Posted on 07/17/2007 11:34:29 AM PDT by V.Foster
Clinton didn’t want to upset the apple cart. He was big on talk about fighting terrorists but he did nothing when it meant actually getting his hands dirty. The last thing he wanted to do was confront terrorists who killed Americans.
Thats why the bombing of the WTC was treated as a law enforcement issue, with trials and all the rest of it. That was during the OJ trial, that’s why most people aren’t familiar with those WTC bombing trials.
The explanation is that the airplane isn’t going to take fuel it doesn’t need. The heavier an airplane is the more fuel it burns. Fuel makes up a good part of the weight. If your plane is capable of flying 6000 miles on a full load and you’re only flying 3000 miles then if make sense to fill only half your tanks.
Keep up the good fight V. Foster!
What I have found is that the people who say there is no conspiracy haven’t done the reading up, especially the eye witness testimony, what TWA said and what the machinists union said about the cause of the crash.
http://twa800.com/images/times-8-15-00.gif
They also don’t know the FBI told the NTSB that no eyewitnesses were allowed to testify at the public hearings, that is why they took out the ad noted above in the Washington times.
>> Clinton didn’t want to upset the apple cart. He was big on talk about fighting terrorists but he did nothing when it meant actually getting his hands dirty. The last thing he wanted to do was confront terrorists who killed Americans.
That’s the story? That’s the reason a FEW conservatives think he covered up the terrorist attack on TWA 800? He had no response to a supposed terrorist attack that killed hundreds of Americans because he didn’t “want to upset the apple cart”? That’s a REALLY weak explanation.
However ... he fired missiles into Sudan - an act specifically aimed at “upsetting the apple cart” - to distract from a scandal.
>> Thats why the bombing of the WTC was treated as a law enforcement issue, with trials and all the rest of it. That was during the OJ trial, that’s why most people aren’t familiar with those WTC bombing trials.
That certainly doesn’t prove your point ... because Clinton admitted to the terrorist connection with the 1993 WTC bombing, then went the criminal justice route. No coverup of terrorist involvement was staged. If terrorists were, in fact, responsible for flight 800, why wouldn’t he just do the same thing again?
The fact that his responses to WTC 1993 and the bombing of the Cole were lackluster DOES NOT explain why he would COVER UP terrorist involvement in TWA 800 when he didn’t cover up either of those terrorist attacks.
H
I’m not trying to argue TWA800 with you. I haven’t read many of the “cover up” web sites so I’m unfamiliar with the specific allegations and hard evidence provided.
I just think that using Senator John Kerry’s (of all people) segment on Hardball (of all shows) to convince FR (of all websites) of your argument was the trifecta of poor choices.
So you are telling me you have read up on TWA 800, reading both sides of the argument, is that right?
So why did Clinton sign in executive order 13039? Since you are the expert here, what was the thinking behind that? And why did he sign this executive order if in fact TWA 800 was blown up by an “exploding fuel tank”?
Then go read some, try www.twa800.com first. This are mostly retired aviation experts who also think this isn’t a conspiracy theory.
Maybe you can explain how an airliner can climb over 3000 feet with its nose shot off, that is what the CIA video shows the airliner doing.
>> So why did Clinton sign in executive order 13039?
My mind-reading abilities are fairly limited ... but, I’m pretty sure it has something to do with an easily-agitated apple cart.
I simply asked the question - why cover up ONE terrorist attack (TWA 800) and not the others (USS Cole, WTC 1993, etc.)? It makes no sense to risk your administration to (1) protect terrorists, and (2) lie to the public about the deaths of hundreds of American civilians (theoretically to avoid upsetting “the apple cart”), and then to honestly blame other attacks on THE EXACT SAME TERRORISTS!
H
You don’t need to be a mind reader, go do some research on executive order 13039. I can tell by your responses how limited your knowledge is on this topic.
How do you know who the TWA 800 terrorists were? Are you saying it was Bin Laden behind it? The White House at the time, according to Richard Clarke, thought Iran might have been behind it. Besides that, the FBI didn’t even get CIA Files on Bin Laden until 1995!
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7103(b)(1) of title 5 of the United States Code, and having determined that the Naval Special Warfare Development Group has as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work and that the provisions of Chapter 71 of title 5 of the United States Code cannot be applied to this organization in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations...
Title 5, Chapter 71 of the U.S. Code deals with labor-management relations. So I guess I am curious. What did this have to do with TWA800?
>> I can tell by your responses how limited your knowledge is on this topic.
Cute. Dismissive ... but cute. My knowledge of this topic is fine ... and I certainly know enough to know I can simply roll my eyes, and move on to more important matters. I just don’t feel it necessary to glorify ridiculous conspiracy theories with intellectual debate (again, much like the “9-11 Truth” junk). Conspiracy theories - by their nature - cannot be disproven to the satisfaction of their purveyors ... so why bother?
My concern is less for the content of this conversation(which reminds me of a Bilderberg/ CFR debate ... David Icke anyone?) than for the resulting image it gives everyday Americans (at least the ones that don’t believe the former President of the United States would sell out the deaths of hundreds of American citizens and protect known terrorists so he wouldn’t “upset the apple cart”) of the dominant thought in one of the online bastions of the conservative movement.
The image this gives of conservatism is every bit as unflattering as the image of Amy Goodman and her fellow liberal “9-11 Truth” whackjobs.
I believe Bill Clinton is a narcissist, often wrong, morally questionable, a frequent liar, a purjeror, an obstructor of justice, a terrible husband, a lousy father, and a substandard President (somewhere between Carter (worst) and Nixon in ranking late 20th century U.S. Presidents).
I believe he was a poll-watcher, not an ideologue - more concerned about his popularity than his policies (hence, welfare reform and Dick Morris). But, I also believe he’d be a good guy to have a cigar (to smoke) and watch a ballgame with - his good-ol-boy thing, and bawdy sense of humor might be worth listing to. I DO NOT believe he is a traitor to his country, a terrorist sympathizer, a murderer, or that he would risk his popularity to cover up the deaths by terrorism of hundreds of American civilians (for no logical reason whatsoever).
H
You obviously didn’t find out what Title 71 is before you posted. Do better research next time before you post.
On March 11, 1997, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13039, that removed the personnel in the Navy units assigned to the TWA FL800 recovery mission, from the protection afforded by Chapter 71, Title 5 of the United States Code. This particular law is commonly referred to as the whistle blower protection act. The reason cited for the Executive Order was “National Security”.
So why did he do this when TWA 800 was destroyed by an “exploding fuel tank” and citing “National Security?” The center fuel tank was empty by the way, per Testimony by Capt. Mundo, the previous TWA 800 flight engineer.
As usual, you avoid my previous questions and you ramble on with a bunch of political jargon without addressing any of the arguments being made about TWA 800. If you do possess “knowledge of this topic”, I have yet to see it posted on here for debate.
Let me remind you that 1996 was an election year and I actually agree with you that he was a poll watcher. But the safest outcome for him politically in this instance was an accident versus a terrorist event. He had, under his watch, the Oklahoma City bombing and the WTC bombing, both on US soil. Needless to say, it wouldn’t look good for him if TWA 800 was brought down by something other than an “exploding fuel tank” off the coast of Long Island.
Is that a fact? Why not try reading it yourself? Here is a link to it. Link.
Having done so then why not compare that wording with the actual wording of the Whistle Blower Protection Act of 1989 Link. Extra credit if you can point out where Chapter 71 is referenced in the act.
Finally try un-twisting your tinfoil beanie a turn or two. It seems to be cutting off circulation. And once you've done that explain the relation between the Naval Special Warfare Development Group and TWA 800.
EXECUTIVE EO 13039
ORDER Effective Date March 11, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
Responsible Office: ID
Subject: EXCLUSION OF THE NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE DEVELOPMENT
GROUP FROM THE FEDERAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
PROGRAM
TEXT
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States of America, including section
7103(b)(1) of title 5 of the United States Code, and having
determined that the Naval Special Warfare Development Group has
as a primary function intelligence, counter-intelligence,
investigative, or national security work and that the provisions
of Chapter 71 of title 5 of the United States Code cannot be
applied to this organization in a manner consistent with national
security requirements and considerations, Executive Order 12171
of November 19, 1979, as amended, is further amended by adding
the following at the end of section 1-205:
“(i) Naval Special Warfare Development Group.”
/s/William J. Clinton
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 11, 1997.
His executive order is posted above Einstein, the Naval Special Warfare Development Group was part of the group searching for TWA 800 debris, so I ask you again why did he sign this EO if this jet explosion was caused by an exploding fuel tank?
Hey Folks, Jack Cashill, the author of First Strike, which is about TWA 800, will be on Hannity’s America, the Fox TV show, this Sunday 7/29!!!
I read the Executive Order, Sherlock. That particular Seal team was also part of the security at the Atlanta Olympics and were heavily involved in counter-terrorism overseas. You don't imagine something could have happened there in the 9 months between TWA 800 and the Executive Order? And why just them? If it was something related to TWA 800 then why not the other Navy units involved in the recovery? What about the other federal organizations involved, why not shut them up as well? What is it that the Seal team was supposed to have found that only they knew about?
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.
