Posted on 01/31/2002 12:01:36 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Those who accept the government's claim that the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by a fuel-tank explosion dismiss the evidence that the plane was shot down accidentally by missiles launched in a Navy exercise off the Long Island coast. They say that such an accident could not have been covered up because a lot of Navy personnel would have known about it, and some of them would have talked.
One of them has finally done so. He recently said in an interview that I recorded that he was on the deck of a Navy submarine very close to the crash site and saw TWA 800 shot down.
He was brought to my attention by an acquaintance of his who told me that this retired Navy petty officer had said he was "underneath TWA 800 when he saw a missile hit it and the 747 explode overhead." He had told this acquaintance that he had given a statement to the FBI when they returned to their port, and that the FBI had checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they had when they left port. Asked if there were other military vessels in the area, he had said, "Yes, several."
When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile, this former presidential press secretary, U.S. Senator and ABC News correspondent, was mercilessly attacked by his former colleagues. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who learned of the Navy's involvement from a friend who had a son in the Navy. The son was said to have personal knowledge that a Navy missile had downed the plane, but his father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy was hiding.
There are hundreds of Navy and Coast Guard personnel, as well as some FBI, CIA, FAA, NTSB and former White House employees who know that the real cause of the crash of TWA 800 was papered over with a tissue of lies. Two of them, James Kallstrom and George Stephanopoulos, have made statements that indicate an official cover-up. Stephanopoulos, a Clinton adviser who is now an ABC News correspondent, mentioned on the air a secret meeting in the White House situation room "in the aftermath of the TWA 800 bombing." Kallstrom, who headed the FBI's TWA 800 investigation, told me – and I have this on tape – that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed.
Our newly found talker was on one of those submarines. The Navy claims that it was at least 80 miles from the crash site, but he says it was very close, and that is confirmed by the radar tracks. In our taped interview, he was more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn't want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement.
He said he saw "something come up." "I don't know what in the hell it was," he said, "but that's what it looked ..." Not completing what he started to say, he said, "You know, something went up." He estimated that it went up about a mile from his location, which was only a few miles from the shore. He said there were a couple of other subs nearby. When told that the radar tracks of all three disappeared because they submerged when the plane went down, he said, "Yeah, that's what we did."
He acknowledged that a number of Navy vessels were heading for W-105, a large area of the ocean south of Long Island that is used for naval maneuvers. He said that nothing they did off Long Island was classified, but he was not comfortable in discussing it.
When I called him a few days later, he was scared to death. He feared the Navy would withdraw his pension if I reported what he had said. It was not possible to convince him that the Navy couldn't do that. Not wanting to worsen his anxiety, his name and other details are being withheld as we try to get his and other interview reports that the FBI has withheld.
Yet another humbug for the pensionaires. Pensions are eternal chains that turn the normal virtue of loyalty into a vice.
Hooray for 401Ks, Keoghs and SEPs -- any pension plan that is owned from the get go by the employee or enlistee.
Other than the hundreds of witnesses who saw a light streak up from the ground toward the plane. This testimony is also self consistent based on the triangulation of the object's trajectory. There's also the asymmetric crash debris pointing to an external impact. This is enough evidence to convince most people.
This subject has been beaten to death over the last few years, and I have yet to see any convincing counterevidence -- unless you consider a CIA cartoon as some kind of "evidence".
If it were, truly, evidence, why hasn't the investigation been reopened?
So what? I thought the number was closer to 130 or so. I used the term "hundreds" as a general way of describing this number. My version of Microsoft Bookshelf lists the definition of "hundreds" as "The numbers between 100 and 999". If the number is closer to 96, this does nothing to weaken the evidence. Surely you can understand this?
Sorry, I'm a "most people" and this sort of conspiracy nonsense convinces me not at all. For this to be true, anyone who examined the wreckage, including scores of NTSB and FBI agents would have to be "in on it".
This is the sort of black helicopter/Bildeberger/UFO abduction/NWO Masons/Trilateral Commission/poison contrails/fake moon landings and other WorldNutDaily nonsense that is de-rigeur for the fashionably paranoid.
Total and complete crap…
If it were, truly, evidence, why hasn't the investigation been reopened?
LOL.
Come on, you're just kidding right?
You're just ignoring strong evidence that specifically points to a missle impact.
points For this to be true, anyone who examined the wreckage, including scores of NTSB and FBI agents would have to be "in on it".
Just as in other crash investigations they might not have a clue. No need to be "in on it". Just numerous unknowns mixed in with general incompetence, all under the corruption of the Clinton administration.
LOL.
What does this have to do with paranoia? The evidence is quite clear. There are no secret theories needed to explain it -- nearly 100 witnesses saw a "missle", or a lighted object, shoot from the ground toward the sky. This is also been triangulated to a fixed location where the plane was flying along it's flight path. The crash debris pattern only fits the profile of an externally impacted object. What's conspiratorial about this evidence? Just because the NTSB or FBI decides to ignore it doesn't invalidate it.
Total and complete crap…
Yes, that pretty much describes the fuel tank explosion "theory".
The government has let out enough evidence to convince many in the public that there was a conspiracy to cover up a friendly fire accident involving the US Navy. Others in the public are satisified that a center fuel tank just decided to blow itself up.
Here is what I learned from a close relative shortly after the incident (he is a Sr. Defense Dept employee with Top Secret clearance who works with some of the top brass at the Pentagon).
Navy ships and subs were indeed in the area that day on "classified maneuvers". These "maneuvers" were "classified" because the Navy was chasing/tracking an unknown submarine just off the coast. The U.S. has an extremely advanced underwater tracking system protecting both the East and West coast, and it detected a submarine inside the comfort zone that should not have been there.
The Navy had ships, submarines, and Sub-killer aircraft dropping buoys in an effort to track the sub. Speculation is that it was an old diesel powered Iranian submarine. It surfaced, tracked, fire at and downed Flight 800 in an alledged payback for the USS Vincennes downing of an Iranian airliner in July, 1988.
Once the navy realized that the sub had downed the airliner, the tracking of the submarine turned into a hunt. Shortly thereafter, the sub was destroyed by one of the sub-killer aircraft.
Why weren't we told of this by the goverment? Simple, they did not want it known that a foreign sub was allowed to get close enough to the US mainland to launch such an attack.
Far fetched? I used to think so. But over the years, and especially since Sept 11, I think alot more is possible that we ever dreamed.
I will go back into hiding now..
I'm as serious as a heart attack. If it's evidence, it should be presentable in court. If it's just a theory, so state it appropriately.
I sure don't see WND or Mssrs. Irvine, Sanders and Cashill and the ubiquitous Michael Rivero petitioning the legal system to review the investigation or rebut the report of the NTSB.
Yeah, getting to pay ordinary income rates on capital gain income is great...
You do realize that there is a group that meets on an annual basis for 'Bilderberg Conferences'?
There is also an International relations organization called the 'Trilateral Commission'. They even have a web page.
I am not claiming any kind of special conspiratorial meaning in these organizations, but they certainly do exist.
I just stated what "hundreds" meant according to my dictionary -- "a number between 100 and 999". If you really think there is a signficant difference between 96 and 100, then I can see your problem. Or is this a problem of reading comprehension?
We've already been through this. I used the number "hundreds" as an approximation to the accepted figure -- which you claim is 96. OK, fine. Take what I first posted and substitute the figure of 96. Nothing has changed. Surely you aren't this stupid are you?
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.