Posted on 07/23/2004 12:03:52 PM PDT by philosofy123
I know it is late afternoon on Friday for me to get a good response to this posting, however, I am constantly thinking that the US government should come clean, and admit that they lied to us about the shoulder to air missile that hit the TWA flight 800 in the NYC harbor.
I do appreciate that they lied to protect the flying public from panicking, however, after 9/11, and after the wall to wall public education regarding fanatic Islam, it would not be harmful to day to admit the truth.
Please let me know your views?
(G.D., if you know him/her could you please ping the OKC Conspiracy ping list over here?)
If you don't like liars, you may want to relocate to heaven! On this stinking planet, and among the stinking politicians, there is nothing but lies and liars, and our job is to sift through the BS, and pick what is plausible, and what is an agenda driven lies.
"I REST MY CASE, the FBI and other governmental organizations were all ordered to lie!!!!!"
Caaareful. Ashcroft will send you to Guantanamo and make you put ladies undies on your head...
Besides, why would our gov't ever lie to us about anything, whether it be TWA 800, OKC, 9-11, WTC-1, etc? Why wouldn't Bush now press into this investigation if there was anything legit to your claims?
There was the section of fuel tank that had holes going into it, rather than comng out of it as would have been had the center wing tank blew up as the NTSB said.
That's also one of the pieces missing, like the steel door that is missing from Waco.
Either way, whatever happened we're not sure, but things don't add up.
I doubt the missing files that Berger crammed in his underoos had anything about flight 800 in them.
But it would be interesting to know what they DID have.
Since he was a loyal Clintonite, they probably had ALOT of embarrassing info that had to be purged to protect Bubba's lagacy.
If they were going to use a shoulder-fired SAM, they would have been much closer in, IMO.
If you are going to fire a missile at an eastbound passenger jet out of JFK Airport in an attempt to shoot it down, you aren't going to do it out off the south shore of eastern Long Island where the aircraft would normally be flying at an altitude of 16,000+ feet. Instead, you are going to position yourself closer to the airport itself (off the coast of Nassau County) where the aircraft would be flying at a much lower altitude.
Probably because it would take years for researchers to disprove it, and by then no one would be paying much attention any more.
The calendar STRONGLY argues for an election-driven cover-up.
I already explained the Fuel tanks...impossible scenerio...
Like you, I would love to know which docs were taken, and what is Berger hiding.
I think it was a military training mishap...
Think of the international implications if found to be true.
Absolutely. This is why I posted the second point in Post #42.
I don't know what the real cause of the crash was, but there is no question in my mind that a shoot-down by an errant missile is a distinct possibility.
Just ask the Iranians . . . it's not as if the U.S. Navy hasn't done this kind of thing before.
The mujahadeen in afghanistan could have caused much higher casualties among Russian pilots, but didn't.
Seems they had a problem thinking it through, they positioned themselves poorly quite often.
Then there's some odd stuff to ponder as well.
An SA-7 Strela, max altitude listed as 1,700 feet, hit an Omani airfreighter at 11,500 feet back in the 70's.
It is possible that there was a terrorboy out in a boat with a missile, and he was told to fire at a plane, any plane at all.
They likely would have tried to get as close to land as possible without drawing suspicion, and waited.
(Nitpickers, try to keep in mind this is speculation on my part!)
There have been attempts to take down aircraft before.
A missile launcher was found on a hill outside an airport in Virginia prior to Flight 800, IIR it was a year or more prior.
There was a Newsweek(or similar) article on it if I'm not mistaken.
(I may be on that, I was young at the time and focused on other things instead of reading news articles.)
True.
A local attorney near me who represents a lot of air force personnel on various matters (and presumably has discussed this topic with them) is convinced that Flight 800 was a successful "shoe bomb." He indicated that the Philippines had warned us about an unsuccessful shoe bomb attempt on one of their airliners shortly before this. Apparently that one blew up the passenger, but not the whole plane.
I know that's a lot of hearsay upon hearsay, but what do you think about the shoe bomb theory?
Here's another angle that crossed my mind as I was watching the television news on 9/11: It occurred to me that the aircraft could have been deliberately shot down by the U.S. military, after they had some irrefutable evidence that it had been hijacked by someone who intended to fly it into a target in New York City.
It sounds wacky, but on the morning of 9/11 -- as everyone was talking about rumors of military jets having shot down Flight 93 in Pennsylvania -- it occurred to me that this was a distinct possibility.
Way back when Asmodeus was still posting?
I think so.
Man, that was long ago..
Post 73, so I don't have to repeat stuff too much.
If it was terrorboys in a boat, they got extremely lucky.
Or it was Richard Reided.
(Shoe bombered.)
One interesting angle to this whole thing is that it's not as easy to shoot down a passenger aircraft as you might think. Although they are larger and much slower than military jets that SAMs are designed to take down, they also give off far less hear than the engines these SAMs are designed to track.
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.