal explosion. "The explosion, although very loud was not seen by any known eyewitness." Not one.

TWA Flight 800 then allegedly "pitched up abruptly and climbed several thousand feet from its last recorded altitude of about 13,800 feet to a maximum altitude of about 17,000 feet." The CIA video claimed this was what the eyewitnesses had seen – not missiles, but a rocketing, nose-less 747 trailing fire.

Ray Lahr, comfortably retired in Malibu, had been following the investigation into TWA Flight 800 from the day it happened on July 17, 1996. He had a professional interest. For the last 20 of his "32 wonderful years" with United Airlines, he had served as a West Coast safety representative for the Air Line Pilots Association. In that position, he had participated in eight major crash investigations, all of which, in Lahr's opinion, had been "expertly managed" by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Soon after the TWA 800 crash, however, he realized that the open, honest process he had known no longer existed. Although the FBI would never declare the incident a crime, its agents were illegally controlling the investigation. NTSB investigators were forced to leak information as there was no other way to surface it. When a trusted colleague showed Lahr one bit of leaked evidence, an FAA radar tape of an unknown object traveling at 1,200 knots "and converging with TWA 800," Lahr's interest in the case was definitely piqued.

Lahr, however, trusted his government implicitly. He owed his career to it, and an excellent career it was. He had joined the U.S. Navy cadet program a week out of high school at the height of World War II and got his wings in 1946. He hired on with United Airlines in 1953 and made captain in 1965. In 1975, he received the Air Safety award from ALPA, its highest honor. An engineer by training, Lahr also designed and patented the Jeppesen computer, which is widely used by airline pilots.

Until Nov. 18, 1997, Lahr was content to dabble in Southern California real estate and perfect his tennis game. Life had treated him, his wife Jacqueline, and his three children well. If there were a less likely candidate to become an "anti-government" activist and "conspiracy theorist," it is hard to imagine who that candidate might be.

And then Lahr saw the video. He could not believe what he was seeing. The video struck him as false in every detail. For all of his side ventures and hobbies, Lahr admits, "My real interest is in gravity." It had been for a long time. Until he began his safety work with ALPA, Lahr had been working extensively at UCLA on a gravity research project. From the moment he saw the video, he believed its zoom-climb hypothesis to be "impossible," and he set out to prove it.

Ray Lahr went looking for answers. He wanted to know what calculations the NTSB and the CIA had used to come to their conclusion that TWA Flight 800 zoomed upwards 3,200 feet after it lost its nose, and he was entirely willing to work within the system. Lahr began by exchanging letters with NTSB Chairman Jim Hall – 14 in all. Despite the NTSB's public mission, Hall proved adamant about refusing to release any information.

Lahr tried to communicate with Dennis Crider, the NTSB technician who worked singly on the project, but Crider stonewalled him. In fact, Crider kept his data to himself, a violation, says Lahr, "of all of the rules of accident investigation." Without independent verification, the data offered pilots and engineers no clue as to how to deal with comparable incidents in the future.

Ever patient, Lahr submitted separate Freedom of Information Act requests to the NTSB and the CIA. The CIA told him it had used data and conclusions provided by the NTSB. The NTSB told him that it could not release information because it was proprietary to Boeing. And Boeing, from day one, had testily distanced itself from the conclusions drawn by the CIA.

"Boeing was not involved in the production of the video shown today, nor have we had the opportunity to obtain a copy or fully understand the data used to create it," said the company in its immediate response to the CIA animation.

The NTSB was trifling with the wrong person. As a former chairman on the ALPA Aircraft Evaluation Committee, Lahr knew the rules of the game. As he observes, "There is no legitimate proprietary information in the operation and performance of an airline." Pilots have to know an aircraft's capabilities.

Lahr appealed the NTSB's decision, but after several rebuffs, he was advised that the only remaining recourse was a lawsuit. With the largely pro-bono assistance of attorney John Clarke, Lahr is now taking his case against the National Transportation Safety Board to the United States District Court in Los Angeles on Dec. 15.

The congenial, youthful Lahr has done an excellent job pulling the sometimes-fractious TWA 800 community together to assist him. Many key people have filed sworn affidavits with Lahr, including retired Rear Adm. Clarence Hill, and their collective commentary has to impress even the most skeptical of observers.

Lahr persuaded one key witness, James Holtsclaw, to go public for the first time. In 1996, Holtsclaw was serving as the Deputy Assistant for the Western Region of the Air Transport Association. On July 25, 1996, one week after the disaster, it was Holtsclaw who gave United Airline pilot Dick Russell a copy of the radar tape recorded at New York Terminal Radar Approach Control. This is the same tape that got Pierre Salinger involved in the case and eventually ruined his career and reputation. Holtsclaw knows it to be "authentic" because he received it directly from an NTSB investigator frustrated by its suppression.

"The tape shows a primary target at 1,200 knots converging with TWA 800, during the climb out phase of TWA 800," swears Holtsclaw on the affidavit. "Primary target" simply means an object without a transponder. Although Holtsclaw estimates the object's speed, his estimate falls within the likely range of a missile.

Lahr also recruited retired Air Force Col. Lawrence Pence to his cause. "I find [the CIA scenario] highly unlikely, incredible. With the loss of a wing, with the loss of its pilots, cockpit and front end, I believe that [the aircraft] would have tumbled, tolled and basically dropped like a stone," argues Pence, who spent most of his career in intelligence, dealing with missile and space issues. "And this is exactly what the radar data that has subsequently been looked at says happened."

Physicist Thomas Stalcup, Ph.D., has reviewed most if not all of that radar data. "The radar data," swears Stalcup in his affidavit, "indicate that Flight 800 began an immediate descent and northward turn immediately after losing electrical power."

Several of the eyewitnesses Lahr has gathered have verified Pence's stone-falling thesis. One is Maj. Fritz Meyer, a winner of the Distinguished Flying Cross. Meyer stared the explosion in his face from his Air National Guard helicopter about 10 miles away:

When that airplane blew up, it immediately began falling. It came right out of the sky. From the first moment it was going down. It never climbed. The thought that this aircraft could climb was laughable. ... If you shot a duck with a full load of buck it came down like that. It came down like a stone.

Master Chief Petty Officer Dwight Brumley also volunteered his testimony to Lahr. A 25-year U.S. Navy vet with top security clearance and hands-on experience with missile exercises, Brumley was flying as a passenger on the right side of US AIR 217. The plane was flying north at 21,000 feet and was just moments from intersecting TWA 800's flight path when Brumley observed a "flare" moving parallel to US AIR 217 ... but faster:

During the approximately 7 to 10 seconds I observed the "flare," it appeared to be climbing. It then pitched over and then just after the apex (one to two seconds at most) a small explosion appeared in the center of the "flare." The body of the explosion was spherical in shape and then suddenly grew much bigger and then began to elongate as it appeared to be headed downward, growing larger as it descended.

Brumley's "flare" was moving at nearly a right angle to TWA Flight 800. In addition to Brumley, Meyer and others, Lahr has entered the testimony of two critical witnesses whose testimony has been largely overlooked. On the subject of the CIA animation, however, no witnesses are more critical than the two pilots of an Eastwind Flight 507 from Boston to Trenton, First Officer Vincent Fuschetti and Capt. David McCLaine.

The Eastwind pilots were about to begin a slow descent to Trenton when they first spotted TWA Flight 800, then some 60 miles away on this "crystal clear" night. McClaine described the plane with its landing lights still on as "definitely the brightest light in the sky." As Flight 800 approached them at a slightly lower altitude and began crossing its path from right to left, McClaine flicked on his own inboard landing light to signal to the pilots of TWA 800 that he and Fuschetti had the aircraft in sight.

Just as he flicked on his light, wrote McClaine in his report to Eastwind Airline immediately after the crash, "The other aircraft exploded into a very large ball of flames." At this point, the two aircraft were less than 20 miles apart. "Almost immediately," observed McClaine, "two flaming objects, with flames trailing about 4,000 feet behind them, fell out of the bottom of the ball of flame." Within 10 seconds of witnessing the explosion, McClaine called in the explosion to Boston air-traffic control. He was the first one to do so. The FBI knew this by day two:

Eastwind: "We just saw an explosion out here, Stinger Bee 507 (Dave McClaine, Captain, Eastwind Airlines)"

Controller: "Stinger Bee 507, I'm sorry I missed it ... did you say something else."

Eastwind: "We just saw an explosion up ahead of us here, somewhere about 16,000 feet or something like that. It just went down – in the water."

The reader does well to recall the postulate on which, the infamous CIA video is based: No eyewitnesses saw the initial explosion. This was a lie – there is no nice way to describe it – and the CIA knew it. Fuschetti and McClaine both witnessed the initial explosion. The crew of two other airliners immediately confirmed their sightings. Brumley and Meyer saw the initial explosion as well. At a minimum, eight unimpeachable, experienced, airborne eyewitnesses saw the first blast and from a variety of different angles.

The CIA lied to protect its bizarre timeline. As the CIA told the story, the plane suffered an invisible center fuel tank explosion, lost its nose four seconds later, zoom-climbed an additional 3,200 feet and only then broke into two distinct fireballs, "more than 42 seconds" after the initial blast.

Compare the CIA story with Eastwind First Officer Fuschetti's testimony. "At the onset of the explosion, the fireball spread horizontally then spilt into two columns of fire, which immediately began to fall slowly towards the water below." Lest anyone misinterpret him, Fuschetti adds, "At no time did I see any vertical travel of the aircraft after the explosion occurred."

The CIA's fiery climb was necessary to explain away the hundreds of claims from eyewitnesses on the ground. It does not, however, account for what McClaine and Fuschetti saw. They saw the plane clearly at every stage.

Although McClaine and Fuschetti could not see a missile streak from their angle, they undoubtedly saw the first explosion and the immediate plunge of the plane into the sea. Indeed, McClaine was telling Boston air-traffic control that the plane "just went down – in the water" within 10 to 15 seconds of that first blast.

This may well explain why the NTSB never interviewed Fuschetti and did not interview McClaine until March 25, 1999, nearly a year and a half after the FBI closed the criminal case with a showing of the CIA video. "You are a very key person as far as we are concerned," said Robert Young, TWA's representative on the NTSB witness group, "because you were the only person that was looking at it at the time."

Although McClaine was by no means the "only person," Young's acknowledgement boldly refutes the CIA claim that no one had seen the initial explosion. Young, at least, wanted this to be known. He asked McClaine whether there were any noticeable climbing angle changes before or after. Answered McClaine, "None at all."

"I didn't see it pitch up, no," McClaine elaborated. "Everything ended right there at that explosion as far as I'm concerned." When McClaine ironically ventured a far-fetched scenario that could have resulted in the CIA's zoom-climb, Young responded in the same spirit, "We'd be cutting new trails in aviation if we could do that." Young, however, was in no position to convert irony into action, and he knew it. The die had already been cast.

Still, Young did not give up. A few weeks after its interview with McClaine, the NTSB witness group managed to secure an interview with the two CIA analysts responsible for the video, now a full 18 months after the video's sole showing. Young badgered the chief analyst, then unidentified, with McClaine's testimony.

"If [the nose-less plane] had ascended," Young asked the analyst rhetorically, "[McClaine] would have been concerned because it ascended right through his altitude." When the analyst tried to deflect the question, Young continued, "I think he would have noticed it. Your analysis has it zooming to above his altitude."

"It's a very critical point that it's not critical precisely how high that plane went," the CIA analyst bluffed before pulling out his trump card. "Even if the plane went up several thousand feet on the ground there's maybe one witness that saw that, this guy on the bridge."

When pressed, the analyst could cite only one person who actually saw the zoom-climb, "the guy on the bridge." Ray Lahr has marshaled his testimony as well. His name is Mike Wire, a millwright from Philadelphia and a U.S. Army vet. And how did the "guy on the bridge" feel about the CIA video?

"When I first saw the scenario, I thought they used it just as a story to pacify the general public," attests Wire, "because it didn't represent what I had testified to the agent I saw out there."

What Wire saw was an object streaking up off the horizon and zigzagging out to sea at a 45-degree angle. For the record, the CIA analysts or the FBI fully fabricated the interview in which Wire was alleged to have changed his mind about what he saw. No such "second interview" ever took place.

In the last six years, Ray Lahr has talked to many of the eyewitnesses and many other experts as well. He has put more than $10,000 of his own money into the investigation and countless hours of his time. On Monday, he gets his first day in court.

The government has potentially two witnesses on its side, neither of them particularly credible. One is Dennis Crider, the beleaguered NTSB technician, who has refused to share his unique knowledge of the cryptic zoom-climb calculations. The other is the CIA analyst, now proudly identified by the CIA as Randolph Tauss, who first conjured up the zoom-climb hypothesis

Tauss's own account of how he came to this conclusion speaks eloquently about the Rube Goldberg quality of the government's case. At the April 1999 interview with the NTSB, Tauss traced his eureka moment to the precise hour of 10 p.m. on Dec. 30, 1996. Said Tauss, "There was a realization, having all the data laid out in front of me, that you can explain what the eyewitnesses are seeing with only the burning aircraft."

For all the talk of interagency cooperation, the FBI had lent witness statements to the CIA in small, frustrating batches, starting with "30 or 40" out of more than 700. Tauss, in fact, came to his startling conclusion after reviewing only about 12 percent of the interview statements, many of these hasty and slapdash in the first place. Tauss did not speak to a single eyewitness. Scary as it sounds, he won an "intelligence medal" for his work.

The NTSB could not afford to test Tauss's zoom-climb hypothesis. Its case depends fully upon it. Without the hypothesis, there is no explanation for what those 270 eyewitnesses saw other than the obvious – namely missiles streaking upwards toward TWA Flight 800. If Lahr can publicly undermine the zoom-climb hypothesis, he can possibly force open the case.

No one individual has more cause to be dissatisfied with the glacially slow revelation of truth in this case than Lahr. But he has not given up faith. In fact, he has not yet even begun to fight.




TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: airfarceone; clinton; flight800; nutjobs; tinfoilalert; twa800list; twaflight800
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 next last
To: Orbiter
Is it reasonable to suggest that a commercial airliner would depart for an extended over-water flight with its main fuel tank empty, just like the TWA800 crew supposedly did before heading out across the Atlantic ocean in an aircraft full of passengers and cargo?

There are numerous flaws in the government explanation of TWA800, but the assertion that the Center Wing tank was empty isn't one of them.

Apparently, that tank is only used if the flight requires more fuel than the wing tanks can hold, and given the light load and distance of the flight, the CWT wasn't needed for fuel, and hence they don't fill it. (To use full tanks on all flights would needlessly increase fuel burn, to cover the weight of fuel the flight will never use. For maximim efficiency, they only fuel the aircraft for the specific flight and load conditions.)

I believe this has been confirmed many times by various 747 pilots who fly the same or similar routes.

The bigger problem with the empty CWT explosion theory is that jet fuel such as is used by 747's isn't explosive at the temperatures found inside the tank. The government offered up the theory that the air conditioning packs running on the ground before takeoff heated the tank's contents (residual fuel) above the temperture required for a spark to ignite it, but this is refuted by one independent investigator who took a thremos bottle and a lab-quality thermometer to JFK, and had a maintenence worker drain fuel from an "empty" CWT on a 747 sitting on the ground at JFK with it's AC packs running: the result was a temperature well below the ignition limit for that fuel.

They only known mechanism that can cause fuel at the temperature to explode is if a massive mechanical agitation causes the residual fuel to form an aerosol. Detonation of a missile warhead adjacent to the fuselage is reputedly one such means of aerosolizing the residual fuel in the CWT.

81 posted on 12/12/2003 8:48:52 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The answer as to "why a coverup" can be found in this article.

TWA Flight 800 – an FBI cover-up?

Essentially, the article about the book claims Clinton sat on it so as not to affect the election 3 months later.

82 posted on 12/12/2003 9:07:35 AM PST by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verity
I could list dozens of instances where both of these agencies have out right lied. Just to name a few, Ruby Ridge, Waco, TWA flight 800 and I'm not sure exactly but what of the F.B.I. letting an innocent man go to jail for years in a a case they knew he was innocent but needed to protect their informant who actually did the killing? Happened in the north east.
There are many other instances. If you look you will find self serving situations. Coverups and still these agencies insist on needing more funds.
A paragon of virtue? no, but I am not criminal either.
83 posted on 12/12/2003 11:25:30 AM PST by Joe Boucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
Be careful of using a broad brush to paint the entire government as untrustworthy because that would be inaccurate.
84 posted on 12/12/2003 11:51:48 AM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: verity
Be careful of using a broad brush to paint the entire government as untrustworthy because that would be inaccurate.

It's also innaccurate to wield a broad brush to say that all prostitutes have STDs. I still wouldn't trust one. Odds and history are against you.

85 posted on 12/12/2003 11:56:17 AM PST by Jim Cane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom
Sometime between 1997 and 1999, and I do not remember when, I was scanning a newspaper and came across the obit of a 27-35 year old male (I cannot recall exactly) Navy diver who had died during some kind of Navy noncombat exercise. His obit said that he had been one of the divers sent in to pull out the parts of TWA800 from the ocean.

I know it's only one Navy dude whose death seemed mysterious and who had a connection to TWA800, but it was something I noted. I don't know who the investigators were. I don't know who the divers were. I only know the theories I've read on the internet and the stuff I heard on the news right after the explosion.
86 posted on 12/12/2003 12:02:47 PM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: petitfour
I know it's only one Navy dude whose death seemed mysterious and who had a connection to TWA800, but it was something I noted.

Well, sure, it's worthy of note. However, I'd need a few more to convince me of "Arkancide"...
87 posted on 12/12/2003 12:04:43 PM PST by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom
Yep. Me, too. But I don't read every obit in the country every day. It was just happenstance that I saw that one.
88 posted on 12/12/2003 12:09:19 PM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Don't know where this will lead BUT if this is proven to be a TERRORIST attack and cover-up.....WELL WE KNOW ON WHO'S WATCH SEVERAL OTHER TERRORIST attacks were virtually ignored!!!
89 posted on 12/12/2003 12:11:13 PM PST by PISANO (God Bless our Troops........They will not TIRE - They will not FALTER - They will not FAIL!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PigRigger
BTW, regarding people taking responsibility, I believe often the wacky groups that take responsibility, actually had nothing to do with the terrorist act. For instance, Eric Rudolf didn't take responsibility for the bombing of the Olympics in Atlanta, so if Osama Bin Laden had claimed responsibility, who would know if it was true or not?

But just because an incident is not claimed by anyone, doesn't make it a innocent "accident".
90 posted on 12/12/2003 12:30:41 PM PST by JohnEBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
PISANO said: "Don't know where this will lead BUT if this is proven to be a TERRORIST attack and cover-up....."

There will never be a "proof" regarding this episode. There may be future revelations, but it is unlikely that it will significantly affect the credibility of the cover story. The credibility is already extremely limited.

I would guess that a policy decision came down from Clinton that the plane blew up accidently. Anyone who made a claim inconsistent with that was pressured to give in. Their opportunity to object has passed.

The picture of the x-ray taken of Ron Brown's head clearly shows a pattern of debris in his skull, with no reasonable explanation for how it got there. The cover story that the x-ray cassette was defective can be challenged, but not conclusively discounted. ( What an incredible coincidence that all 33 particles on the x-ray cassette just happen to fall within the outline of Brown's skull.) The follow-up x-ray that was supposedly taken is missing.

Whatever was in Ron Brown's skull is still there if the information that Brown was not cremated is correct. I doubt that anyone will ever be allowed to exhume him and identify the debris. There will never be "proof" that Ron Brown did not die as the official determination states.

That the FBI, the CIA, the BATFE and other government agencies lie is a fact which few will contest. The possible scenarios involving such lies and coverups create a smooth continuum from illegal acts involving just a single person to cover-ups like TWA-800. It is impossible for an intelligent person to discern any point at which the suggestion of misconduct becomes too implausible.

Another aspect of cover-ups is that the "conspiracy theorists" must be discredited. The idea that our navy was involved in an exercise which went bad might be an example of a story floated to discredit the missile theory.

Many people who might believe that a cover-up could occur may not be sympathetic to those who would claim that our own navy would fail to reveal the truth. Such people will not want to be associated with an attack on the credibility of the navy and they will then choose not to be associated with anyone who doubts the official "explanation".

Who would believe that Pellicano would hire people to tap phone lines and plant intimidating items in a person's car? Now we know that he did and that he was in possession of explosives. Who now doubts that someone in power could hire Pellicano or someone like him to plant a bomb?

Were was Pellicano when the Earth Firsters supposedly blew themselves up? There were complaints that the investigation targetted the environmentalists to the exclusion of everyone else.

Where else do we see the investigators targetting someone to the apparent exclusion of everyone else? How about Richard Jewell? Gee, another explosion. How convenient. Isn't Rudolph floated as the bomber now? I thought he was targetting abortionists? What is the connection with an Olympic site? None that I know of.

That our Supreme Court is out of control is obvious. Their decision on the Foster photos will set a powerful precedent either for or against government withholding of evidence. Much more than just the fate of Vince Foster rides on this case.

91 posted on 12/12/2003 1:43:52 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Jim Cane
Invalid analogy.
92 posted on 12/12/2003 3:33:23 PM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Bump.
93 posted on 12/12/2003 5:37:48 PM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder; JohnHuang2; MeeknMing; Grampa Dave; BOBTHENAILER; SAMWolf
The CIA "animation" was pure crap.

A shoulder-fired missile was fired from the fast boat, the only vessel leaving the scene while others converged to rescue.

As traitorrapist42 and Hitlery fired Woolsey for linking WTC I to Ramzi Yousef and Iraq, and pinned all of OKCBomb on the white guys, ignoring the Iraqi John Doe Number Two and Nichols' trips to Yousef's cell in the Phillipines, so, too, they suppressed the terrorist connection to TWA Flight 800.

Terrorism? What terrorism?

94 posted on 12/12/2003 8:11:44 PM PST by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
I agree with you. Clinton covered it up, took money from the airlines and kept us all fat and sassy. Why else would he commission an airline safety study right after flight 800 to find ways to protect the airlines from terrorism?

Read First Strike, TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America, by Cashill and Sanders and see what you think.
95 posted on 12/12/2003 8:17:22 PM PST by ladyinred (If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I certainly hope Mr. Lahr will get to the truth. I live in the town that lost 14 of its high school youth, members of the French Club, who were shot out of the sky on their class trip to Paris.

No one in this town has ever accepted the Government's tall tale of how this tragedy came about.
96 posted on 12/12/2003 8:33:33 PM PST by Palladin (Proud to be a FReeper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2; JohnEBoy
I think you're overestimating the difficulty of a cover-up. People at high levels of the federal gov are experts at working within a government hierarchy. They know that the one key rule for working in a government hierarchy is to keep your boss happy and out of trouble: agree with the boss, support his/her efforts towards achieving objectives, and don't make the boss look bad. All it takes to launch a massive cover-up is for the President to decide to make it happen. Also, there can't be indisputable evidence to the contrary, such as the live TV coverage of the 9/11 attacks.

The words "cover up" only exist in the mind of the President. He doesn't have to say them to anyone else. He just guides them to the goals he wants to achieve, intimidates those who can be intimidated, moves those who can't be intimidated out of the process, and rejects a story he doesn't want in the official gov report. Clinton no doubt had ways to initmidate the disloyal elements in his adminstration. It looks to me like Clinton got a thrill out of lying and getting away with it, and the bigger the lie the bigger the thrill. It only caught up with him a few times, in sex scandals with Monica and a couple other women. No doubt Clinton got huge satisfaction from covering up a missile attack on TWA 800 and replacing the truth with a huge lie. Oh BTW, it makes a cover-up much easier if the President is a Democrat because the media always wants to agree with a Democract President and rarely does a serious investigation into a Democrat.

97 posted on 12/12/2003 9:31:28 PM PST by defenderSD (I remember when America was truly free and people believed the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: verity
Invalid analogy.

Perfect analogy. Wimbishy wumbly defense of our whorish government however.

98 posted on 12/13/2003 6:12:30 AM PST by Jim Cane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Jim Cane
Obviously it is foolish of me to argue with a cum laude graduate of the Barbra Streisand School of Delusional Logic.
99 posted on 12/13/2003 6:15:39 AM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: mfulstone
Clinton didn't want to rock Islam's boat and risk more terrorism. He was the ultimate appeaser. That's also why he wouldn't let the FBI pursue the Middle East connection to the OKC/Murrah bldg bombing.

By George, I think you've got it! I just wish our George could expose the mother %#@*er.
100 posted on 12/13/2003 9:00:27 AM PST by demkicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson