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

To: Alberta's Child
Baloney. There a very strong possibility that the real cover-up of TWA 800 was that the incident didn't involve terrorism at all -- it was an accidental shoot-down of TWA 800 by a U.S. or NATO military vessel conducting exercises off the south shore of Long Island that night.

Highly unlikely. While I've never been all that happy about the center fuel tank explanation... the keeping of a secret ~requires~ that there are only a few people that know that secret. A naval vessel has hundreds of people onboard, and then perhaps hundreds more ashore in the exercise that would all know what happened. Opsec in the Navy is pretty good... but its not that good. Somebody would squawk.

13 posted on 07/05/2005 6:09:13 PM PDT by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Ramius
You raise a valid point, but your basic premise that an accidental shoot-down would be difficult to keep secret doesn't just apply to an accidental shoot-down -- it also applies to any number of other explanations involving terrorism. The number of crew members on a naval vessel who would have been aware of what happened would be dwarfed by the number of U.S. government officials who were involved in the investigation.

And yet we all know that their "investigation" was a pile of bullsh!t -- which obviously requires complicity on the part of many people. I don't know anybody who believes that nonsense about an "exploding center fuel tank."

19 posted on 07/05/2005 6:17:54 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 13 | View Replies ]

To: Ramius; Alberta's Child
I was watching ABC's This Week when Stephanopolis et al were discussing the incident and I believe terrorism in general. George, who was IIRC Clinton's press guy at the time, clearly said "We were in the White House situation room when TWA800 was shot down..."

George Will looked as if he was going to fall out of his chair. Subject was changed quickly and to my knowledge no one ever called Steph on his statement again.

I don't generally go in for conspiracy threories, and I also doubt that if the Navy had been involved everyone could have successfully kept quiet, unless the nature of the exercise was such that only a few people in command and control were in a position to know what happened with the missile (I don't have anywhere near the knowledge of how these things are done to speculate). Still, Steph's statement should have at least triggered an embarassed "uh...I mean blew up" or something to the effect. That it was quickly passed over and "forgotten" has always stuck me as very suspicious. That, and my understanding that simply hanging out in the sit room is not standard behaviour.

Somehow it just smells very strange, and I would never put anything past Clinton and his team. I suppose we'll never really know for sure unless someone does talk, maybe a deathbed confession or whatever.

23 posted on 07/05/2005 6:21:28 PM PDT by mitchbert (Facts Are Stubborn Things .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Ramius; Alberta's Child
Stats on the Stinger AAM (which are very available to terrorists):

"Light to carry and easy to operate, the FIM-92 Stinger is a passive infrared homing/seek surface-to-air missile, shoulder-fired by a single operator and designed to attack aircraft at a range of up to 15,700 feet (4,800 m) and at heights from 600 to 12,500 feet (3,800 m)."

As for the actual height of TWA800 when it was hit, didn't the gub'ment give us that info? Didn't they confiscate the tower tapes and radar records?

Lastly, all the people below the level of career bureaucrat are just evidence gatherers. The decision-makers who interpret all the evidence and make conclusions are relatively few, and are *ahem* career-oriented.

Oh, and one more thing. Terrorists don't always claim their deeds publicly, especially when they are working for, say, another head of state. In return for support, the terrorists sometimes act as a 'go-between'. They may pass a 'message' from one head of state to another privately, then back it up with a warning if the response is not acceptable. All with plausible denial.
102 posted on 07/05/2005 10:21:26 PM PDT by compuguru (De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Ramius
While I've never been all that happy about the center fuel tank explanation... the keeping of a secret ~requires~ that there are only a few people that know that secret.

I would make a couple of points in response to that:

1. You are assuming that every person -- or even most people -- on a Navy vessel are aware of everything that goes on at any given time. If an accidential shoot-down occurred during what would otherwise be described as "routine" naval exercises involving multiple vessels, and the aircraft was far enough away from the ship that fired the missile that it couldn't be seen clearly, then most crew members on the ship in question wouldn't even know exactly what happened.

2. An incident involving the military and civilian aircraft is not unprecedented. In addition to the well-publicized downing of an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf by the USS Vincennes in 1988, there was another intriguing case in the last 25 years that hasn't received much exposure at all.

An Italian DC-9 crashed in the Tyrrhenian Sea off the coast of Italy in 1980 under very mysterious circumstances, killing all 81 passengers and crew members. The formal investigation of that incident never really identified a cause, and the circumstances surrounding the investigation generated a lot of suspicion almost immediately. Information from the voice and data recorder was never made public, and data from air traffic control was conveniently "lost" during the investigation.

The case was never truly resolved, but by 1996 -- seventeen years later -- it was pretty much accepted in Italy that the aircraft had been accidentally shot down during an incident involving a Libyan fighter jet and military aircraft from one or more NATO countries. The secrecy surrounding the case was sufficient evidence in and of itself for this kind of speculation, and what made the whole thing particularly sensitive from Italy's standpoint was that the involvement of other NATO countries (naval vessels and aircraft from France and the U.S. were apparently involved to some degree or another) added an element of jurisdictional confusion that would not otherwise have been present.

134 posted on 07/08/2005 10:28:11 AM 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 13 | View Replies ]

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