Posted on 07/17/2002 1:58:36 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
See "It wasn't terrorists. It couldn't have been."
Do you think Clinton wouldn't have tried to cover up a naval exercise accident? Even Reagan would have tried to keep the lid on one.
ML/NJ
You don't call upon the Navy to shoot down hijacked airplanes.
ML/NJ
I've wondered that myself. At the same time, I don't remember any ME group taking credit for the 1993 attempt to take down the WTC. Can somebody say if my memory is correct on this?
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
A few days ago a caller on the Neal Boortz radio show asked him this very question. Boortz's response made a lot of sense. He said that the only people who know this was a terrorist attack would be the terrorists themselves and the two or three experts that found suspect residue during the ensuing investigation.
He went on to explain that a sitting president's reaction to this type of attack should be one of 'cover up' because of the probable damage to the airline industry. Cover up and go after the terrorists who commited the attack. Clinton, as usual in his half-a**ed way of running goverment, just buried it.
Let's not forget that for the week or so before 587 happened Thompson was all over the media giving us dire warnings that something BIG was expected soon....it happened and then, within hours, was declared an accident.
Don't believe anything they tell you through the media.
I am curious of your assertion. Would you not call upon whatever resources existed at your command to get the job done? Why couldn't that be the Navy?
Mmmmm...partially...it was a group of ME individuals, but not an organization...
On 3rd March, a type-written communication was received at the New York Times. The communique claimed responsibility for the bombing of the World Trade Center in the name of Allah. The letter was composed on a personal computer and printed on a laser printer. Very little can be identified as to the origin of the printer, but a search of the hidden files in Ayyad's computer revealed wording identical to that of the text of the communique. Saliva samples from Salameh, Ayyad and a third man, Mahmud Abouhalima, were obtained and compared with the saliva on the envelope flap. A DNA Q Alpha examination concluded that Ayyad had licked the envelope on the communique received by the Times. Abuhalima, who was an integral part of the conspiracy, had fled the United States the day after the bombing, and had later been arrested in Egypt and extradited back to the United States.
I found this to be a plausible explanation:
"The absence of a claim of responsibility for the downing of TWA 800 has puzzled some, but in fact only about half of all incidents of international terrorism are credibly claimed. In another quarter of the incidents, the likely perpetrators are easily identified, but the remaining quarter requires sleuthing."
"The lack of claims may reflect the changing motives and organizational patterns of terrorism. When terrorists pursued political goals on behalf of identifiable, if imaginary, constituencies, a claim of responsibility was seen as contributing to the achievement of the terrorists' objectives. Terrorists working on behalf of state sponsors, determined solely to punish their perceived enemies, or inspired by religious fanaticism with God or his self-appointed spokesperson as their sole constituent have no need to claim responsibility. Unclaimed attacks may also simply be more terrifying as they give us no enemy to identify."
From the London paper:
U.S. officials are investigating reports that Islamic terrorists have smuggled Stinger ground-to-air missiles into the United States from Pakistan.
Senior Iranian sources close to the fundamentalist regime in Tehran claimed this weekend that TWA flight 800 was shot down last month by one of three shoulder-fired Stingers of the type used by Islamic guerrillas during the Afghanistan war. The sources said the missiles arrived in America seven months ago after being shipped from Karachi via Rotterdam and on to the Canadian port of Halifax. They claimed an Egyptian fundamentalist group backed by Iran was responsible for smuggling the weapons across the Canadian border into the United States.
The group, the Gama'a al-Islamiya, comprises followers of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric jailed in the United States over the 1993 New York World Trade Center bombing. It has been waging a war to overthrow the government of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and has been held responsible for a number of attacks on tourists since 1992, including the murder of 17 Europeans last April.
A senior White House official responsible for counter-terrorism told The Sunday Times this weekend that he had seen a report that a Stinger missile had been smuggled into the United States from Pakistan. The official, who is involved in collating intelligence relating to the TWA inquiry for the White House, said investigators were aware of reports that Stingers may have been smuggled into the country.
So...it was blamed, not claimed.
Have we done this before?
Your entire little post is wrong or misleading.
All, or nearly all, the witnesses report seeing somthing rising offshore. Triangulation of sight lines of those not close enough to differentiate beween sea and shore mostly converge at one or two points off shore. I don't have time to find links now but if at least one other poster requests that I post such such data, I could do it this evening.
Telephone poles look pretty small from a mile away, which is certainly the minimum distance any witness might have been from the actual launch, and three miles is more likely. The people who saw this mostly had their attention drawn by the motion of the object, which of couse occurs after the launch flame, but you blow some anyway. Why?
This did not happen at "night." It happened at approximately 8:30 PM. Go outside this evening at that time and let me know how many starts you can see.
You say you've participated in many launches as if you know what kind of launch this one was. New weapons systems are bing tested all the time. Unless you were directly involved in this, you have no clue what the witnesses should have seen.
ML/NJ
Because the Navy isn't usually positioned to fire upon aircraft departing JFK. The fact that they were should be a big red flag to all.
ML/NJ
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.