now you know...
Hope it helps
Posted on 07/17/2007 11:34:29 AM PDT by V.Foster
On this day in history TWA was downed - witnesses saw a streak of smoke like a trailing missile hit TWA 800.
If you believe the "official story" about TWA 800 that the Clinton Administration forced on the public with the help of the FBI and CIA you need to read this book and listen to all of the witnesses.
I’m convinced that this was an terrorist strike on our Airlines. Bill Clinton wanted this story to go away, so a "Center Fuel Tank" story was hatched, Janet Reno with the help of FBI and the CIA ran with this story. The last thing Bill Clinton wanted to do was tackle a BIG problem like Terrorism. He wanted to "kick that can" down the road.
270 Witnesses saw something different than the official story!
Read it - Watch Video - Pass it along
The center fuel tank was empty.
I think one must concede that the dems in general, and the clinton admin in particular, are, and have been willing to put advancement of their own agenda ahead of the well-being of the nation. Having said that, I think it’s more than likely that the incoming Bush Cabinet was misled, lied to, or kept in the dark wherever necessary or possible to prevent embarrasment to Billary...
I’ve heard this story ... isn’t it the one where
- Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Kennedy and Fidel Castro were the gunmen on the grassy knoll;
-George W. Bush faked 9-11 (with the clever use of holograms and demolition explosives)
- the Pentagon was hit with a missile - not a plane
- and the New Orleans levees were destroyed (also with demolition explosives) just to randomly kill black people ...
The truth is out there. What do you think, Scully?
Personally - I think Lex Luthor is behind the whole thing.
H
Of course the difference being that over 200 people actually WITNESSED something heading in the direction of that plane before it exploded.
If there were numerous witnesses to men on the grassy knoll, or men planting explosives in the towers, or black-clad operatives planting explosives under the levees, or that many witnesses actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon...then those theories would also have some merit.
There are “scientific” studies about a “magic bullet” with witness statements about a gunman on the grassy knoll, hearing shots from multiple directions, etc ...
There are Pilots, Academics, etc. for “9-11 Truth” claiming the scientific impossibility of a skyscraper collapsing after being hit with a 747 - including witness statements about “flashes” which would presumably be the set explosives meant to demolish the WTC ...
There are people that claim to be able to “prove” that the moon landing was shot on a soundstage ...
Crazy Louie claims to have SEEN the craters from the demolition of the levees ...
People claim all KINDS of things ... even witnesses. Perception is a tricky thing, particularly when events happen quickly, and involve technology that eyewitnesses may not understand.
Bill Clinton was WRONG about a LOT of things ... but, he isn’t a traitor to his country. Stuff like this makes conservatives look no different from the “9-11 Truth” wackos ... its just we attack the other party.
H
I didn’t say I believe the theories that the airliner was blown up. I’m merely saying something is fishy. I’m also saying there’s way more plausability to over 200 witnesses than there are a couple guys in their basement “proving” a controlled demolition on 9/11.
One example being those “flashes”. Any sane person who looks at the collapse knows those “flashes” are the dust popping out as each floor collapses on the one beneath.
Also, it’s very condescending (a liberal trait) to say to over 200 witnesses that they don’t “understand” what they saw.
I have been reading all the cute “tin foil hat” and “Rosie O Nutbar” responses. They are, as I said, cute.
However, Mr G and I were watching the coverage on the evening when it happened. We both watched a video from a wedding... you know, the Great Aunt Tillie video where she says “you were cute as a bug in a rug and aren’t you a big girl now”, video that is shot during the reception. While G.A.T. was talking, you could see the smoke trail from something going up behind her and short seconds later an explosion. The news people showed it several times, and pointed out the trail, talking about a missle.
Then it disappeared from the airwaves. We never saw it again. We never heard it referred to again. Now, since both of us saw it, and since it was repeated, do you (the general doubters, not you V Foster) want to call us nutbars?
As hard as slick worked to cover his issues while in office, including bombing another country to distract from M. Lewinski, I have no doubt that he would work that hard to hide this.
Thanks for signing up in the last month to “debunk” stuff that has been FR for just about 10 years and discussed at a mature level.
According to whom? On a flight to Europe?
>> Also, it’s very condescending (a liberal trait) to say to over 200 witnesses that they don’t “understand” what they saw.
No need to talk down, professor. Misquoting is also a fairly common “liberal trait”. What I ACTUALLY said was the following ...
“Perception is a tricky thing, particularly when events happen quickly, and involve technology that eyewitnesses may not understand.”
I said they didn’t understand the technology - which most, if not all, certainy didn’t. I didn’t realize that we were talking about “200 witnesses” that were also aviation experts who dabble in missile technology. That’s not talking down ... I don’t understand aviation technology either - the NTSB, on the other hand, does.
>> I didn’t say I believe the theories that the airliner was blown up. I’m merely saying something is fishy.
The inevitable “out” of conspiracy theorists ... I don’t really BELIEVE any of this, but “something’s fishy”. Didn’t Rep. Ellison (the first Muslim Congressman) say virtually the SAME THING about the Bush-orchestrated 9-11 conspiracy yesterday?
“I’m not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you.” [End quote]
... but something’s fishy.
H
I thought it was the Navy that shot it down.
>> Thanks for signing up in the last month to “debunk” stuff that has been FR for just about 10 years and discussed at a mature level.
Thanks, chief. You should read you cohort’s diatribe about “talking down” being a “liberal trait”.
By the way ... I’ve been a member for the better part of a decade (since I was in college ... late 1990’s). I got a new e-mail address and screen name last month (kinda got tired of the old one(s), and they hadn’t been used in a while anyway).
This “bunk” isn’t worth a “mature-level” discussion anymore than the 9-11 Truth claptrap is.
H
According to published reports and NTSB findings. TWA800 was a 747-131 with a maximum range of about 5800 mile with a full load of fuel. The day of the accident the plane had flown from non-stop from Athens to New York. The distance to Paris is about 3500. The middle tank wasn't needed so it wasn't filled.
No matter how you slice it, saying people don’t “understand” what they saw with their own eyes is patronizing. By the way, at least several of those witnesses were pilots and former military...but, they’re not integratively-comlex enough to know what they saw.
Just looked up my old screen names (The Patriot 1776; Bonesman) ... I’ve been a member since Sept. 7, 1998 ... a full two weeks shorter than you have.
H
Alot of gov/mil guys didn’t let FDR know much about what was going on before 12/7, either. I think you’d be amazed.
Um, no, the same way I wont bother with the MIHOP books, the Fake Moonlanding books, the UFO Coverup books. Something written is not something true.
>> No matter how you slice it, saying people don’t “understand” what they saw with their own eyes is patronizing.
And - no matter how you slice it, claiming that your “200 witnesses” fully understood the aviation technology which was integral in the incident they witness is simply foolish.
>> By the way, at least several of those witnesses were pilots and former military...but, they’re not integratively-comlex enough to know what they saw.
Hence the word “most” in the statement ...
“I said they didn’t understand the technology - which most, if not all, certainy didn’t.”
And, hence the word “may” in the original statement that you objected to ...
“Perception is a tricky thing, particularly when events happen quickly, and involve technology that eyewitnesses may not understand.”
Good grief ... I didn’t even say they DIDN’T understand ... I said perception is tricky, particularly when eyewitnesses “MAY not understand” the technology.
What’s with the quibbling over semantics here? And, you don’t even dispute the crux of statement ... you’re just offended (speaking of liberal traits - I’m supposed to concede or rephrase because you’re offended?) that I dare point out that the witnesses you spoke of MIGHT not understand the complex technology at work in an aviation accident.
H
What kind of advanced degree does one need to know they saw an object traveling in a certain direction?
My 18 month-old knows what’s up and down.
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.