Replies

This article uses our contempt for Bill Clinton, to lure peoople into some ridiculous conspiracy theory. The opening paragraph pitches a book they are selling. When I see stuff like this, it really brings home why I do not consider World Net Daily a reliable news source anymore. They deal with nothing more than speculation and gossip.

Lets look at what this article says. "there might not have been a Sept. 11" ... "The crew likely shut off". There is "compelling evidence" (but I didn't see any). I did see a lot of vague theories about "cover ups" and stories that do not "ring true" whatever that is supposed to mean.

They admit Nugent didn't see the small plane fly under, then immediatly put forth an "altogether likely" theory based on *selected versions* of what Nugent said during interviews where he contradicted himself. Then they criticize the FBI for not taking him seriously. Oh, and don't you love the mention of "An FBI agent" who is never named? I just adore unnamed sources. Naturally this all firmly connects up to some vague informatin found on "Yousef's computer".

This is my favorite paragraph: "We have no quarrel with those who believe that missiles were involved, but who dissent from our final scenario. For all their cumulative value, the eyewitness observations are too sketchy and imperfect to allow for complete certitude on the details. Our mutual quarrel should be with those who knew exactly what happened that night and who have withheld the full range of evidence. "

In other words .. if this conspiracy theory doesn't work, they have no problem moving over to the missle theory followed by an admission that eyewitness testimony is too imperfect to use with any certainty. Of course, to complete the conspiracy, unknown people are withholding the very evidence needed to prove the conspiracy.

Uh huh.

I was on Westhampton beach that day and saw TWA800 explode. I don't buy a ground launch SAM theory because there was no plume going up (and I've seen SAM's launched before, they have a distinctive plume from the Solid Rocket fuels that are used). If TWA800 was indeed shot down by a missle it would have most likely come from the air. Even more likely is that a bomb was on board.

To shoot down that plane at the distance it was at and current atmospheric conditions, you would have needed a fairly sophisticated guidance system (not heat seeking or optically guided) with enough range -- certainly nothing very portable or easily hidden if on board a ship.

And if you ever saw something like an SM1 or SM2 being launched from a Navy ship there wouldn't be any question. It's quite a sight!
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm-2.htm

The "Ceiling" of the Stinger is Only 1.8 miles
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm

SA14 (The USSR's Replacement for the SA-7) its ceiling is also 1.8 miles. Introduced in 1978
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-14.htm

The SA18 is the Third Generation heat seeking man portable missle
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-18.htm

THE UK has supplemented its Stingers with Blowpipes/Javelein/Starstreak series of missles. Unlike the Stinger and the SA-7, 14 and 19 these are opitcaly guided missles, not heat seeking (With the Starstreak riding a laser beam to the target)
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/starstreak.htm

And, lastly, the other night on character Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the president but the character of the presidency. I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said the only thing that endures is character. And I think it was Justice Black who talked about great nations, like great men, must keep their word.

Amen.

"It is clear from statements made by George Stephanopolis that the Clinton administration knew flight 800 was a terrorist attack and that the Clinton administration intentionally kept that information from the American public."

The free press helps them keep things under cover. It may not be so free after all. Thank God for the internet.