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

Skip to comments.

MSNBC and the missing videotape: Jack Cashill examines network's role in TWA Flight 800 cover-up
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, February 15, 2005 | Jack Cashill

Posted on 02/15/2005 1:19:18 AM PST by JohnHuang2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last
To: UCANSEE2

Never said he didn't exist.

Seriously doubted wisdom of using him as sole source for an event, when he is far from the major player poster described him as, and he was only supposedly repeating what he had been told by some unnamed person, who was given a title not commensurate with situation described.

Other than that, and he has a very ugly beard and is probably a big time Hillary fan, all was fine. :~)


181 posted on 02/17/2005 9:28:13 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having your own XM177 E2 means never having to say you are sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel

182 posted on 02/17/2005 10:24:21 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (sH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel
You asked for something other than conjecture. I am doing my best.

Imagine test missile, with unarmed warhead, suddenly goes way off course and locks onto a large airliner that is also 'off course'. Another armed missile is sent to destroy the first, and gets there too late to destroy the missile, and too late to turn away.

183 posted on 02/17/2005 10:32:30 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (sH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel
What did autopsies of the passengers on TWA800 show... Nothing. No bomb parts, no foreign matter that was not attributable to the aircraft. Every body that was recovered was autopsied.

Where did you get this info?

One of the MD's who worked on the autopsies reported finding shrapnel on most of the bodies. I can find his name and transcript, if you want.

184 posted on 02/17/2005 10:37:20 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (sH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: John O

Was it an Achmed missile or an errant shot from the navy on maneuvers?


185 posted on 02/17/2005 10:43:57 AM PST by Pharmboy ("Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Never said he didn't exist.

You didn't?

Finally, BNN? 30 years in the business and I've never heard of Broadcast Network News. The only BNN I know is the Bulgarian News Network. Krep.... and bad krep. After 30 years covering cops and courts, I've been lied to by pros; criminals, lawyers, (pardon the redundancy), cops, etc. This is really light weight BS.

I did a Google search just now. The only thing I find is a 1997 article about the company.

So we are now depending on the word of the CEO of a company that does not exist.....

Now you claim you know the man personally and know what happened to his company, and what he is doing right now.

You didn't state at the offset that YOU KNEW WHO HE WAS, and WHAT HAPPENED TO BNN, and that you had little faith in his word due to....... whatever. Now did you?

You purposefully hid the truth, and you plain lied. WHY?

186 posted on 02/17/2005 11:03:26 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (sH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Down boy! You were the one who, in 163, got all pompous and pedantic with me about 'traffic patterns' and VFR.

Clever way of avoiding the questions I put to you.

(And I disagree with your contention that the pattern is used when IFR. At least when I was flying you cancelled IFR if you entered the pattern and then landed VFR.)

ML/NJ

187 posted on 02/17/2005 2:23:46 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel
Now the personal attacks start. I question the conspiracy, and now I am the target. I see how things work. Nice, really.

Sorry if you took this as a personal attack (and I can see how you might).

I was just being sarcastic. I'm sure you know that, "There's not a shred of evidence," is one of the Commodities Scam Queen's favorite lines; and of course it was never true when she said it so far as I can recall. She really meant, "There's a lot of evidence but I refuse to acknowledge it."

In the case of TWA 800, would you agree that the high volume of consistent eyewitness reports collected by law enforcement, including several from experienced observers, constitutes evidence?

I would agree with your contention that there is quite a bit of disinformation around about TWA 800. Unfortunately quite a bit has been proffered by the government. (e.g. the plane soared up after it was stricken.) I believe that this disinformation is also, in its own way, a sort of evidence.

ML/NJ

188 posted on 02/17/2005 2:44:37 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
I certainly didn't say "that the pattern is used when IFR". I said: "Approach/Departure controllers use the same limited number of routing paths for IFR traffic to and from given runways."

Typically, incoming airliners will fly directly down onto the runway on the ILS, after being vectored onto the latter by ATC. Outgoing traffic is usually routed out along well-established routings, often to a nearby VOR beacon, and then onward (on a flight plan given during clearance delivery.)

As regards 'the questions', I assume you are talking about the military Warning area south of LI. These are all over the waters off the East Coast, and are used primarily for mil flight operations. Maybe you are suggesting that the Navy was conducting surface-to-air missile firing operations at the edge of W-105. I guess anything is possible, but as I said at the start of this discussion, I think it's higly unlikely that the Navy would be irresponsible enough to deliberately fire heat-seeking missiles up into the air that close to JFK operations (and that close to the Hampton VOR and airway V-46). An accidental firing? Maybe.

189 posted on 02/17/2005 3:11:51 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
I think it's higly unlikely that the Navy would be irresponsible enough to deliberately fire heat-seeking missiles up into the air that close to JFK operations (and that close to the Hampton VOR and airway V-46). An accidental firing? Maybe.

One of the problems with testing at White Sands and places like that is that they don't have the same "noise" problems as would be encountered near populated areas. These missiles have to be able to operate in high noise areas because that's where they would most likely be used. That's why they test in places like W-105.

ML/NJ

190 posted on 02/17/2005 3:17:30 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
....they test [missiles] in places like W-105.

Please give your source for that statement.

191 posted on 02/17/2005 4:49:42 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
You purposefully hid the truth, and you plain lied. WHY?

First, as I said before, I really do appreciate your responses, and there would not be much fun in FR if everyone had the same thoughts and there was no disagreement.

It is also a responsbility, here on FR, to conduct disagreements in a courteous manner.

My statement listed above was accusatory, and I find it unlikely that most posters, especially MindBender26, would lie on purpose. I believe that in trying to communicate his/her position that third part info with no supporting proof should not be taken seriously, this poster slowly revealed items about his knowledge of the situation, and may have been gathering the info he/she passed on.

So, Mindbender26, in the Spirit of the good of Free Republic, I take fault for calling you a liar. That is not a good way to encourage further discussions.

I have been in the same situations where my 'discoveries' and the way I was revealing information led others to call me a liar. I could see what they meant, but it was not my intention, and I am sure it wasn't Mindbender26's either.

I hope he/she accepts my apology for making such accusation publicly. I continued the discussion with this poster privately, and that is the place where one should sort out such problems. I appreciate this poster making the first step on that.

I don't like the idea of losing any valuable source of information and experience, whether that source supports my position, or not.

I assume that if there was a conspiracy in the government and Navy to conceal an accident, that it will be sealed for 20 years, and there is nothing we can do about it. That is likely why President Bush has not revealed anything, if this allegation is true.

192 posted on 02/17/2005 5:31:28 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (The truth is like sex, it is a highly personal thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Please give your source for that statement.

Look at your New York Sectional. What do you think this means:

Warning. National Defense Operating Areas. Operations hazardous to the flight of aircraft conducted within these areas.
The "operations" they refer to are only "conducted" a few times a year. Almost everyone will acknowledge that July 17, 1996 was one of those times the Navy notified pilots that that was one of those times.

ML/NJ

193 posted on 02/17/2005 6:45:43 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Almost everyone will acknowledge that July 17, 1996 was one of those times the Navy notified pilots that that was one of those times.

Well, that is news to me. Was it for flight operations or something else? Can you refer me to the NOTAM in question?

194 posted on 02/17/2005 7:05:56 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Well, that is news to me. Was it for flight operations or something else? Can you refer me to the NOTAM in question?

I don't have a copy of the NOTAM. As per my It Wasn't Terrorists post previously linked on this thread:

Ian Goddard cites Aerospace Daily (08/28/96) as saying: "FAA sources and the Navy acknowledged yesterday...that the area known as Whiskey 105, or W-105, was activated at the time of the TWA accident... ". James Sanders in his Downing of TWA Flight 800 provides a copy of a Navy document addressed to the FAA which apparently was a request to activate the warning area.
(You should read the stuff I link to!)

The Navy document to the FAA in the Sanders book I referred to was reproduced at #182 on this thread.

ML/NJ

195 posted on 02/17/2005 8:12:30 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Thanks for the pointer to #182, which I didn't see.

However, that appears to be a NOTAM for the early afternoon (1800 to before 1900 ZULU, 1:00pm to 2:00 local) and not active at the time of the incident. It's a poor copy and hard to read, but it certainly doesn't appear to be active after 3pm.

196 posted on 02/17/2005 8:31:09 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
There was a large multinational exercise occuring in thae area where TWA800 was shot down. There are two possible sources for the missle. Either a RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) fired by one of ours or a foreign missile from one of the other nations participating. See the thread for additional info.

The key points were that the IFF on TWA800 was disabled. There was apparently a target drone fired behind TWA800 and the shooter was in direct line with the target drone and TWA800 when the shot was fired. (according to the radar tracks)

A couple clinton enemies were on the flight so it could have been staged to arkancide them and yet look like an accident. All it took was a confusion about which miliary exercise areas were active, a target drone fired to be in the right place at the wrong time and a little sabotage of the iff transmitter on the flight.

Read the research thread for the discussion. (warning, it is a long and detailed read).

197 posted on 02/18/2005 4:16:09 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

We always thought that 'Flight 800' had been shot down by a missle but we thought it was fired by a terrorist. In fact we still think that. Clinton had it all covered up so that he would not have that 'stain' on his 'presidency'.


198 posted on 02/18/2005 4:21:49 AM PST by Dustbunny (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John O
Thanks for your reply.

I can't fathom that even the x42s would ever consider offing a planeload of Americans to get a few of their enemies. Also, to have the drone in line and all the other technical stuff happen in a planned manner stretches believability.

I guess an awful accident caused by a few individuals screwing up their jobs makes the most sense to me.

199 posted on 02/18/2005 4:47:56 AM PST by Pharmboy ("Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: japaneseghost; yall

I saw the video, so did how many others on the night FL800 went down. It was shown constantly on TV until 11:30 pm, then mysteriously disappeared.

japaneseghost






I saw that same video loop played several times, as did thousands of other people, all over the country.

The fact that it has never been seen since will never shut our lying eyes.


200 posted on 02/18/2005 5:29:12 AM PST by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 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