Clarke's complicity in crash cover-up

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 24, 2004 | Jack Cashill

[Toespi]

Informative post. Have always believe TWA800 was struck by a missile.

[CyberAnt]

My points don't contradict each other. The TW800 had lots of conflicting testimony - and I believe those people who saw the missles go up to the plane.

Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I don't ever recall hearing anything about any kind of confusion about the cause of any of the earlier crashes. I'm not saying it couldn't be - I'm just saying I never heard anything about them - not the way we heard about the contradicting accounts of TW800.

And .. Clinton had a motive to hide the TW800 crash. He wanted to get re-elected. Richard Clarke directed a meeting right after the shoot-down - and it included every agency and they discussed terrorism. The next day - Clinton shut it down. I don't see what would have been gained for the other crashes - there was never any speculation about it either.

So, it's not a contradiction of statements - it's just my lack of any information about the other crashes which said they could have been something other than accidents.

[Alberta's Child]

The "official cause" of the Egypt Air Flight 990 crash has not been determined with any degree of certainty, as far as I know. And many of the same conflicting eyewitness accounts you saw with Flight 800 were also present with the Flight 587 crash a couple of months after 9/11 (numerous witnesses on the ground reported hearing an explosion and seeing the aircraft on fire before the tail came off).

[CyberAnt]

I believe it was determined that the Egypt 990 craft was crashed by the pilot. I don't see a shoot-down here.

Flight 587 which crashed in New Jersey was determined to be something mechanical - and this occurred under President Bush - and I am confident he would not allow NTSB to hide anything about how that plane went down. I don't see a shoot-down here.

Is that it! That's your evidence?

Remember TW800 was special because it occurred on the Clinton watch, and he wouldn't have been re-elected if the truth about the shoot-down had been released. The problem I have with Clarke being involved in holding a meeting is - I just kinda don't think it would happen that way. Personally, I don't think Clarke had the power to call such a meeting. Secondly, if all those organizations were called to such a meeting - that means hundreds of people kept this quiet - I find that very, very hard to believe.

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> ...if this is too tin-foil.

I think most of us here don't know enough about it to be certain one way or the other, early media accounts quoted witnesses who would recognize a SAM strike, saying that's what they saw.

But over the years there have been many threads about that here on the forum, and several folks with some expertise have weighed in with some rationale to believe the government's explanation.

I tend to distrust the government, and distrusted it most of all during the Clinton administration.

My butt is planted firmly on the fence here, not knowing what to believe, in spite of all that's been said. But if it were revealed tomorrow that the missile story were true, I wouldn't be surprised.

Dave in Eugene