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

Skip to comments.

Clarke's complicity in crash cover-up
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 24, 2004 | Jack Cashill

Posted on 03/24/2004 4:31:03 PM PST by js1138

Clarke's complicity in crash cover-up


Posted: March 24, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jack Cashill


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

While counter-terrorism expert and man-of-the-hour Richard Clarke is in a chatty mood, someone might choose to ask him what he knows about TWA Flight 800. If no one in the media will, perhaps retired United Airline pilot Ray Lahr will get the chance to put Clarke under oath.

Lahr next goes to court on April 5 in Los Angeles to advance his suit against the National Transportation Safety Board, the CIA and a reluctant Boeing for their role in creating the CIA's preposterous zoom-climb animation, the one that was used to discredit the 270 eyewitness to a likely missile attack.

Clarke, you see, was involved in the creation of that animation. He has boasted about it. Clarke, in fact, was involved with TWA Flight 800 from the beginning. As designated chairman of the Coordinating Security Group on terrorism in July 1996, it was he who called the critical meeting that began about 90 minutes after the crash of TWA Flight 800 in the White House situation room.

Gathered in the room that night were some 40 representatives of the agencies involved. Teleconferencing in on the room's eight monitors were terrorist experts from around the nation. Represented either in person or on screen were the Pentagon, the FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Secret Service, the CIA, the State Department, the Justice Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the White House. The NTSB, which should have been present, was not.

The FAA made it clear that, at this point, there was no effective deterrence if terrorists were planning to take out additional planes. The attendees realized that two days before the Olympics and a month before the political conventions, a terrorist scenario had the potential to virtually shut down the airline industry and cripple the economy.

President Clinton knew this all too well and dreaded it. He was squirreled away that night in the family quarters, likely with access to satellite and other data not shared in the situation room. Just four months shy of pulling off one of the great political comebacks of all time, Clinton lived in mortal fear of an incident that could throw the advantage to war hero, Bob Dole. And this was one such incident.

Unlike President Bush, Clinton obviously did not share his sentiments with Clarke. Clarke called the security meeting in good faith and executed it in the same spirit. The presumption reigned during the meeting that the destruction of the plane had been a terrorist act. Years later, Clarke casually acknowledged "the widespread speculation within the CSG that [TWA 800] had been shot down by a shoulder-fired missile from the shore." Those gathered had received the heads-up from the FAA on the radar data. They were aware of reports that streaks of light had been seen in the sky heading towards the plane prior to the explosion. They knew that the plane had vanished without a word of distress from the pilots, a fact that suggested terrorism as well.

When, however, the White House let it be known the next day that all talk of missiles should go away, an obliging Richard Clarke played a role in helping the missiles do just that.

The final cleansing of the likely missile attack from history came some 16 months later. What made Nov. 18, 1997, so memorable – and so controversial – was less the FBI press conference that concluded the criminal investigation than the 15-minute, CIA-produced zoom-climb animation that concluded the press conference.

As with all perceived successes, everyone wanted credit. A New Yorker profile post-Sept. 11 gave the honors to the late FBI anti-terrorism expert John O'Neill. The New Yorker's source was none other than Richard Clarke. According to Clarke, O'Neill insisted that TWA 800 was out of range of the most-likely shoulder-fired missile, the Stinger.

O'Neill believed that the "ascending flare" must have been something else, like "the ignition of leaking fuel from the aircraft" Clarke, who was clearly in the loop, played along He also credits O'Neill with persuading the CIA to create a visual recreation of the same. It is hard to know whether Clarke was complicit in the CIA plot or just plain ignorant, but neither speaks well for his credibility.

"The case of TWA 800 served as a turning point because of Washington's determination and to a great extent ability to suppress terrorist explanations and 'float' mechanical failure theories," wrote Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism Yossef Bodansky in1999. "To avoid such suppression after future strikes, terrorism-sponsoring states would raise the ante so that the West cannot ignore them."

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, while terrorists prepared to raise that ante, New Yorkers went about their business, unknowing, unsuspecting and totally unprepared.

For this, they can thank, among others, Richard Clarke.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 800; 911commission; clarke; complicity; coverup; crash; dontdelete; richardclarke; twa; twa800; twa800list
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last
Admins. Feel free to delete if this is too tin-foil.

I don't know what caused TWA 800, but I'm pretty sure the video produced under Clarke's direction is bogus.

1 posted on 03/24/2004 4:31:04 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
I don't know if this is a forbidden topic.
2 posted on 03/24/2004 4:31:50 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
New York City, October 23, 1995: "For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there's not a single solitary nuclear missile pointed at the people of the United States of America."

Concord, New Hampshire, February 2, 1996: ". . . for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a single nuclear missile pointed at an American child today."

Philadelphia, April 26, 1996: ". . . for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight."

Toledo, Ohio, August 26, 1996: ". . . for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, on this night, this beautiful night, there is not a single nuclear missile pointed at a child in the United States of America."

And so on: In Nashville, Washington, Iowa City, New Orleans, Coral Gables, San Francisco, Santa Monica, St. Louis; Ashland, Kentucky; Sun City, Arizona; Hartford, Connecticut -- even in a telephone speech to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the very people who would coordinate disaster relief in the event of a nuclear attack. Mr. Clinton is not alone in making this mistake.

Vice President Al Gore echoed the president in his carefully rehearsed speech to the 1996 Democratic National Convention: "Our strength at home has led to renewed respect abroad: nuclear missiles no longer pointed at our cities. . . ." No clear tie to Russia.
3 posted on 03/24/2004 4:34:33 PM PST by Toespi (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
What makes you think this topic is forbidd.....UGH...SLUMP!
4 posted on 03/24/2004 4:38:39 PM PST by JOE6PAK ("The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: js1138
...but I'm pretty sure the video produced under Clarke's direction is bogus.
What? Do you doubt that a plane going 500+ mph with its nose torn off would continue to climb a couple of thousand feet?

You're just too cynical. Nothing wrong at all with the aerodynamics of that scenario.


5 posted on 03/24/2004 4:39:07 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Was TWA800 really 4 days before Clinton's re-election?
6 posted on 03/24/2004 4:42:34 PM PST by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spyone
No, it was four months.
7 posted on 03/24/2004 4:46:59 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: js1138
INCREDIBLE!!!
8 posted on 03/24/2004 4:47:04 PM PST by Enduring Freedom (Guess How We Ended Japanese Kamikaze Attacks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spyone
Doesn't look like it from the article. July 1996? That's four months. A terrorist attack could have cost him the election, however. A reverse Spain.
9 posted on 03/24/2004 4:47:13 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JOE6PAK
Ooops! Call the coroner, Joe's over in the back, and to the left...
10 posted on 03/24/2004 4:48:25 PM PST by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I don't think this topic is too "tin-foil" at all.

I've reviewed a lot of information related to TWA 800 over the years, and I've reached one basic conclusion: IF the aircraft was shot down, it was not done by terrorists -- it was an accidental shoot-down by a U.S. Navy vessel or NATO warship conducting exercises off the south shore of Long Island that night.

11 posted on 03/24/2004 4:49:28 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Definitely not.
12 posted on 03/24/2004 4:49:40 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: js1138
A reverse Spain...my GOD!...Clinton lies to the world to save his sorry ass...no wonder we'll never hear about this in the press, everyone expects it from him...just lies about sex, no big deal...just lies about mass murder, no big deal...just politics.
13 posted on 03/24/2004 4:52:43 PM PST by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: js1138
All those plane downed during the 1990s, and explained as "mechanical failure" was something I picked up soon after 9/11. Too many crashes, none of the pilots expressing distress, and that one pilot hailing Allah.

I also was not suprised that the sudden "mechanical failures" ceased after we finally address the war on terrorism.

Yes, some think it's tin foil, but I don't.
14 posted on 03/24/2004 4:54:33 PM PST by mabelkitty (A tuning, a Vote in the topic package to the starting US presidency election fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
A heat seaking missle would have probably hit one of the engines. I don't see how an SA7 could have done it.
15 posted on 03/24/2004 4:58:00 PM PST by U S Army EOD (John Kerry, the mother of all flip floppers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: js1138; *TWA800_list; Admin Moderator
How can it be a forbidden topic if there's a bump list in its name?

Hi _Jim!!

16 posted on 03/24/2004 4:59:53 PM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
That would also not look good on clinton's resume. Have you considered the posibility, however, that TWA 800 was in the time slot allocated for an Israeli Airliner? Do you really believe that terrorists with technical assistance from Iraq or Iran could not have done it?
17 posted on 03/24/2004 4:59:59 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
You're right -- there were there a lot of those "mechanical failure" incidents. I determined that most of the findings were a total hoax when I realized that all of them involved international flights out of John F. Kennedy Airport in New York City -- including TWA Flight 800, the SwissAir flight that crashed off the coast of Newfoundland, the Egypt Air flight that crashed while the pilot was praying to Allah saying grace before dinner, and American Airlines (I think) Flight 587 (about two months after 9/11).

Anyone who flies out of that airport in light of all these "accidents" ought to get a head examination.

18 posted on 03/24/2004 5:00:40 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: spyone
Clinton had already gotten away with covering up Oklahoma City. He had no reason to think he couldn't pull it off again.
19 posted on 03/24/2004 5:01:02 PM PST by Nita Nupress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
You've decided that either US or NATO shot down flt 800.

When exactly did the South Shore of LI, home of one of the world's most heavily populated flight paths, become a Naval Live Fire Range?

20 posted on 03/24/2004 5:01:52 PM PST by wtc911 (Doesn't matter if your head is in the sand or up your a**, the view is the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Liar
21 posted on 03/24/2004 5:02:46 PM PST by binger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
It was not a heat-seeking missle. It was a new type of missile that tracked its target using the target's own radio "signature." There was no explosion -- the missile functions more like a flak shell, by detonating close to the target and shredding it with hundreds of tungsten carbide cubes.

22 posted on 03/24/2004 5:03:10 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: js1138
WOW! Please ZOT masters, don't delete this thread!
23 posted on 03/24/2004 5:03:15 PM PST by ServesURight (FReecerely Yours,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"The case of TWA 800 served as a turning point because of Washington's determination and to a great extent ability to suppress terrorist explanations and 'float' mechanical failure theories," wrote Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism Yossef Bodansky in1999. "To avoid such suppression after future strikes, terrorism-sponsoring states would raise the ante so that the West cannot ignore them." On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, while terrorists prepared to raise that ante, New Yorkers went about their business, unknowing, unsuspecting and totally unprepared. For this, they can thank, among others, Richard Clarke.

BTT!

24 posted on 03/24/2004 5:03:24 PM PST by ladyinred (democrats have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Regarding flight 587, this means the Bush administration is continuing the policy of concealment to the public. I have great problems with this.
25 posted on 03/24/2004 5:03:56 PM PST by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The real key is that anyone interested in shooting down a passenger jet would not have situated themselves so far east, when the jet was flying so high -- they would have been closer to JFK that night.

Remember, too -- when terrorism is involved, one of the goals is a well-publicized event. You don't shoot down an airliner flying at 13,000 feet or so if your goal is to shock people.
26 posted on 03/24/2004 5:06:04 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
NATO warships off the coast of LI?? What the hell are you thinking?
27 posted on 03/24/2004 5:07:27 PM PST by petercooper (I actually did vote for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: spyone
Yes - no way Flight 587 was caused by wind shear or whatever BS they came up with.
28 posted on 03/24/2004 5:08:37 PM PST by petercooper (I actually did vote for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: spyone
The tail fell of flight 587, and I've never read ANY credible analyses that indicate terrorism there.
29 posted on 03/24/2004 5:11:32 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wtc911
It took many months for the information to find its way out, but two facts about the night of Flight 800's demise are now known:

1. There were U.S. Navy assets off the south shore of Long Island that night.

2. There is a grid system that is used to designate naval exercise zones. The one though which Flight 800 was flying that night (I believe it is designated W-55, but don't hold me to it) was active that night.

Point #1 is particularly noteworthy because it represents a case of Alfred Hitchcock's "dog that doesn't bark" theory. All the naval ships in the area moved away that night as if nothing had happened, which would be an odd response if there were any chance in hell that a foreign terrorist had just shot down a U.S. airliner from a boat.

Conducting naval exercises in an area like that sounds ridiculous on its face, but based on conversations I've had since then I've determined that it's not so far-fetched. In fact, very often it behooves the Navy to conduct exercises in areas like this because it helps ensure that the weapon systems, navigation systems, etc. will work even with a lot of interference from background radio "traffic."

30 posted on 03/24/2004 5:11:52 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker; Free State Four; lagamorph; KC Burke; KC_Conspirator
Cashill ping.
31 posted on 03/24/2004 5:13:49 PM PST by barker (Normal people scare me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spyone
Regarding flight 587, this means the Bush administration is continuing the policy of concealment to the public. I have great problems with this.

I don't. If Richard Reid had been successful in his attempt to blow a plane out of the sky with explosives in his shoes, I have no doubt that there would have been a "mechanical problem" identified as a cause of the incident.

"Put not your trust in princes."

32 posted on 03/24/2004 5:14:19 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: petercooper
I'm speculating on joint U.S. Navy / NATO exercises as the reason why the U.S. Navy has never identified all of the ships that were in the area that night. Just a possibility.

There's no reason why the U.S. Navy could not have been responsible for it themselves -- it's not as if that kind of thing hasn't happened before (the Iranian airliner shot down back in the early 1990s).

33 posted on 03/24/2004 5:17:21 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: walden
Oh, sure. Tails fall off passenger jets like that all the time.

34 posted on 03/24/2004 5:18:05 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
You don't shoot down an airliner flying at 13,000 feet or so if your goal is to shock people.

Everything about the coverage would have been different if the airliner had been Israeli.

35 posted on 03/24/2004 5:19:42 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; All
Jack Cashill used to be a well liked morning radio talk show host in KC. Had a moron lady lib as his co-host. Show got yanked all of a sudden. Probably because of her or because Jack spoke the truth.

Jack knows what he's talking about when it comes to flight 800.
http://www.cashill.com/
36 posted on 03/24/2004 5:21:22 PM PST by barker (Normal people scare me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Do you mean that keeping something like this under wraps is better than the possible panic/economic damage?
37 posted on 03/24/2004 5:21:55 PM PST by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
So you are saying that the missle homed in on the aircrafts ID transponder? The explosion was internal. An airburst outside the aircraft would have not taken the nose off like it did. It would have had been as big as a Hawk or SA6 to get the plane. It had all the tell tale of a bomb going off. The streak is hard to explain though.

If it was a missle and did home in on the transponder, the missle made contact. I wonder how close the transmitting antenna would have been to the so called fuel tank or the nose of the aircraft. I think it broke into just forward of the wing.
38 posted on 03/24/2004 5:22:38 PM PST by U S Army EOD (John Kerry, the mother of all flip floppers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
If it was shot down by the Navy, every sailor on that ship would know. Secrets like that don't keep.
39 posted on 03/24/2004 5:22:54 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I don't know if this is a forbidden topic.

Why in the world would this be a "forbidden topic"? What are we, living in Stalinist Russia now?

40 posted on 03/24/2004 5:25:14 PM PST by jpl ("I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Jack Cashill's stunning documentary video, "Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice"

41 posted on 03/24/2004 5:25:38 PM PST by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
don't. If Richard Reid had been successful in his attempt to blow a plane out of the sky with explosives in his shoes, I have no doubt that there would have been a "mechanical problem" identified as a cause of the incident.

I just figured they didn't want to give Osama another victory so soon after 9/11. So they just announced it was mechanical failure. The giveaway was that they announced it while the whole town was still in flames, and they couldn't even get to the plane itself.

Similar to the TWA800, where they announced that it was mechanical failure before they pulled one piece off the ocean floor.

42 posted on 03/24/2004 5:25:39 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: spyone
Do you mean that keeping something like this under wraps is better than the possible panic/economic damage?

Yes.

You can take this to the bank. If the 9/11 terrorists had only hijacked one aircraft and crashed it into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, there would have been some other explanation for what happened.

43 posted on 03/24/2004 5:26:03 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jpl
Why in the world would this be a "forbidden topic"?

There was a time recently when conspiracy theory threads were being yanked. It may have had more to do with the poster than the topic.

44 posted on 03/24/2004 5:28:29 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Naval exercises off shore are not uncommon. But I ask again, from your research, when did Live Fire exercises off the most densley populated, heavily traffic'd piece of coast begin?

My experience with the military is exclusively land based but I've got to believe that an exercise where even the remote possibility of the sequence of events necessary for the sort of "mistake' that you say happened, off the coast of NYC's immediate suburbs, directly in an international flight path where the traffic is so heavy that you can stand on the beach and see as many as a dozen commercial craft in the air, is beyond the scope of what the Navy plans.

Let's not even consider the number of people who would know about it...in the hundreds at least. I guess though that we can expect every 19 year old Seaman on those ships to shut up just because.

45 posted on 03/24/2004 5:29:47 PM PST by wtc911 (Doesn't matter if your head is in the sand or up your a**, the view is the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
The streak is hard to explain though.

It's not just the streak, though. And this is what makes the accidental shoot-down very plausible.

Many eyewitness accounts of the "streak" were dismissed out of hand because they were not consistent in their description of what they saw -- particularly in terms of the trajectory. But it's not as if these people were describing any number of different flight paths . . . All of them basically came down to two different groups: some of them saw a streak go from Point 1 and travel in Direction A, while others saw a streak go from Point 2 and travel in Direction B.

What they saw was two different "streaks" -- an unmanned drone that is used by the Navy as a target in its weapons tests, and the missile itself that was fired at the drone from a different ship.

46 posted on 03/24/2004 5:31:05 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I don't know what caused TWA 800, but I'm pretty sure the video produced under Clarke's direction is bogus.

Right you are.

The CG of the aircraft moved aft by a large distance after the nose fell off. With the wings still located in their normal position, and the CG drastically aft of the normal flight envelope limit, the pitching moment created by the torque of the center of lift being out in front of the CG would have caused the aircraft to pitch up violently, stalling the wings long before any 3000' "zoom-climb" could have ever taken place.

I have yet to speak to an active or retired airline pilot who believes the Gov't explanation for TWA 800. Everyone believes it was a missile.

The only doubt is whose missile was it (friend or foe)..... and whether or not there was more than one.

47 posted on 03/24/2004 5:32:35 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petercooper
Flight 587 took off right after another large aircraft which would give you the wind shear. The co-pilot had a track record of over correcting with the tail on that aircraft. He is all probability tore the tail off of the aircraft which does infact have a weak tail or rudder.
48 posted on 03/24/2004 5:33:14 PM PST by U S Army EOD (John Kerry, the mother of all flip floppers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Matter of fact on that particular aircraft they were almost of were falling off.
49 posted on 03/24/2004 5:35:06 PM PST by U S Army EOD (John Kerry, the mother of all flip floppers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wtc911
The incident did not occur "off the coast of NYC's immediate suburbs" -- the area where this occurred was at least a two-hour drive east of Manhattan. Flight 800 was flying at an elevation of about 13,000 feet when it went down.

One clue here is that Flight 800 was not supposed to be flying that low -- it was supposed to be flying at 16,000 feet or more. It was ordered to descend to make way for a northbound USAir flight into Providence, Rhode Island (flying in a path that was perpendicular to Flight 800's path) that was running behind schedule that night and should not have been in the area.

I know I'm just speculating here -- but the facts as I understand them indicate the very real possibility that Flight 800 was brought down simply because a U.S. Navy target drone got too close to it.

50 posted on 03/24/2004 5:36:59 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 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