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.
Based on your strange responses your the only one "stretching and distoring" the truth. I would love to see why you think 96 vs. 100 is such a vast difference as to invalidate the argument? It's only a minor difference and your bizarre posturing over it only highlights your incompetence to even debate this subject.
LOL.
The scuttlebutt in the medical community among those with militery connections is that the sailor that "pushed the button" is still in a mental hospital, having gone into a depressive psychosis after the incident.
I can't personally testify to the veracity of this. It is third hand to me, but from someone who is very, very respectable with all kind of security clearances.
Great. Now your statement is numerically accurate. And WND just scratched you off their potential employees list.
Nothing personal but you really are clueless. I've already stated the definition of "hundreds" -- "a number between 100 and 999". So by definition a number of 101 might be described as in the "hundreds". Don't argue with me, take it up with the dictionary committees. I've never argued that 96 is greater than 100. You're just back tracking after making an initial dumb remark. The important point is that the *DIFFERENCE* between 96 and 100 is not signficant in terms of the evidence.
Great. Now your statement is numerically accurate. And WND just scratched you off their potential employees list.
Yawn.
That guy just HAS to be the one Rivero talked to, on one of his many manic depressive, split personality, and paranoidal delusion psychosis maintenance visits!
... until the 'boy who cried wolf' lost the entire flock to the 'real one'.
Witnesses may be wrong, but if approximately 100 witnesses describe the same thing, then unless you believe there has been some collusion or influence among them, this makes for fairly strong evidence. Otherwise, the only way so many witnesses could have been "wrong" in the same way, is due to a shared, and incorrect, interpretation of what they saw.
And I heard second hand that it was a spark in the fuel tank. Sorry, you lose.
BWHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
Center wing fuel tanks on 747's don't just "blow up"...
Your government is lying to you...
Similar to the 'spark' that brought down the 'Twin Towers'???
There's is never any doubt about the fire, usually the discussion centers on the 'match'.
Downside Legacy Research Project: TWA 800 Hypothesis
In this project we discuss at great length the targets (2 known) and the method used to shoot them down. It's a long read but there is a wealth of info and calculations based on tons of data.
My take is that it was shot down accidently by a RAM missile but that the accident was staged (target drone in the wrong place, transponder disabled etc)
Read and enjoy.
Once again thanks A-G for great work.
God Save America (Please)
Believe what you want - I will rely on the facts....
Is this meant as a sarcastic humor post? 401Ks, almost exclusively, are invested in the company stock. People have no control over their investment (the matching part, anyway), and they don't completely understand that.
I worked for a division of Rockwell which was sold to Boeing. When they sold the division they didn't allow any of the employees to cash out their Rockwell stock. A friend of mind saw $100,000 evaporate within a matter of months from his nest egg which he had been co-investing with the company in a 401K for over 25 years. All of a sudden, his retirement funds were invested in a company he didn't even work for anymore, and he couldn't sell the stock even if he wanted to! (BTW, the company said this was all legal)
The bottom line is: any money you don't have complete control over does not belong to 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.