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.
Since this type of argument applies to just about any observation, what exactly is the point of bringing this all up? Even the FBI and NTSB don't doubt the witness claims -- they just came with a different interpretation of what was seen based on a supposed post-explosion "climb" of the aircraft.
Believe what you want - I will rely on the facts....
The eyewitness accounts are fundamental "facts".
All the 401k's I've had or seen have a choice of investments, generally stock, bond and money market funds. Yes, the matching part is in company stock -- but hey, that's okay, after all it is a bonus.
And if your friend wanted to protect his own profits in a 401k after a takover he had only to quit the company and rollover or rollout the 401k funds, company stock included. Given the value of some 401k's -- quitting can be the least risk option.
Let's get back to the point I made. Any pensions that aren't carriable -- able to be taken with you -- act as traps when you have to make a moral or ethical decision to leave an outfit.
No, you have your facts wrong. It was two airliners that took down the Twin Towers.
Rely on these facts...
Approximately 100 people saw exactly the same thing at the same time... A yellow streak going up to the plane and then a giant explosion...
In the literally millions of hours of flight time that 747's around the world have accrued, not one time has a fuel tank ever exploded... Not once...
Once again, your government is lying to you...
When and from what state was this?
You call this a "fact" but it is simply not true. In fact, most eyewitnesses said the streak was red. Only 7 said it was yellow. One even said it was green. Only 40 of the 96 said the streak originated from the water. 10 said it came from the land and the remainder didn't say. Assuming a "fact" is 100% true, then what you have designated as "fact" is not. Your second "fact" concerning fuel tanks exploding on 747's is also untrue. Since 1959 there have been 26 documented fuel tank explosions/fires on transport aircraft including an Iran Air 747 in 1976.
I'm not going to accuse you of lying, but I would say your "facts" do not prove the government lied in this case.
GSA(P)
But they don't. Some accounts have the missile coming from land, others from the sea. Some describe a red flame, others describe a yellow flame, still others a white flame. Some witnesses say it rose heading east, some say west, some say it headed north. You have a dozen different accounts of what happened.
(The bad guys already know who he is, or have narrowed it down so far that they effectively know.)
A couple of questions. Why wait 8 years for revenge? How did the sub 'track' the airplane and know that it was a U.S. airplane instead of, say, Egyptair or SwissAir or something like that? What kind of missile did it use that could reach the 747 at that altitude? How did the sub get from Iran to Long Island without attracting attention when it stopped and refueled, which it would have had to do 5 or 6 times?
Red streak, yellow streak, blue streak... I would submit what difference does it make what exact color the streak was...
If the center wing tank did explode, there would be NO witnesses to ANY streak rising up from the surface...
No witnesses... Because the streak didn't happen...
But the streak did happen. Many people saw it...
That right there should be enough to discount the gov't story...
And as far as fuel tank explosions, only 747 evidence is relevent. Not DC-9 data, MD-80 data, or 757 data... Only 747 data...
And if the Iran Air 747 was actually downed by a center wing tank explosion, (I'm not saying it wasn't), if that's the only incident attributed to 747's blowing up because of the fuel tank, I still submit the odds of that being the cause of flight 800 to be astronomical. Especially when you consider all the corellating evidence which points to foul play...
Since I can't state how old you are, when was the last time that the United States Federal Government admitted that it screwed up and killed any number of it's citizens?.
Hasn't happened in my lifetime.
The Feds cover their respective butts in all aspects and do not eat their own. Those who fail to play along with the Feds consistently commit suicide.
---max
But they don't.
But they do.
Some accounts have the missile coming from land, others from the sea. Some describe a red flame, others describe a yellow flame, still others a white flame. Some witnesses say it rose heading east, some say west, some say it headed north. You have a dozen different accounts of what happened.
Not really. If they are observing the same event from totally different locations there will be differences between descriptions. However, they are *all* essentially describing something similar. A real difference would be if they saw a light coming down from the air and hit the ground. The essential description is a missile, or light, going up and the plane exploding. If there are variances some of this would be due to the type of witness. The evidence needs to be weighted, such as in terms of common descriptions, how many people saw a particular object, and the reliability of certain witnesses. If a preponderance of witnesses agree on a certain description, then it most likely is the correct description of what really occured. From what I have read the observed missile, or light, tends to triangulate to the area where the plane went down.
I am sick of the public credence given this excuse. These people earn their retirement by being willing to die for their country. If they can't take that kind of risk, they do not deserve a paycheck for the honor of serving this country and its Constitution.
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.