Clarke's complicity in crash cover-up

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 24, 2004 | Jack Cashill

[binger]

Liar

[Alberta's Child]

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.

[ServesURight]

WOW! Please ZOT masters, don't delete this thread!

[ladyinred]

"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!

[spyone]

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

[Alberta's Child]

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.

[petercooper]

NATO warships off the coast of LI?? What the hell are you thinking?

[petercooper]

Yes - no way Flight 587 was caused by wind shear or whatever BS they came up with.

[walden]

The tail fell of flight 587, and I've never read ANY credible analyses that indicate terrorism there.

[Alberta's Child]

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."

[barker]

Cashill ping.

[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.

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."

[Alberta's Child]

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).

[Alberta's Child]

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

[js1138]

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.

[barker]

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/

[spyone]

Do you mean that keeping something like this under wraps is better than the possible panic/economic damage?

[U S Army EOD]

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.

[Ramius]

If it was shot down by the Navy, every sailor on that ship would know. Secrets like that don't keep.

[jpl]

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?