Posted on 07/07/2014 4:22:18 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
On July 2, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced that it would not reopen the investigation into the destruction of TWA 800. This was the Boeing 747 that was blown out of the sky ten miles south of the Long Island coast on July 17, 1996, killing all 230 people on board.
The TWA 800 Project, a team of former aviation investigators and scientists, had petitioned the NTSB to examine evidence that pointed toward a missile strike on the airline. Not surprisingly, the NTSB, which had invested four years of resources to prove some other theory, any other theory, chose to stick to its original findings that flammable fuel/air vapors somehow caused the explosion.
Books have been written on this subject – I co-authored one of them with James Sanders, First Strike – so readers can access the body of evidence for a missile strike on their own. An excellent point of entry is the documentary produced last year by the TWA 800 Project, simply called TWA Flight 800 and now available via streaming on Netflix.
One of the six whistleblowers profiled in that documentary deserves special attention. His name is Hank Hughes. At the time of the explosion, he was a senior accident investigator for the NTSB and was a member of the “Go-Team” that headed immediately to the crash site.
Hughes was responsible for determining whether or not any proposed scenario for the cause of the crash was consistent with the damage to the airplane interior. So disturbed was Hughes by what he calls an “egregiously conducted investigation” that he attached a detailed affidavit to the TWA 800 Project’s petition to re-open the investigation. What follows is a summary of that affidavit.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
If your theory is correct, then these incidents would be occurring with such boring regularity — all over the world, mind you — that the airline industry would cease to exist.
The problem is that the incident doesn’t make any sense from a logistical standpoint. If you’re a terrorist and you’re looking to shoot down a flight out of JFK Airport in New York City, that’s hardly the place you’d want to do it. For one thing, it’s much easier to do it from a location further west — much closer to the airport. Secondly, shooting down a passenger jet thousands of feet in the air is too easy to cover up and dismiss as an “accident.”
Same M.O. as Benghazi — just before a presidential election. In this case, there would be be no airline terrorism on Bubba’s watch...
Recent events in the Cochran election should answer your questions. The GOP has been as evil and corrupted as the dems for a long time.
“it was most likely an errant missile fired by a U.S. naval vessel (or a naval vessel of another NATO country, which would offer a stronger explanation about the need to cover it up) conducting exercises off the south shore of Long Island that night.
Seeing how long ago it was, many sailors would have retired or left by now. It seems like someone would have either leaked info or come forward.
That’s kind of what like Al Gore said, that the US can only do one thing at a time.
The fact is, as president, Bush presided over a large number of people, many of whom at the time to look into this, had they been so directed to do so.
They were not. Why not? I think it’s a valid question.
I dunno
Samtheman raises an interesting point. The Bush administration had 8 months before 9-11 happened, and did nothing. And since 9-11 was a terrorist act, flight 800 should have been a top priority
I think Bush simply chose to look the other way and accept the Clinton administration finding
The first question to ask is: Do you believe the official government explanation? If not, then the second question is: What really happened?
I wonder if they were actually after that particular flight. I read once that it was not TWA 800 that was supposed to be flying at that particular moment, but an El Al flight to Israel. Because of the usual airport delays, it lost its place in the line-up and the TWA flight left at the time the El Al flight was supposed to leave. The El Al flight left behind it.
I don’t know how accurate this is, but I guess it would be easy enough to check.
In that case, it would have been Muslim terrorists attacking an Israeli plane in a way that they couldn’t do in or near Israel, which has much tighter security both in and around its airports than we do.
I believe there is virtually zero chance it was the navy, anyone’s navy. What are the chances of hundreds of men on the ship keeping quiet about something like that? Zip. I also know the navy was forbidden from locking guidance radar on civilian aircraft. They could track then, sure. But no missile guidance, period. Without it, no intercept.
or 4} Bush did not want to open that can of worms since it would have pointed to the navy and naval operations which he was CiC of and in need of for his WoT post 911.
Bush and Clinton worked for the same people.
Bump for later. Will post a more detailed response, but just one thing to consider: It’s not as if the U.S. Navy has never accidentally shot down a civilian aircraft, right?
I highly recommend the James Sanders book “The Downing of Flight 800”. The cover up of what happened to this plane is a classic Clinton political operation, and it is quite similar to Benghazi.
Sanders provides plenty of evidence that this was an accidental shooting during the testing of a new missile defense system. In addition to Bill Clinton’s re-election there was a great deal of military-industrial complex money at stake.
The lack of action from W. Bush’s administration speaks for itself.
What’s most disturbing about Sanders book is how easily the government was able to disseminate ridiculous theories about static electricity and exploding gas-tanks with the help of a compliant media.
Have you heard the term "not on my watch"?
That's the response from the Senator conducting the Senate trial, I believe, used when he was questioned about the removal of the President from office after the House impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Nobody wanted to be part of that.
In today's political reality, almost nobody wants to be associated with the impeachment of America's first black president.
Does anyone here really think with the current admin. that if this case were reopened by Congress it would get a fair and thorough investigation?
Concur. The same thing goes with a coverup by the FBI. I had a friend who was in the New York field office at the time and was pulled to work that case. He doesn’t believe in a coverup because the vast number of agents involved and that agents are predisposed to find criminal intent. The old adage of if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail is a good metaphor for this situation. FBI agents’ careers can be entirely based upon being involved in one big case. This would have been it.
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.