Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former Obama pilot: TWA Flight 800 was not blown up by a faulty fuel tank; it was shot down.
NY Daily News ^ | 4-15-15 | Andrew Zanginger

Posted on 04/16/2015 10:55:24 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic

Was TWA Flight 800 shot out of the sky?

As a former pilot, that is a question I get asked about all the time.

I’m no conspiracy theorist, but let’s be clear: Yes. I say it was. And I believe the FBI covered it up.

LOOK BACK: REPORTING THE CRASH OF TWA FLIGHT 800 ON JULY 17, 1996

There are many reasons to disbelieve the official explanation of what happened to TWA 800 almost 19 years ago, on July 17, 1996, off the South Shore of Long Island. There’s hardly an airline pilot among the hundreds I know who buys the official explanation — that it was a fuel-tank explosion — offered by the National Transportation Safety Board some four years later.

Lots can go wrong with an airplane. Engines can fail; they can catch fire. Devices can malfunction. Pilots make errors.

But jets do not explode in midair.

If they do, it’s usually because they’ve been shot down or bombed. There’s little to suggest that there was a bomb onboard, but there is ample evidence that a missile of some sort detonated in the air very close to the plane and brought it down.

A former colleague, who will remain unnamed because he was not authorized to speak publicly about this, served as one of the lead investigators representing the interests of the TWA pilots, and I talked to him at length about the investigation after it was completed.

I have also spoken with another former TWA employee, who has knowledge of what went on in the aftermath of the crash.

(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Connecticut; US: New Jersey; US: New York; US: Rhode Island
KEYWORDS: coverup; fbi; foilwatch; planecrash; twa; twa800; twaflight800
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last
To: cuban leaf

What are your thoughts as to the reason for the shoot down?

One option I’m considering is that it was intended to be a 9/11 type action and it was shot down by the US in order to prevent a greater disaster like 9/11. But the fallout that would be caused if Americans knew we shot down our own people would have been great, so they had to cover it up.

If this is correct and I were going to give any credit whatsoever to the Clinton administration, it would be for making a tough decision and choosing the lesser of two tragedies. It would be a no-win situation for anyone to make that decision.

The other option which some people seem to favor is that the Clintons needed another Arkancide. I have little doubt that they would be willing to have their enemies eliminated, but a whole planeload of innocents along with them strikes me as a bit much even for them - Ron Brown notwithstanding. I would expect a smaller, less spectacular “accident” could be more easily arranged and would attract less attention.


61 posted on 04/16/2015 1:24:36 PM PDT by generally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ElectionInspector; Forgotten Amendments

Don’t know if the previous poster is a DU troll, but to give him the benefit the doubt, he may not have meant “justified” in its literal sense. And I agree with him that there was a fair amount of hysteria after 9/11 - particularly in the NYC and DC areas which were most directly affected.

There are many in positions of power in our government who believe that information should be kept from us for “our own good.”

I have personally had discussions with people who bragged about how various systems or agencies have kept us safe or prevented terrorist attacks. When I asked why they don’t publicize that information (for positive PR with Americans, to demoralize the enemy, to alert Americans to be aware of similar attempts) even when there would be no compromise of intelligence secrets, they claim there would be mass hysteria if the public knew about the near misses. I disagree. I don’t believe that Americans are such big sissies that they can’t handle truth. So either those in power disagree with me OR there are few, if any, prevented terror attacks to brag about. They just need to justify their jobs and their budgets. The BentOne isn’t the only one who was willing to cover up to protect his job.

I have a couple of people in mind and I couldn’t tell you their politics. My best guess is left-leaning, but pretending to be more conservative than they really are - at least when they are talking to me.


62 posted on 04/16/2015 2:00:48 PM PDT by generally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

At the time I had a very serious discussion with my two brothers. One a 25 year pilot who few 747’s and the other an engineer who helped build the 747’s and then the 777’s. Both of them laughed at me when I said you cannot deny the 700 witness’. I even exclaimed, “the victims families want to sue Boeing for the fuel tank explosion, has any fuel tank explosion happened on any other plane in history?”


63 posted on 04/16/2015 2:02:26 PM PDT by thirst4truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aragorn

I looked. A lot of deleted threads.


64 posted on 04/16/2015 2:02:42 PM PDT by generally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

I ran a search and this article did not show up. Ssorry.


65 posted on 04/16/2015 2:24:13 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Not a biggie. Both include some good insights. Thought you might want to read the other one as well. Check out post #75 on my thread for a particularly juicy tidbit that I had never heard previously.


66 posted on 04/16/2015 2:32:55 PM PDT by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: livius

Very interesting...that would explain several things.


67 posted on 04/16/2015 2:37:16 PM PDT by Crim (Palin / West '16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: generally
I think there is a simpler explanation. Remember that every senior Republican knew the truth, too - and not one of them said a word. Would they do that just to cover for Clinton's ineptness in stopping a terrorist attack? Highly doubtful.

There is only one reason that all senior officials in both parties would echo the fuel tank story as they did - to protect the reputation and good name of the United States military.

68 posted on 04/16/2015 2:43:20 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (Heteropatriarchal Capitalist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

That tidbit was mentioned either on this thread, or on the other one that I posted today (that claims that the FBI was warned of a bomb to be placed on TWA 800 via the mob and Ramzi Yousef). I’d never read that before (about the El Al plane).


69 posted on 04/16/2015 2:46:32 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I think Rush’s stance on this came about from his already-friendship with Kallstrom.

Probably was real reluctant to say his friend was lying.


70 posted on 04/16/2015 2:53:40 PM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

TWA 800 started us driving a lot of places where we had previously flown. At the time TWA 800 went down we had 2 plane tickets to CA for a class reunion. We called Northwest and they happily exchanged them for tickets in the future with no extra fee tacked on.

I remember the ticket agent replying when I said we did not feel comfortable flying right then because of the Olympics the same week. “I don’t blame you. You can use your tickets anytime in the future.”

That unnerved me a bit. We just hopped into our car and drove West. Made it in 2 days from Milwaukee (northern route).


71 posted on 04/16/2015 2:57:18 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

bttt


72 posted on 04/16/2015 3:01:07 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I’ve driven cross country twice in my life. By far the best trips I have ever made. I can’t wait to do it again.


73 posted on 04/16/2015 4:23:10 PM PDT by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

My kids all live east and south of here, and until a year ago my aged mother, as well as my inlaws, lived in CA where I grew up. For 10 years I had a Golden Retriever who liked to travel too, so we’ve driven to both coasts numerous times; but TWA 800 started it all.

We’ve logged a lot of miles in all kinds of weather. I refuse to go either direction for Christmas any more, however, after a couple of particularly grueling trips. And I no longer wish to drive straight through. We used to pride ourselves in doing 900 miles a day. No more.


74 posted on 04/16/2015 4:31:06 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Wouldn't the U.S. government ground the entire fleet of airliners IF it had genuinely been a fuel tank explosion?

Wouldn't it be considered a product safety defect, and wouldn't the government react, as it does in the military when an aircraft exhibits some questionable defect, result in the GROUNDING OF THE AIR FLEET?

The fact that the government did NOT ground that type of airframe until inspections were made, worldwide, indicates the government itself DOES NOT BELIEVE it was a fuel tank explosion.

There was a wedding party of dozens of people who say a missile streak upwards. I am a news junkie; it was shown on TV...but within hours, the news networks pulled that from the TV.

And why wasn't the NTSB in charge? Why the FBI? That's another "indicator" that something wasn't as they said.

We were hit on that day. Did anyone claim credit (blame) for it? I'd like to know. It would be too easy to rent a small boat, sit just offshore and fire a U.S.-made Stinger missile, one of the countless that we gave the Afghans during their war against Soviet occupation.

I think that's what happened; it was one of our Stingers, and the outcry, if the American people ever found that out, would be terrible.

75 posted on 04/16/2015 4:35:56 PM PDT by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
I remember Cardinal O'Connor and Clinton had a serious confrontation after this happen.

Clinton said he was coming to comfort the families of the dead. O'Connor was already there, and told him that if he showed up, O'Connor would leave immediately.

Clinton did not show up.

As a side note O'Connor would not permit Clinton to speak at St Patrick's the entire time he was Cardinal of NYC. He had to be dead for Clinton to even show up at St. Patrick's

76 posted on 04/16/2015 4:36:32 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent

Could be. It is very strange to me to see someone choose a friend over truth. I have no obligation to a friend to betray my beliefs or nation. I don’t understand people who do.


77 posted on 04/16/2015 4:43:03 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (The question, Jeb Bush? The answer: NO! Rove, is a devious propagandist & enemy of Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
Nope. It would have been a tragic mistake. Those do happen.

Missiles on ships do not go off by accident.

So what happened? A missile shot TWA 800 down and it was covered up. I rate the possibility of that scenario at 99%+. It was such an obvious cover-up. Hundreds of witnesses saw the launch and the explosion.

The probability of that happening actually hovers somewhere between zilch and none. We're not talking about shooting a pistol by accident. There is a lot of steps and a lot of people involved in shooting a missile.

If you have a better explanation you should post it.

Sometimes things are as they seem.

78 posted on 04/16/2015 5:15:47 PM PDT by Lower Deck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
Was it ever determined if naval maneuvers were operating in the area? Were there no witnesses out there on the ocean? No interviews? Did any ship involved in that have surface to air capabilities? Did they look at the inventories to see if any missiles were missing?

Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes.

79 posted on 04/16/2015 5:16:40 PM PDT by Lower Deck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ
Actually there are several systems for subs to launch surface to air missiles

Name one.

And it is certainly possible that one was being tested....

No, it isn't.

80 posted on 04/16/2015 5:17:45 PM PDT by Lower Deck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson