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

Skip to comments.

Clarke's complicity in crash cover-up
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 24, 2004 | Jack Cashill

Posted on 03/24/2004 4:31:03 PM PST by js1138

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last
To: js1138
Liar
21 posted on 03/24/2004 5:02:46 PM PST by binger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
It was not a heat-seeking missle. It was a new type of missile that tracked its target using the target's own radio "signature." There was no explosion -- the missile functions more like a flak shell, by detonating close to the target and shredding it with hundreds of tungsten carbide cubes.

22 posted on 03/24/2004 5:03:10 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: js1138
WOW! Please ZOT masters, don't delete this thread!
23 posted on 03/24/2004 5:03:15 PM PST by ServesURight (FReecerely Yours,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"The case of TWA 800 served as a turning point because of Washington's determination and to a great extent ability to suppress terrorist explanations and 'float' mechanical failure theories," wrote Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism Yossef Bodansky in1999. "To avoid such suppression after future strikes, terrorism-sponsoring states would raise the ante so that the West cannot ignore them." On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, while terrorists prepared to raise that ante, New Yorkers went about their business, unknowing, unsuspecting and totally unprepared. For this, they can thank, among others, Richard Clarke.

BTT!

24 posted on 03/24/2004 5:03:24 PM PST by ladyinred (democrats have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Regarding flight 587, this means the Bush administration is continuing the policy of concealment to the public. I have great problems with this.
25 posted on 03/24/2004 5:03:56 PM PST by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The real key is that anyone interested in shooting down a passenger jet would not have situated themselves so far east, when the jet was flying so high -- they would have been closer to JFK that night.

Remember, too -- when terrorism is involved, one of the goals is a well-publicized event. You don't shoot down an airliner flying at 13,000 feet or so if your goal is to shock people.
26 posted on 03/24/2004 5:06:04 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
NATO warships off the coast of LI?? What the hell are you thinking?
27 posted on 03/24/2004 5:07:27 PM PST by petercooper (I actually did vote for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: spyone
Yes - no way Flight 587 was caused by wind shear or whatever BS they came up with.
28 posted on 03/24/2004 5:08:37 PM PST by petercooper (I actually did vote for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: spyone
The tail fell of flight 587, and I've never read ANY credible analyses that indicate terrorism there.
29 posted on 03/24/2004 5:11:32 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wtc911
It took many months for the information to find its way out, but two facts about the night of Flight 800's demise are now known:

1. There were U.S. Navy assets off the south shore of Long Island that night.

2. There is a grid system that is used to designate naval exercise zones. The one though which Flight 800 was flying that night (I believe it is designated W-55, but don't hold me to it) was active that night.

Point #1 is particularly noteworthy because it represents a case of Alfred Hitchcock's "dog that doesn't bark" theory. All the naval ships in the area moved away that night as if nothing had happened, which would be an odd response if there were any chance in hell that a foreign terrorist had just shot down a U.S. airliner from a boat.

Conducting naval exercises in an area like that sounds ridiculous on its face, but based on conversations I've had since then I've determined that it's not so far-fetched. In fact, very often it behooves the Navy to conduct exercises in areas like this because it helps ensure that the weapon systems, navigation systems, etc. will work even with a lot of interference from background radio "traffic."

30 posted on 03/24/2004 5:11:52 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker; Free State Four; lagamorph; KC Burke; KC_Conspirator
Cashill ping.
31 posted on 03/24/2004 5:13:49 PM PST by barker (Normal people scare me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spyone
Regarding flight 587, this means the Bush administration is continuing the policy of concealment to the public. I have great problems with this.

I don't. If Richard Reid had been successful in his attempt to blow a plane out of the sky with explosives in his shoes, I have no doubt that there would have been a "mechanical problem" identified as a cause of the incident.

"Put not your trust in princes."

32 posted on 03/24/2004 5:14:19 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: petercooper
I'm speculating on joint U.S. Navy / NATO exercises as the reason why the U.S. Navy has never identified all of the ships that were in the area that night. Just a possibility.

There's no reason why the U.S. Navy could not have been responsible for it themselves -- it's not as if that kind of thing hasn't happened before (the Iranian airliner shot down back in the early 1990s).

33 posted on 03/24/2004 5:17:21 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: walden
Oh, sure. Tails fall off passenger jets like that all the time.

34 posted on 03/24/2004 5:18:05 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
You don't shoot down an airliner flying at 13,000 feet or so if your goal is to shock people.

Everything about the coverage would have been different if the airliner had been Israeli.

35 posted on 03/24/2004 5:19:42 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; All
Jack Cashill used to be a well liked morning radio talk show host in KC. Had a moron lady lib as his co-host. Show got yanked all of a sudden. Probably because of her or because Jack spoke the truth.

Jack knows what he's talking about when it comes to flight 800.
http://www.cashill.com/
36 posted on 03/24/2004 5:21:22 PM PST by barker (Normal people scare me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Do you mean that keeping something like this under wraps is better than the possible panic/economic damage?
37 posted on 03/24/2004 5:21:55 PM PST by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
So you are saying that the missle homed in on the aircrafts ID transponder? The explosion was internal. An airburst outside the aircraft would have not taken the nose off like it did. It would have had been as big as a Hawk or SA6 to get the plane. It had all the tell tale of a bomb going off. The streak is hard to explain though.

If it was a missle and did home in on the transponder, the missle made contact. I wonder how close the transmitting antenna would have been to the so called fuel tank or the nose of the aircraft. I think it broke into just forward of the wing.
38 posted on 03/24/2004 5:22:38 PM PST by U S Army EOD (John Kerry, the mother of all flip floppers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
If it was shot down by the Navy, every sailor on that ship would know. Secrets like that don't keep.
39 posted on 03/24/2004 5:22:54 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I don't know if this is a forbidden topic.

Why in the world would this be a "forbidden topic"? What are we, living in Stalinist Russia now?

40 posted on 03/24/2004 5:25:14 PM PST by jpl ("I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 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