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

Skip to comments.

N.Y. Times continues to avoid TWA 800 connection (Richard Clarke & Jamie Gorelick)
World Net Daily ^ | 8/18/05 | Jack Cashill

Posted on 08/19/2005 5:27:07 AM PDT by Libloather

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-139 next last

1 posted on 08/19/2005 5:27:09 AM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

That's because it falls on Ol Zipper Klintoon's watch. Can't be having that can we?


2 posted on 08/19/2005 5:28:21 AM PDT by deadeyedawg (Crush our enemies, listen to their lamentations, and drive them before us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Whoa! Good find. Thanks for posting!!!


3 posted on 08/19/2005 5:28:51 AM PDT by cweese (Hook 'em Horns!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Whoa! Good find. Thanks for posting!!!


4 posted on 08/19/2005 5:29:36 AM PDT by cweese (Hook 'em Horns!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bppkmark


5 posted on 08/19/2005 5:30:10 AM PDT by federal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

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.


6 posted on 08/19/2005 5:30:40 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

"The tank was not half full, but virtually empty."

Why would a plane bound for Paris have an empty fuel tank?


7 posted on 08/19/2005 5:35:01 AM PDT by nuconvert (No More Axis of Evil by Christmas ! TLR) [there's a lot of bad people in the pistachio business])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

hmmm


8 posted on 08/19/2005 5:35:25 AM PDT by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Interesting theory.

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?


9 posted on 08/19/2005 5:36:16 AM PDT by Restorer (Liberalism: the auto-immune disease of societies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
This was the last day these officials were open with the media about the possibility of a missile. Once they changed the story, so did an oddly quiescent Times. The words "radar" and "eyewitness" would all but disappear from the Times' reporting after the first day. Nor, inexplicably, would the Times investigate the role of the military in the downing of TWA 800, not one paragraph, and not one word about satellites and what they might have captured.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The desk of Jack Cashill - World Net Daily

10 posted on 08/19/2005 5:38:08 AM PDT by WideGlide (That light at the end of the tunnel might be a muzzle flash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

They only carry what they need. No use using fuel hauling undeeded fuel.


11 posted on 08/19/2005 5:41:54 AM PDT by PjhCPA (Armed with what?.....SPITBALLS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

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.


12 posted on 08/19/2005 5:44:05 AM PDT by alice_in_bubbaland ("Consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Deep in the article, the Times reports that the State Department assessment was "written July 18, 1996." Nowhere in the article does the Times mentioned what happened the day before.
13 posted on 08/19/2005 5:44:55 AM PDT by Clovis_Skeptic (Islam is a religion of peace my as@)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The New Yourk Slimes is another mouth piece for the Taliban just like Al Jazzera.


14 posted on 08/19/2005 5:45:34 AM PDT by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

"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.


15 posted on 08/19/2005 5:45:55 AM PDT by astounded (We don't need no stinkin' rules of engagement...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

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.


16 posted on 08/19/2005 5:46:43 AM PDT by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

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.


17 posted on 08/19/2005 5:46:59 AM PDT by aviator (Armored Pest Control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
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?

That is the question I was about to post.

18 posted on 08/19/2005 5:48:09 AM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Why would a plane bound for Paris have an empty fuel tank?

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.

19 posted on 08/19/2005 5:52:32 AM PDT by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

"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.


20 posted on 08/19/2005 5:52:49 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: Libloather
Nor, inexplicably, would the Times investigate the role of the military in the downing of TWA 800, not one paragraph, and not one word about satellites and what they might have captured.

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.

22 posted on 08/19/2005 5:55:53 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

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.


23 posted on 08/19/2005 5:56:48 AM PDT by TheForceOfOne (The alternative media is our Enigma machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather


N.Y. Times continues to avoid TWA 800 connection ---WHAT ABOUT OKLAHOMA BOMBING CONNECTION?


24 posted on 08/19/2005 5:58:09 AM PDT by longfellow (Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WideGlide

This is so bad, with all the unnamed sources, etc, it reminds me of old Pravda stories.


25 posted on 08/19/2005 5:59:55 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...

thank you all


26 posted on 08/19/2005 6:03:29 AM PDT by nuconvert (No More Axis of Evil by Christmas ! TLR) [there's a lot of bad people in the pistachio business])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: alice_in_bubbaland
The initial reporting was eerily similar to that of the OKC bombing.
In both instances, after the first day, the "official" story got changed on a dime.
27 posted on 08/19/2005 6:04:22 AM PDT by MamaLucci (Mutually assured destruction STILL keeps the Clinton administration criminals out of jail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
From my files:

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].

WND

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.

Source

See also:

Why John Kerry talks about TWA 800

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.

WND

28 posted on 08/19/2005 6:06:59 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
IF TWA Flight 800 was brought down by a missile, it was not a terrorist attack. And IF the downing of Flight 800 was a terrorist attack, it wasn't done with a missile.
29 posted on 08/19/2005 6:12:02 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: astounded

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 ?


30 posted on 08/19/2005 6:14:31 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Is it possible that when the heroes in the movie “Men In Black” put on their shades, the device was not fictional?


31 posted on 08/19/2005 6:14:48 AM PDT by FMBass (“Now that I’m sober I watch a lot of news” – Garofalo: From “Treason” by Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I heard John Kerry himself refer to TWA 800 as a terror attack.

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.

32 posted on 08/19/2005 6:19:08 AM PDT by OldFriend (MERCY TO THE GUILTY IS CRUELTY TO THE INNOCENT ~ Adam Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
There have been no other airliners taken down in similar fashion since. Why would they stop?

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.

33 posted on 08/19/2005 6:20:56 AM PDT by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
I clearly remember a reporter on the scene of the downing of TWA 800 saying that the CIA is reporting a lot of 'chatter' right before and immediately after the crash.

That talk was stopped immediately. After all, slick willie had the Olympics to consider.

34 posted on 08/19/2005 6:21:36 AM PDT by OldFriend (MERCY TO THE GUILTY IS CRUELTY TO THE INNOCENT ~ Adam Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Baynative; EQAndyBuzz
I don't discount the terror theory out of hand. It just seems that the islomofascists love to brag about their handy work. They never did in this instance.
35 posted on 08/19/2005 6:22:20 AM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
a good novel, written a year ago, by my favorite author about the TWA 800 flight:

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!

36 posted on 08/19/2005 6:23:55 AM PDT by rface ("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen" - New Bloomfield, Missouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

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.


37 posted on 08/19/2005 6:24:20 AM PDT by newcthem (Legal voters? We don't need no stinkin legal voters.....This is the Peoples Republic of Wisconsin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

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.


38 posted on 08/19/2005 6:24:56 AM PDT by Paisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

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.


39 posted on 08/19/2005 6:27:12 AM PDT by American_Centurion (A liberal is a socialist who isn't quite willing to get blood on his hands yet. -KarlInOhio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newcthem

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.


40 posted on 08/19/2005 6:31:26 AM PDT by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
Media squashed the "confessions".

You think the media would "report" anything that would HURT Bill Clintoon?

They were probably busy looking for a way to blame Rush Limbaugh...

41 posted on 08/19/2005 6:35:07 AM PDT by antivenom (If your not living on the edge, you're taking up too much damn space!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I agree...that photo taken at the toll booth shows a PUFF of smoke...I think another shoe bomber (or whatever) was successful...

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.

42 posted on 08/19/2005 6:37:34 AM PDT by antivenom (If your not living on the edge, you're taking up too much damn space!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rface

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?"


43 posted on 08/19/2005 6:47:49 AM PDT by AmericanDave (God bless .......and MORE COWBELL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: WideGlide

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!


44 posted on 08/19/2005 6:49:40 AM PDT by Doc Savage (...because they stand on a wall, and they say nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: aviator
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.

THANK YOU!

I got flamed repeatedly for point this out back when this was a hot topic......

45 posted on 08/19/2005 6:50:29 AM PDT by Thermalseeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: newcthem

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!


46 posted on 08/19/2005 6:54:15 AM PDT by Doc Savage (...because they stand on a wall, and they say nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
You make good points.

First as why a terrorist would not take credit?

Remember Libyan agents placed a bomb aboard a Pan Am flight, though neither Libya or any terror organization claimed credit. Qaddafi Duck wanted to settle a score with the U.S. for the raid on Tripoli. The Iranians felt they had a score to settle due to the Vincennes incident, and Saddam certainly nursed a grudge going back to th first Gulf War. (Note, he tried to kill President Bush in 1993.) So this point is not convincing.

Why weren't there more such attacks, why did they stop?

If it was the Iranians they might have considered the score settled, one for one. If it was Saddam, he may not have wanted to press his luck, having avoided detection once. If it came out that someone was taking potshots at U.S. aviation, there would have been an outcry for retaliation and prevention comparable to the reaction to 9/11. With elections looming in 1996, Clinton would have felt compelled to act.

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

47 posted on 08/19/2005 7:01:21 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Lonesome's First Law: Whenever anyone says it's not about the money, it's about the money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

So, If the jet exploded on it's own, why were 747s allowed to continue flying after this?

Did Boeing agree with the findings?




48 posted on 08/19/2005 7:03:53 AM PDT by rdax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: alice_in_bubbaland

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.


49 posted on 08/19/2005 7:06:40 AM PDT by wtc911 (see my profile for how to contribute to a pentagon heroes fund)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rdax
So, If the jet exploded on it's own, why were 747s allowed to continue flying after this?

-------------------------------

Ask the same question about the Airbus after the flight to the DR exploded over Queens on take off in late 2001.

50 posted on 08/19/2005 7:08:02 AM PDT by wtc911 (see my profile for how to contribute to a pentagon heroes fund)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-139 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