Skip to comments.N.Y. Times continues to avoid TWA 800 connection (Richard Clarke & Jamie Gorelick)
Posted on 08/19/2005 5:27:07 AM PDT by Libloather
click here to read article
That's because it falls on Ol Zipper Klintoon's watch. Can't be having that can we?
Whoa! Good find. Thanks for posting!!!
Whoa! Good find. Thanks for posting!!!
I'm surprised the NYT reports this at all. Must be some ulterior motive for doing so. Maybe they want to get it out now so that it won't embarrass Hillary later.
"The tank was not half full, but virtually empty."
Why would a plane bound for Paris have an empty fuel tank?
Nobody has ever logically explained two problems with it, in my opinion.
Nobody, as far as I know, ever claimed credit for shooting down an American airliner. From a terrorist's viewpoint, what is the point of successfully pulling off the most spectacular terror attack in history (till then) if people generally think it was an accident?
There have been no other airliners taken down in similar fashion since. Why would they stop?
The desk of Jack Cashill - World Net Daily
They only carry what they need. No use using fuel hauling undeeded fuel.
Great article! I'm surprised that the NYT would publish such an article since they are one of the "Klintoon Lapdogs". I still believe in my heart the Flight 800 was a terrorist hit. Living in the NY area, I was watching a local TV station when "breaking news" cut in. Numerous eye witnesses claimed that they saw a streak of light racing up towards the plane. IMHO sounds like a SAM to me & no one will ever change my mind.
The New Yourk Slimes is another mouth piece for the Taliban just like Al Jazzera.
"And the government, especially the FBI, would make the Times its unwitting messenger."
I believe that the NYT actually was not unwitting at that point. I believe someone in the Clinton WH went to the publisher of the Times and blackmailed him. Remember the 900 FBI files? Is it not likely that the Clintons had files on non-government folks? The involvement of Clarke and Gorelick in the TWA 800 investigation and their subsequent roles in the 9/11 Commission are beyond coincidental, IMHO. This is a massive coverup orchestrated intially out of the WH by the Clintons. It continues today, with the role of Sandy Berger, Gorelick, Clarke, and others. This, too, will have some relation to the 1995 terrorist attack in OKC, where I believe John DOe #2 was/is an Iraqi agent. The US executed McVeigh as fast as possible, because he knew the truth. McVeigh was merely the trigger - Iraq was the trigger-puller. The Clintons are up to their necks in this, and it needs to be investigated. However, any reporter who does so is advised to proceed carefully and watch his back.
Clinton just couldn't have an act of terrorism declared such because he would have had to go to war. And that's the last thing the hater of the military wanted.
Even John Kerry and George Stephanapolous have accidentally, when speaking of TWA 800, said it was terrorism.
Same with the WTC bombing in 1993. We know an man with an Iraqi passport was involved and took refuge in Iraq afterwards.
These airplanes are capable of such long range, that it is normal that the center tanks could be empty on a "short" flight to Paris.
If the center tanks were empty, the pump switches were off on the engineer's panel and no fuel pump wiring was in the tank, there is no source for any explosion.
Aviation jet fuel isn't nearly as flammable as auto gasoline. With the combination of little fuel in the tank and the 13,000 foot thinner air, it is difficult to get the fuel/air mixture to explode.
That is the question I was about to post.
Don't quote me on this but I seem to remember that this plane has 5 tanks and thus could have taken on even more fuel for longer hauls. For the Paris flight, it was not needed so was empty since planes don't like to a)carry unnecessary weight and b)don't like to land with more than 10% fuel capacity still in reserve.
"Nobody, as far as I know, ever claimed credit for shooting down an American airliner. From a terrorist's viewpoint, what is the point of successfully pulling off the most spectacular terror attack in history (till then) if people generally think it was an accident? "
They didn't have to claim credit. That was the ugliness of the Bent Ones White House. Everything got swept under the rug. Clinton knew who did it and chose to do nothing about it because reelection was the most important thing to the Clintonistas.
It sickens me that "the one who shall go nameless" will get a pass by the MSM.
So, which one of Clintoon's enemies was aboard the plane? How did a U.S. naval vessel go to a general quarters drill and fire a single missile, bringing down the plane, without at least one of the 300-800 sailors (depending on size of ship) taking notice and telling the world?
Seems pretty clear that it was an unacknowledged act of terrorism by parties well known but unverified. But it plays right into the MSM's hatred of the military to try to shift blame in that direction.
I've always believed it was a terrorist attack. Now with the Able Danger scandal it makes sense that Clinton wouldn't have that on his legacy, that precious tarnished legacy that doesn't shine.
Pulling one tooth at a time it will take years to uncover everything that went on in the Clinton White House. Maybe Hillary's real ambition to get in the White House again is to clean up more loose ends that can't be stuffed in Sandy Berger's pants.
N.Y. Times continues to avoid TWA 800 connection ---WHAT ABOUT OKLAHOMA BOMBING CONNECTION?
This is so bad, with all the unnamed sources, etc, it reminds me of old Pravda stories.
thank you all
On Sept. 20, one mainstream newspaper released the story of how the so-called Gore Commission failed conspicuously to address airline safety. The paper claimed that this failure "represents the clearest recent public example of the success that airlines have long had in defeating calls for more oversight."
The paper traced that failure to a series of campaign donations from the airlines to the Democratic National Committee in 1996 in the wake of the crash of TWA Flight 800, donations likely solicited by Al Gore himself. That newspaper just happened to be John Kerry's hometown Boston Globe.
Yes, Clinton and Gore did abandon airport security planning for sake of campaign cash. But worse, they concealed the real cause of the crash, in no small part to justify that abandonment.
In fact, on the same day in September of 1996 that Al Gore sent the airline's lobbyist a letter signaling his intent to roll over, the National Transportation Safety Board reversed its spin and all but ruled out a bomb or missile strike [on TWA 800].
In our book, "First Strike," James Sanders and I make this arguably prophetic comment:
John Kerry seemed to have his sights on Al Gore's Achilles' heel. After the events of Sept. 11, the story of how Al Gore helped subvert the investigation into TWA 800 and undermine airport security may yet prove to be a career-killer. Kerry's "slips" may have put Gore out of the race even before he got in.
Two weeks after advanced copies of "First Strike" started circulating around Washington, Gore withdrew from the presidential race. His withdrawal shocked Washington. It did not shock Sanders and me. We expected it. Kerry plays hardball, too.
While I have your attention, Chris, there is one other person you need to put on the spot. Her name is Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general under the figurehead, Janet Reno. You probably know her. Last week, UPI reported that the high-level 9-11 panel on which she sits "was rocked Thursday by the bizarre revelation that two of its senior officials were so closely involved in the events they are investigating that they have had to be interviewed as part of the inquiry." One of the two was Gorelick.
On Aug. 22, 1996, just a few days before the start of the Democratic National Convention, Ms. Gorelick oversaw a critical Justice Department meeting with the FBI. Immediately after this meeting, as it happened, all serious inquiry into the fate of TWA 800 came to an end.
On the next day, for instance, the FAA began to inquire whether any dog-training exercises had ever taken place on the plane that would become TWA 800. On the same day, as CNN reported, the FBI now claimed publicly for the first time that the explosive residue found along the right wing "could have been brought on the plane by a passenger and was not part of a bomb." Likewise, after the meeting, the FBI would do no more eyewitness interviews, at least not for the next two months. The Bureau only did a handful after that and all of those for the wrong reasons.
I believe you are 100% correct in your assessment. My question is what motivated the Clinton regime to cover up TWA 800 and the fact that there was a mideast connection to Oklahoma City in the form of John Doe #2 ?
Is it possible that when the heroes in the movie Men In Black put on their shades, the device was not fictional?
Seems everyone but the public was told the truth.
I also suspect that it was the klinton administration who began the rumor that it was a US Navy ship that fired a missle at the plane.
Good question and one that I don't think Jack has ever addressed. Here's one possible answer. If the liberal media are as in bed with supporting whatever the Clinton government told them as I personally believe, then that means that they also could be heavily involved in any cover up of claims by groups wanting to take credit for shooting the plane down, no? It may well be that a terrorist group DID try to take credit for it and the media simply sat on it. This sounds far fetched but so does the media's lack of diligence at trying to get to the bottom of a whole ton of crimes that form the Clinton legacy. It could be just one more example of selective reporting to promote their agenda to make sure the 'correct message' gets out there. Once somebody has displayed the characteristics of being crooked and untrustworthy, there is no limit to how far it extends. There may be some media that do know the truth and want to report it but even there, it may be an executive decision to not start a pissing match since the evidence may not be quite strong enough to make the case for the position absolutely airtight. The forces lining up against such a position would be extreme since it wouuld not only include the parties supporting the lie but the media supporting the parties supporting the lie who would be quick to point out that it was nothing but a kooky, slanderous, conspiracy-theorist's mad rantings.
As far as why there have been no more attacks along this line, it may be whoever the terrorist group was that was behind it only had one missile launcher that they managed to sneak into the States and since then, the various security agencies behind the scenes are actually working feverishly to prevent another similar attack. My guess is that since people within those agencies themselves didn't swallow the official version, they are behaving like ducks - quiet and unruffled on the surface while paddling like hell underneath. And obviously the view all along has been 'what would it benefit the public if they knew the truth'. Whatever the real truth is, the one explanation that doesn't explain anything but in a sense it explains everything is we now live in 'the age of deception'. It has always existed but the current age has taken it to a whole new level.
That talk was stopped immediately. After all, slick willie had the Olympics to consider.
The book is centered on an investigation of the July 1996 crash of flight TWA 800, "when... a big Boeing 747 bound for Paris with 230 passengers and crew on board, exploded off the Atlantic coast of Long Island, sending all 230 souls to their deaths." In July 2001, Federal Anti-Terrorist Task Force detective John Corey, a brilliant, smart-ass detective last seen in Plum Island and The Lion's Game, accompanies his FBI agent wife, Kate Mayfield, to the fifth anniversary of the disaster. John, whose wife worked the crash in 1996, understands that Kate has brought him along because she doesn't buy the official finding of "mechanical failure" and wants him to mount his own investigation. There are 200 eyewitnesses who swear they saw a missile lift into the clear night sky and bring down the airplane, a charge dismissed by the CIA as an optical illusion. Though Corey is warned away from the investigation, like any good fictional detective, this only serves to spur him on. He uncovers evidence that a man and a woman, on the beach that fateful night videotaping their adulterous affair, inadvertently caught on tape the missile hitting the plane. The book is primarily about John tracking down the couple, but as the end nears, readers will begin to understand the perilous direction in which Demille is leading them. The pages will turn in a blur as a feeling of dread grows, until the end comes and one's worst fears are confirmed. Readers will think about this one for a long time.
I loved this book - but I think everything he writes is great.
***this is not an advertisement for the book, but rather an "on topic" reference about the TWA 800 flight event. If you liked the old Tom Clancey stuff, then you'll like this.....even more!
I believe that you are correct in your assessment. We continually hear the Klintonoids bemoan the fact that 9/11 didn't happen on Klinton's "watch". I can't help thinking that it did....twice......Flight 800 and KC bombing. It had to be covered up since BJBilly didn't want to go to war, and that what Americans would have demanded.
Probably rates a tin-foil hat, but as an engineer,I also have trouble accepting the story of the plane that crashed in New York shortly after 9/11. Tail just fell of the plane.....hadn't happened before or since.......kind of like the Flight 800 fuel tank.
As far as I can recall, no terrorist organization claimed credit for 9/11 either. It was our own intelligence, after the fact, that made the connection to the terrorists. The Bin Laden video tape that came out a very long time afterwards only affirmed what Al Qaeda had never really publicly announced.
I may never KNOW what actually happened to TWA 800, but I am certain that the "official" story stinks to high heaven and that crash was NOT brought down by an fuel tank problem.
I've always wondered about that plane that crashed shortly after 9/11 too. After what we went through with Clinton, I don't think we're tinfoil hatters to be suspicious.
You think the media would "report" anything that would HURT Bill Clintoon?
They were probably busy looking for a way to blame Rush Limbaugh...
I also believe the Eqypt air...remember a rag head supossedly took it down and his family was APPALLED when it was suggested he commited suicide?
And the plane in Canada...
I have found many large aircraft "accidents" in the northeast VERY suspicious especially during the Clintoon years.
OUTSTANDING BOOK. I love the part when he interviews the navy pilot witness and asks him if he is sure it was a missle he saw; and the pilot points his thumb up and says: "this way is up, right?"
If you believe for one second that TWA 800 actually exploded on it's own, then you need this office much more than he does. Center fuel tank my ass. No cover-up here. We know, because Clintoon never lied about anything!
I got flamed repeatedly for point this out back when this was a hot topic......
New, this would make a great thread. You're right. All we ever hear is how "wonderfully calm and peaceful" it was on Bill Clitoris's watch. We should start a thread listing every single event and subsequent cover-up that went on. Could be useful against Hitlery!
The conclusion of the investion is far too convienent for Clinton and his cronies, for whom absolutley everything was viewed through the prism of national politics, for whom there is no principle except getting elected
So, If the jet exploded on it's own, why were 747s allowed to continue flying after this?
Did Boeing agree with the findings?
Two long-time friends witnessed the event from the beach at Smith's Point. Both saw the missile trail ascending and then the explosion. One is retired NYPD. I have no doubt about what happened...a shoulder fired missile from a small boat off shore.
Ask the same question about the Airbus after the flight to the DR exploded over Queens on take off in late 2001.
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.