Posted on 06/27/2013 8:26:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This past Saturday morning, I did a live remote from Kansas City for CNN's "New Day" program, hosted by Alison Kosik, on the subject of TWA Flight 800. This Paris-bound 747 was destroyed in mid-air twelve minutes out of JFK, just off the coast of Long Island, on July 17, 1996, killing all 230 people on board.
On Tuesday of this week, I posted an article on American Thinker explaining how -- and perhaps why -- CNN cut a minute or so out of the transcript of this five-minute interview.
Some time after that article appeared, CNN added the missing minute back into the transcript. It begins with Kosik asking, "Jack, but when people hear this, they want to know, OK, if there was an external blast, who shot [TWA Flight 800] down, why would anybody shoot it down, and why would there be this cover-up?"
Having no irrefutable evidence as to who shot the plane down and only a minute to answer, I focused on a subject that I know better than anyone but the participants. My response:
Let me address the cover-up. Five weeks after the crash, the New York Times had this headline above the fold right: "Prime Evidence that Explosive Device Found in or Destroyed TWA Flight 800." That's a paraphrase, but it's close.
The actual headline was this: "Prime Evidence Found That Device Exploded in Cabin of Flight 800." This article ran on August 23, 1996. The Times argued that the FBI was uncertain whether the device was a bomb or missile, and only that uncertainty kept the FBI from declaring the plane's destruction a crime. Needless to say, the article stole the thunder from Clinton's election-driven approval of welfare reform in that same day's paper and threatened to undermine the peace and prosperity message
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Teen years ago I knew a man who was a crash site inspector for Boeing. He was the father of a family friend. I asked him about TWA 800. He said, “It was a missile.”
He was correct.
Jack Cashill is one of the very few remaining investigative journalists in America. Very few.
It was aliens.
I have always disagreed with Jack’s missile theory and have told him so on several occasions. My basis for disagreement has been technical: the pH/pK (probability of hit/probability of kill) for a handheld SAM at that altitude, the characteristics of the seeker head which would result in an engine impact, not a fuselage impact, and several other cogent points. Jack has chosen to ignore these issues.
The argument changes considerably when one begins to discuss an internal explosion. The physical evidence is much stronger for that scenario.
RE: I have always disagreed with Jack’s missile theory and have told him so on several occasions.
Did you write to him, or did you talk to him on the radio?
And what was his response to your argument?
The explains why they (clintoon and friends) thought they could get away with the Benghazi BS....it had been done before.
Some years ago, George Stuffingenvelopes was on an ABC program and admitted inadvertently that it had been a missile. Has to be tape of it someplace. He, of course, was working in the White House at the time of the crash.
I know it was a missile - I saw the video
it was shown on TV once then removed
Then wouldn't that tend to support a bomb rather than a missile?
For what it’s worth, I had a conversation with a very close friend of a family member, who is a top executive in a private engineering consulting form that investigated the accident.
I calmly asked him what the cause really was. He stuck to the fuel tank story. (But he was undoubtedly aware that unlike my family member who is his close friend, I’m a right-wing nut-job.)
Somebody cue the aliens guy!
What if that SAM was a two stage missile with radar tracking instead of infrared?
Person to person, Jack and I used to turn up at a political club and so would chat over drinks or at dinner. He is a bird dog and was convinced that some hanky panky was involved with the investigation. He could certainly be right about that, I don’t know, but I seriously doubt that any then existing MANPAD shot the airplane down. While technically feasible at the extreme margins of capability, the realistic chance of a hit were extremely low.
If it wasn’t a missile fired from a ship why did some 175 witnesses see such? If it wasn’t a missile then what was it?
Someone onboard the ship would have talked by now.
How many people knew about the F-117 before it went public?
Was there any people of significant stature on the passenger manifest that someone might have wanted to be taken out?
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.