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

Skip to comments.

Judith Miller, TWA 800 and the Death of Press Freedom
NewsMax ^ | 7/6/05 | James D. Sanders

Posted on 07/05/2005 5:57:37 PM PDT by wagglebee

The New York Times, NBC and other dominant media have destroyed the Constitution's Freedom of the Press. Today giant tears are shed at the New York Times because one of their own, Judith Miller, appears to be on the way to prison for up to 120-days because she nobly refused to give up a source. The Supreme Court recently ruled that she, as a journalist, must assist a federal government investigation when ordered to do so.

The First Amendment, in pertinent part, says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .

"Abridging" means placing limits on. The Supreme Court ruled that these words must be interpreted from the perspective of the federal government. The Government's ability to use journalists as agents of the federal government when so desired cannot be abridged.

The American National Security State is supposed to grab all the power it can. Its mission is to project power. It is not entrusted with the mission of maintaining a healthy First Amendment Freedom of the Press. To the contrary, it is in the best interest of the National Security State to whittle, attack, whine and cry at every opportunity to turn dominant media into a tool by which federal propaganda is spewed across the nation twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

The Founding Fathers gave dominant media the mission of counterbalancing the State's natural inclination to destroy the Constitution. Dominant media, as envisioned, was to probe and question the National Security State, especially when it displeased the National Security State.

But that takes courage and a willingness to be called very bad names by National Security State propagandists. It means being leaned on by the Justice Department, snarled at by its biggest, meanest federal legal guns; careers threatened, wives intimidated. It means watching your Rolodex go up in smoke.

All those wonderful federal sources who spoon-fed you, the dominant media journalist, story after story for which you were praised and rewarded with even better stories – as long as you did not demand that officially sanctioned stories be backed up with actual documents and other provable facts.

These "sources" would never again be available to you if you ever crossed the Beast, the National Security State. You'd actually have to push away from your desk, get out of your chair, go out into the cold, cruel world, walk past your favorite pub and find sources.

Real sources, not the federal shills that made you a household name and provided a very comfortable living, feeding propaganda you knowingly and willingly placed into the collective mind of the masses. Now you would have to join those journalists you so despise and look down on – the "bottom-feeders," "conspiracy theorists," Internet journalists and other journalistic lowlifes who continually bang away at the National Security State.

So, when the tough stories appeared, stories like TWA Flight 800, you shuddered at the thought of challenging a very determined cover-up, even though you knew the federal propagandists were feeding you garbage. You shuddered and then folded, jumping into the warm, safe lap of the Beast, wagging your tail, whispering "feed me, feed me."

According to three media sources - one deep inside NBC on July 17, 1996, when missile-fire brought the giant 747 down - in the hours after TWA Flight 800 was shot down a bidding war ensued for a video showing missile-fire bringing down TWA Flight 800. The bidding went above $50,000, at which time, the Fox News team, New York, was blocked from further bidding. The video ended up in the hands of NBC, where it was confiscated by the FBI.

The head of the Fox News team in the field on Long Island was then approached by an American military officer who said there was a major screw-up, the White House had ordered a 48 hour "stand-down" while it decided how to handle this crisis. Dominant media had a decision to make. Significant evidence of missile-fire was already in hand. Much more was easily available. There were witnesses who watching TWA Flight 800 as it headed east toward Paris. They then watched as a missile approached and brought the plane down. They didn't see some mysterious light way off in the distance. They were not confused. They knew what they had seen.

We now know the FBI and CIA knew they witnessed missile-fire, according to documents recently unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act.

The New York Times would have had this vital information if it merely conducted an honest investigation. It did not. Instead, it allowed the FBI to feed it an approved storyline, complete with selected facts – a bomb brought the 747 down. A political decision was then made at the top of the Clinton administration. It was an election year. A criminal act might provoke the sleeping masses.

The lapdog New York Times might lose its role as the dominant media "investigative" team. The Beast could lose control of the crisis. Truth could conceivably prevail if the shills at the New York Times ceased running interference for the National Security State.

But it was not to be. Federal propagandists told the New York Times a criminal act did not bring down TWA Flight 800. All that explosive residue was from a dog training exercise. The New York Times did not interview the St. Louis Airport Police Officer who conducted the training a month before TWA Flight 800 crashed. He would have given the New York Times information proving beyond any doubt that the dog training exercise did not take place on the 747 that would later become TWA Flight 800.

If the New York Times had interviewed the pilots who were onboard the 747 at St. Louis during the entire time the dog training exercise took place, it would have quickly become apparent that the dog training took place on a 747 parked at the adjacent St. Louis Airport gate. Mere competence would have exposed the cover-up.

At that point courage would have been required. The New York Times had neither. It was the Beast's official lapdog.

In all probability, 9-11 would never have happened if the New York Times had merely done the job the Founding Fathers assigned. In the aftermath of TWA 800, with a fully informed citizenry, America's masses would have demanded real protection based on real facts, not federal propaganda.

We can reasonably infer that today's constitutional crisis, the Supreme Court's removal of the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press would not have occurred. The Supreme's are political creatures; dare we suggest political whores? Would they dare destroy this most vital portion of the First Amendment if they knew they were attacking journalism's junkyard dog?

The Supreme's knew they were destroying a National Security State lapdog that did not need or deserve special protection under the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, non dominant media journalists who do sally forth to battle the dreaded Beast now do so without any pretense of a constitutional amendment protecting them. And now the ultimate irony – New York Times reporter Judith Miller now gets to go to prison because of the failure of the New York Times to protect and defend the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: cialeak; freepress; judithmiller; leftistmedia; mediabias; newyorktimes; scotus; twa800
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last
To: ovrtaxt

Thanks for the ping, ot.


81 posted on 07/05/2005 8:06:14 PM PDT by auboy ("woof")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F

So the electrical short igniting the fuel cell is a certainty?


82 posted on 07/05/2005 8:08:31 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F

Re 51 and 66:

I seem to remember the theory revolving around vapor
in the fuel tank in combination with the fact that the Fuel
Sensor Unit was routed through the same Wiring Harness
as a number of high voltage / high power cables.

If you add decaying wire insulation into the mix, you
have a receipe for disaster.

That 747-100 (TWA800) was an old and tired bird. I believe a number of other aircraft
of that era that had the same type of wiring insulation were also sent to the "glue factory" (Lockheed L1011's?).


83 posted on 07/05/2005 8:09:09 PM PDT by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F

.

Power at any Price =

The CLINTON M.O. in Action

With CLINTONS' continued control of mainstream NBC-ABC-CBS Broadcast TV News Divisions, with their constantly omitting TV Coverage of the CLINTONS own worst misbehaviors ...many voters have no idea just how threatened their own Liberty is by the CLINTON Agenda that's always been dead set against them.

Just like when the CLINTONS were against Freedom's survival for South Vietnam during the Vietnam War.


It COULD happen here.






'A Free Press that does not fulfill its duty in reporting 'Just the Facts, Ma'am' to the American People...

...may soon lose its Right to do so'

- Freeper ALOHA RONNIE - 1999

.


84 posted on 07/05/2005 8:19:39 PM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE ("ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer/Veteran-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.lzxray.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance
So the electrical short igniting the fuel cell is a certainty?

That the fuel cell ignited is a certainty. The exact cause of the spark that ignited it is not. Along with electrical shorts (which are certainly the leading contender) they looked at a lot of other causes, for instance something mechanical in the pumps scraping up a spark, or something caused by the very warm AC units. They were able to come up with a number of theories but none of them easily built into a refutable, testable hypothesis. So they left that question open.

This occasionally does happen, that there are details, even significant ones, that can't be pinned down. In the Lauda Air 767 that had an uncommanded thrust reverser deployment over Thailand, they were unable to determine if it was a hardware or software failure -- so they changed both. Here with 800 they took a similar all-points approach to making sure there could be no repeat.

I must say, Mr Valance, for someone who was so famously shot in song and on screen, you're looking mighty healthy.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

85 posted on 07/05/2005 8:23:36 PM PDT by Criminal Number 18F (Support and avenge our fallen operators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
Everybody seems to just accept that the missiles available to terrorists couldn't reasonably reach the 13,000 feet of the plane. Maybe there's something wrong that *that* part of the story.

Actually, I think a lot of people simply realize that if terrorists were able to get their hands on that kind of weapon, we'd have civilian aircraft shot out of the sky with boring regularity.

86 posted on 07/05/2005 8:24:01 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ken21
I understand what you're saying. All I'm saying is that those journalists would have been arrested regardless of what the NTSB was trying to cover up.
87 posted on 07/05/2005 8:25:51 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wristpin

One of the things you seem to have overlooked is that it may not have been a U.S. Navy vessel at all -- that's why I included the speculation about a naval vessel from another NATO country.


88 posted on 07/05/2005 8:27:01 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Petruchio

.

Thank you for your CLARITY, Petruchio, for you are correct.

The CLINTONS must, still, dismiss their own worst misbehaviors or blame them on the VRWC. Extending all the way to whomever BUSH appoints to office or to courts.
With NBC-ABC-CBS Broadcast TV News Divisions running cover for them..
the CLINTONS continue to cause all the trouble they want to.

Even in Time of War.

VRWC = CLARITY ...and the Enemy Within CLINTONS know it.

We Freepers are a clear and present danger to them.

.


89 posted on 07/05/2005 8:30:06 PM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE ("ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer/Veteran-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.lzxray.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
I'm not much of a conspiracy nut, but the investigation of that incident stunk to high heaven. If the "center fuel tank" theory was correct, then the FBI and NTSB wouldn't have needed to "stage" that video by using something other than aviation fuel in the tank (to make it explode more easily).

And I have yet to meet a pilot who really believes that aircraft climbed a couple of thousand feet with the cockpit and a huge section of the fuselage forward of the wings blown off (which is how they tried to explain the "missile trails" in the sky).

90 posted on 07/05/2005 8:31:39 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Also, the type of heat seeking missile terrorists would most likely have used would have targeted an engine on a wing. A radar guided missile would have targeted the center of the aircraft, going right through the center fuel tank.
91 posted on 07/05/2005 8:37:14 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NonLinear
There were TWO missles!

One fascinating explanation I've read is that there WERE two projectiles involved -- one was the missile, and the other was a drone of some sort that was the intended target of the missile.

There was a very intriguing thread on this subject a couple of years ago here on FR, and one of the posters seemed to know an awful lot about what could have happened that night. It actually made a lot of sense, and the chain of events could easily have played out that way. He even speculated about what kind of missile was involved -- something new called a "rolling airframe" missile that the Navy was testing at the time. This missile is unusual in that it doesn't track a target's heat sources -- instead, it tracks its target by locking in on its radio signature, and functions almost like a flak shell by exploding close to its target and shredding it with shrapnel made up of tiny tungsten carbide cubes.

The scenario made a lot of sense, particulary when you take into account the fact that TWA 800 wasn't flying at the nornal altitude for an eastbound international flight out of JFK when it passed overhead that night.

92 posted on 07/05/2005 8:43:44 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus

Exactly -- see #92.


93 posted on 07/05/2005 8:46:51 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener
As I was watching the television news coverage in the aftermath of 9/11, a bizarre thought came to my mind -- I wondered if Flight 800 could have been deliberately shot down by the U.S. military, in light of some compelling evidence that it had been hijacked by someone who planned to crash it into a target in New York City.

It was just a thought, but in the aftermath of 9/11 it seemed like a very real possibility. There were just too many things about that incident that never made sense to me.

94 posted on 07/05/2005 8:50:44 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I'm not much of a conspiracy nut, but the investigation of that incident stunk to high heaven. If the "center fuel tank" theory was correct, then the FBI and NTSB wouldn't have needed to "stage" that video by using something other than aviation fuel in the tank (to make it explode more easily).

Actually, the problem in recreating the explosion is that of ambient pressure. The reason to use a different liquid is that the tests were done at sea level (actually, I think they were done at a few thousand feet above, but on the ground) whereas the aircraft exploded at about 13,000 feet. So say you were reproducing that explosion, you need to use something that has the physical, vaporization, inflammability profile at that altitude that Jet A has at 13,000 feet. This is all explained in painstaking detail in the EDL documents at the link (it starts galcit.ctu.edu I think) in one of my previous posts. From the posted link, find the /documents/ folder and they will explain it.

I think that they used a 1/3 size (IIRC) tank was also a factor. WHen you scale things up or down, you have scale effects because molecules don't scale. (This is why RC scale model planes have different airfoils than their fullsize prototypes).

Another issue on inflammability -- it is not the fuel that burns, it is the fuel-air mixture. That's why LCDR Donaldson was able to put out a match in a bucket of Jet A. If the fuel tank had been full, no problem. It was hazardous because it was empty (of all but unusable fuel).

And I have yet to meet a pilot who really believes that aircraft climbed a couple of thousand feet with the cockpit and a huge section of the fuselage forward of the wings blown off (which is how they tried to explain the "missile trails" in the sky).

You're describing the CIA video, which is kind of immaterial to the actual investigation. THis was not done to explain "missile trails" but to explain why parts separated in altitude (on radar returns) the way they did. Remember a couple of things -- the aerodynamics of the wings probably weren't instantly forfeit, and the machine had some inertia. It is possible for a damaged aircraft to zoom out of control and actually go up. Parts that had broken off would assume a ballistic trajectory, influenced by their inertia, mass, aerodynamics and, of course, gravity.

If you were to remove the forward fuselage of any conventional airplane, the center of gravity would shift aft and the immediate result would be a violent nose up. It would probably produce a stall in short order. There's a lot on this in the report of the sequence group (IIRC). There's no mystery to the breakup sequence of 800, there's all kinds of physical evidence.

But in the end, to believe in a missile you have to believe in a magic warhead that can make an explosion inside the airplane without coming through any part of the structure. In Newtonian physics, that can't happen. "When we have excluded the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, is the answer." - Sherlock Holmes.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

95 posted on 07/05/2005 9:00:53 PM PDT by Criminal Number 18F (Support and avenge our fallen operators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The rumor I heard was similar, but that the particular missile used that evening had an inert training warhead and simply passed right through, breaking the airframe, and that much of the residue found on the seats was related to the rocket fuel the missile used.


96 posted on 07/05/2005 9:06:10 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Yes, Kerry did say that, but more importantly... so did Bill Clinton, on the Larry King show when he was being interviewed for his book. He checked off all the terrorist attacks during his administration and, without blinking an eye, named TWA 800 and Oklahoma City.

I almost fell off MY chair. not that they were terrorist attacks, but that he said it so matter of factly.

Even before I started reading all the leaked evidence of TWA 800, I became very suspicious when, after 9/11, the plane crashed on Long Island and all the NTSB personnel were new. I then found out everyone involved in the TWA 800 investigation had "retired." Some were long-time NTSB investigators, some younger and very bright and poof they were gone. Seemed too suspicious to me. The most facts on this were covered in detail starting back in 2001 by World Net Daily.

97 posted on 07/05/2005 9:12:08 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Wristpin
Do you think an entire Navy crew of a couple hundred Sailors would participate in a conspiracy ot protect Clinton?

No I really do not, and that is the main reason I question the conspiracy theory around this. My point was that I have no idea how these exercises work so MAYBE it could be possible that hundreds of sailors would not have known. Still, like you I find the possibilty a stretch.

98 posted on 07/05/2005 9:21:28 PM PDT by mitchbert (Facts Are Stubborn Things .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ALOHA RONNIE

That blew me away. I did not know that. Sickening.


99 posted on 07/05/2005 9:23:05 PM PDT by Republic (Our Father in Heaven touched the Pope, who KNEW of Terri, Terri got her mass, VATICAN STYLE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911
Probably backed up by video tape as well. Betcha that tape is mighty hard to come by after this thread.

I am far from the first person to refer to it over the past few years here. What I always wondered is, since This Week is not a live show why it made it to air in the first place.

100 posted on 07/05/2005 9:23:35 PM PDT by mitchbert (Facts Are Stubborn Things .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 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