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

Skip to comments.

What really happened to TWA Flight 800?
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, February 1, 2003

Posted on 02/01/2003 6:04:24 AM PST by JohnHuang2

Edited on 02/01/2003 6:05:10 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

In this exclusive interview, author Jack Cashill explains why he doesn't buy the government's explanation of the tragedy and presents some of the compelling evidence detailed in "First Stike."

Question: From the title of your book, can we assume that terrorists destroyed TWA 800?

Answer: Ultimately, yes. On the night of July 17, the military was on the highest state of alert since the Cuban missile crisis. They were looking for something.

Q: Terrorist missiles?

A: No, although terrorist missiles were capable of hitting the plane, they were not capable of creating so massive an explosion.

Q: If not terrorist missiles, then what?

A: A terrorist plane filled with high-energy explosives. This is a complex story, one that would have been difficult to explain to the American people in 1996 – or now.

Q: Why should anyone believe you?

A: According to the FBI, 270 people – several of them in the military – saw flare-like objects with smoke trails converging on TWA 800 in the seconds before it exploded. FAA radar technicians saw an object merging with TWA 800 at the moment of the first explosion. These facts are indisputable.

Q: What is the government's line?

A: The NTSB tells us that these were all optical illusions or computer glitches and that at that very second, for the first time in the 75-year history of commercial aviation, without a word from the cockpit, an airplane spontaneously self-destructed in mid-air because of a fuel tank explosion.

Q: Wouldn't thousands of people have to participate in this conspiracy?

A: No. This was a genuine issue of national security. The few military who really knew what happened followed legitimate orders not to disclose any information, even to the FBI. The eyewitnesses have been eager and willing to talk from day one, but no one would listen, even the media, and that in itself is scandalous. Actual "conspirators" could be counted on one hand.

Q: When did the Clinton White House learn the truth?

A: Immediately.

Q: Why would they conceal it?

A: After two desperate years of raising money to keep the presidency, Clinton knew that telling the truth would have meant the end of peace and the end of prosperity. We would have had to impose the kind of air restrictions we did after Sept. 11. Clinton was also famous for his indecision, and once he hesitated, it would have been highly problematic to explain the delay.

Q: If we had told the truth, would there have been a Sept. 11?

A: No. The authorities would have been alert to other air-terror schemes, and the American people would have been motivated and prepared.

Q: How sure are you that a spontaneous fuel tank explosion did not destroy the plane?

A: One hundred percent. We disprove this theory 20 times over. A month after the crash, investigators were telling the New York Times that chances of mechanical failure were "remote" and getting "more remote" with every passing day.

Q: What changed investigators' minds?

A: It certainly wasn't the evidence. There was none. It was largely the need to find some explanation that would not suppress air travel – all the better to raise campaign cash from the airline industry.

Q: Didn't the NTSB tests prove an explosion in the center fuel tank?

A: Just the opposite. After four years and $40 million, the NTSB could not even find a credible theoretical scenario. In the final report, moreover, the aerospace mechanics union (IAMAW) forcefully rejected the NTSB's position and argued instead for a massive explosion outside the airplane.

Q: What caused that explosion?

A: U.S. Navy missiles destroying a terrorist airplane. To learn the details, please read the book.

Q: How confident are you of this thesis?

A: Ninety percent. All available evidence leads to this conclusion, but we have not identified the servicemen that pulled the trigger or spoken to them. We would, however, be willing to share all of our evidence with any interested parties and challenge the authorities to do the same.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: artbell; awgeez; awgeezntsa; tinfoilhat; twa800list
Saturday, February 1, 2003

Quote of the Day by monocle

1 posted on 02/01/2003 6:04:24 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
What do you think John?



I certainly am willing to believe almost anything about President Scumbag!
2 posted on 02/01/2003 6:08:30 AM PST by Radix (Other than him being a scumbag I really have no strong feelings about him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Radix
I'm no expert, but my gut (and the plethora of circumstancial evidence) tells me it was terrorism. And the Clinton White House knew it (notice the FBI was at everyone of the news briefings.)
3 posted on 02/01/2003 6:12:17 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
U.S. Navy missiles destroying a terrorist airplane

This is the first time I have read anything about another plane. There have been rumors about an American weapon release, usually in the context of an accident.

4 posted on 02/01/2003 6:13:22 AM PST by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lockbox
"I was in charge of the investigation!"



5 posted on 02/01/2003 6:18:37 AM PST by Radix (Lock this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lockbox
No doubt missiles were involved based on the 100's of eyewitnesses. But are they saying the missiles were shooting at a terrorist airplane but hit TWA800 instead, thereby missing the terrorist airplane?
6 posted on 02/01/2003 6:23:42 AM PST by newfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; TroutStalker; SunTzu2000; Free State Four; KC Burke; lagamorph
Jack Cashill used to have a radio talk show here in KC. His last co-host was a whiney liberal named Mary. Former nun and state rep from Iowa. She would make Colmes on his worst day sound like a good conservative. Think the complaints against her were what got the show pulled suddenly.

Jack is completely credible. He knows what he is talking about.
7 posted on 02/01/2003 6:34:19 AM PST by barker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newfreep
But are they saying the missiles were shooting at a terrorist airplane but hit TWA800 instead, thereby missing the terrorist airplane?

Or did they get both planes?

Or if they ‘missed’ the terrorist’s plane, where did it go?

What was the mission of the terrorist’s plane?

Inquiring minds want to know!

8 posted on 02/01/2003 6:35:13 AM PST by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: barker
We were at the premier of Jack's movie on Flight 800. It is an excellent production.

I miss the radio show, even after three years. Tom Becka is just annoying. If I tune into him, it is usually turned off after five minutes or less. I often miss some of Rush since the radio is off when his show starts. Mary was a real piece of work, a former nun, she is a former Carter administration official and Ted Kennedy Catholic.

I highly recommend Jack Cashill's video on Flight 800.

9 posted on 02/01/2003 7:01:36 AM PST by TroutStalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: *TWA800_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
10 posted on 02/01/2003 7:20:12 AM PST by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Same here about Becka. Can't listen to him for more than maybe 5 minutes. Last time I turned him on he was whining about wanting more proof against Iraq. Sheesh!

Jack was very, very good.
11 posted on 02/01/2003 7:43:49 AM PST by barker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
interesting timing on this post...
12 posted on 02/01/2003 7:56:36 AM PST by RobFromGa (It's Time to Bomb Saddam! (Feb 7 or 8 would be just fine))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
Very sad, tragic morning, friend. Not a dry eye here...
13 posted on 02/01/2003 7:58:10 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
We live in interesting times (and sometimes sad and tragic times as well). I just hope that it is an accident, as terrible as that sounds. But if it is deliberate, we will be avenged.
14 posted on 02/01/2003 8:10:29 AM PST by RobFromGa (Space Is The Final Frontier...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"A: A terrorist plane filled with high-energy explosives. This is a complex story, one that would have been difficult to explain to the American people in 1996 – or now."

If what he's suggesting is that terrorist loaded an aircraft with explosives and subsequently flew that airplane into TWA 800, he's totally off base.

That having been said, the fuel tank explosion theory is a virtual impossibility - 800 was shot down or brought down by explosives.
15 posted on 02/01/2003 8:16:12 AM PST by applemac_g4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
*Real* research from: http://www.le.ac.uk/scarman/research/TWA.pdf

3.2 The Aircraft

The 747 passenger jet is made by one of the world’s oldest and largest aeronautics companies, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (USA). In 1966, the company risked $1 billion on the 747 project (Gunston, 1993: 51-53).

At the time of its first flight in 1969, the 747 represented a significant improvement in aircraft performance: ‘[The 747] more than doubled passenger and cargo payload capabilities by comparison with any previous commer-cial air transport’ (Jane’s, 1985: 339).

The first Boeing 747 commercial service was operated by Pan American on January 22, 1970 (Green, 1975: 34). Today, the Boeing 747 is one of the safest aircraft flying: ‘Almost 1,100 747s have been delivered ... and nine aircraft have been involved in fatal accidents, excluding terrorist actions’ (Flight International, 1996: 4).

Put another way, the entire fleet of 1,100 aircraft has suffered an attrition rate of less than 1% through mechanical failure. In one post-disaster report on Flight 800, the 747 was described as ‘... a famously safe plane’ (Freedland, 1996b). The figures confirm this. The fatal accident rate (FAR) for all commercial jetliners is 1.83 per million departures. The FAR for the Boeing 747 is 1.6 per million departures (Maraniss, 1996: 1).

The aircraft involved in the crash was an early model — a Series 100. The TWA aircraft, registration number N93119 (Boeing line number 153), was rolled out on July 15, 1971 (Lucas, 1981: 154).

It was delivered to TWA on October 27, 1971. Sold by TWA to the Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF) in December 1975, it was bought back in December 1976 (Lucas, 1981: 81). Between the time of its roll-out in 1971 and its loss in 1996 (a period of 25 years), N93119 had completed in excess of 92,000 flight hours (Flight International, 1996: 4); i.e. it had spent over ten years in the air. Although this was 32,000 hours over its designed air-lifetime (Newsnight, 1997; Hewson, 1994), it should be noted that some 747s have completed 100,000 flight hours without difficulty (Kingsley-Jones, 1996: 36). As Ramsden (1975: 283) has pointed out, a well-designed and maintained aircraft should give long and reliable service:

There are hundreds of DC-3s [a piston-engined passenger aircraft] still giving safe and sound public service 30 or 40 years after they were built ... the economic life of well-maintained airliners is often longer than originally expected.

The Boeing 747 N93119 had proven reliable: ‘[There were] only minor infractions on its FAA record: a blown tyre on take off in 1987, and a leaky oil line that resulted in an engine shut down in 1988’ (Chua-Eoan, 1996: 22).

Despite its popular reputation as ‘a famously safe plane’, how-ever, the Jumbo Jet design does have its flaws.

Three 747 crashes (all involving cargo-carrying versions of the aircraft), have been attributed to engine-mounting failure. In 1992, for example, an El-Al 747 cargo-carrier crashed into two blocks of flats while trying to make an emergency landing at Schiphol airport near Amsterdam, Holland. Two of the 747’s engines were found in a lake near the crash site. At the time, there was some debate over the degree of structural failure: ‘[It is not known whether] a single engine or both engines broke from the wing and set up a chain of events that led to the disaster’ (Civil Protection, 1992).

A cargo-carrying 747-100 exploded in mid-air in 1976, while approaching Madrid airport. At the time, there were reports that ‘... it caught fire and exploded, losing its left wing as it fell’ (USA Today/Associated Press Internet Site, 1996a).

Four theories were offered; that the wing had been overloaded by strong winds; that it had been hit by lightning; that leaking fuel had been ignited; or that ‘... vapour from the fuel may have been ignited by a spark from equipment’ (USA Today/Associated Press Internet Site, 1996a). Shortly afterwards, the FAA ordered all 747 operators to inspect for fuel leaks. Most airlines found leaks (USA Today, 1996a; Learmount, 1997).

Jumbo jets have displayed other faults, too.

In 1977, a decompression caused the death of a passenger on an El-Al 747.

In 1985, a decompression caused a Japanese-registered 747 to crash. 520 people died.

In 1989, a cargo door blew out on a 747 Series 100 belonging to United Air Lines (UAL811). The aircraft was climbing at the time (Curtis, 1997).

Boeing 747s that exceed their designed air-lifetime of 60,000 hours undergo what is known as a ‘Section 41’ inspection and rectifi-cation programme that ‘... repairs potential cracks in the nose-frames around section 41 [of the airframe]’ (Hewson, 1994: 26).


16 posted on 02/01/2003 8:16:36 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: applemac_g4
That having been said, the fuel tank explosion theory is a virtual impossibility

That ranks up there with "Man will never fly - for he has no wings."

From the NTSB's report:

1.18.1 Accident Record and History of Fuel Tank Fires/Explosions on Airplanes

The Safety Board has participated in the investigation of several aviation accidents/incidents involving fuel tank explosions. According to a list prepared by the FAA, since 1959 there have been at least 26 documented fuel tank explosions/fires in military and civilian transport-category airplanes ...

The Safety Board conducted a special investigation of the May 9, 1976, accident involving an Iranian Air Force 747-131, as it approached Madrid, Spain, following a flight from Iran. All 17 people on board the airplane were killed, and the airplane was destroyed. Witnesses reported seeing lightning strike the left wing, followed by fire, explosion, and separation of the outboard wing before the airplane crashed. Examination of the wreckage revealed evidence of an explosion that originated in at least one of the left wing fuel tanks near a fuel valve installation. The airplane.s fuel tanks contained a mixture of JP-4 and Jet A fuel. The Board's report noted that almost all of the electrical current of a lightning strike would have been conducted through the aluminum structure around the ullage but discussed how some energy might have entered the fuel tanks. Although the Board's report did not identify a specific point of ignition within the tank, it noted that discharges could produce sufficient electrical energy to ignite the fuel/air mixture and that energy levels required to produce a spark will not necessarily damage metal or leave marks at the point of ignition. Upward flowing burn patterns were observed on the compensator that the FAA considered a potential ignition source for the surge tank fire.

The Safety Board also participated in the investigation of a May 11, 1990, accident, involving a Philippine Airlines 737-300 at Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Manila, Philippines, in which the Jet A fuel/air mixture in the CWT exploded as the airplane was being pushed back from the gate. Of the 120 people on board the airplane, 8 were killed, and 30 were seriously injured. As a result of this accident, the Safety Board issued Safety Recommendations A-90-100 through -103 to the FAA. In its safety recommendation letter, the Board noted that the exact source of ignition had not been established. However, lightning damage and damaged FQIS wires were found. The Board stated that "it is possible that the combination of a faulty float switch and damaged wires providing a continuous power supply to the float switch may have caused an electrical arc or overheating of the switch leading to the ignition of the center fuel tank vapor".


17 posted on 02/01/2003 8:31:32 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
notice the FBI was at everyone of the news briefings.) 3 posted on 02/01/2003 6:12 AM PST by JohnHuang2 [

Yeah, I noticed the FBI in charge from the very first telecast! First time I had ever seen this before for a jetliner "event". Have not seen it happen since then, not even the recent Minnesota "event". And then there is the FBI James Kallstrom "Morphing" the infamous 30Knot boat into a "Helicopter". Said 30Knot boat was speeding AWAY from UNDER the shootdown event. Who was on that boat???!!FBI come clean!

18 posted on 02/01/2003 8:37:53 AM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
bump to the top
19 posted on 02/01/2003 8:39:19 AM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
bump for the real, Painful Truth to come out!! But it will have to come from the FBI.
20 posted on 02/01/2003 8:41:49 AM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Radix
Yikes! algore
21 posted on 02/01/2003 8:43:51 AM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muggs
bump to the top!!
22 posted on 02/01/2003 8:44:54 AM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
From: http://www.howstuffworks.com/stinger4.htm
The Afghanistan Connection

In 1986, when Afghan rebels were fighting the Soviet Union for control of Afghanistan, the United States gave the rebels approximately 900 Stinger missiles to use in the war. The Afghans were able to shoot down hundreds of Soviet helicopters using the Stinger missiles they received.

The rebels are thought to still have in their possession a number of the missiles. When you hear news reports that indicate that American bombers are flying at high altitudes over Afghanistan, fear of these left-over Stinger missiles is one reason why. It is also thought that Iran, Iraq, and Palestinian groups have Stinger missiles obtained through various channels.

Missile An Unlikely Cause of TWA Plane Crash, Says Army

By Bradley Graham
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON

Amid speculation that a shoulder-fired missile may have downed TWA Flight 800 last week, the Army has run computer simulations to determine whether a U.S.-made Stinger or equivalent weapon could have hit the plane and concluded it was possible but not likely, defense officials said yesterday.

A Stinger fired from ocean waters beneath the 747 jumbo jet could have reached the aircraft, which had just climbed above 13,000 feet when it exploded 10 miles off the New York coast. But such a scenario would have pushed the missile's limits in effective range (2.4 miles) and altitude (11,000 feet).

"Could a Stinger have done it? That's not an easy-to-answer question," said Lt. Col. Mike Monnett, an Army spokesman. "While not directed to do so, the Army's Missile Command did some computer modeling, crunched all the data and determined it was not outside the realm of possibility, but it's also not likely."

Investigators have expressed skepticism that a missile struck the TWA plane. But they continue to cite such a possibility, given numerous witnesses who have reported seeing something streak toward the aircraft instants before it burst into flames.

Stingers carry infrared guidance systems that zero in on aircraft engines or other heat sources. Direct hits on military planes often have resulted not in the kind of fiery explosion seen when the TWA flight blew up, but rather in the noncombustive loss of an engine or wing, followed by the aircraft's free fall.

Nonetheless, some combat aircraft have been known to explode in midair when hit by a shoulder-fired missile, and commercial airliners may be even more prone to do so because they are not hardened for battle like military planes.

"If a missile hit a wing full of aviation fuel," Monnet said, "you'd have the fuel mixing with the atmosphere, which could produce an explosion."

Because aiming the Stinger requires some steadiness, defense officials said a water launch would need a rather large, stable platform, something more than a small boat.

The Army first fielded the Stinger in 1982, and the missile is available in 16 other countries, according to Pentagon figures. The Soviet Union produced a similar missile, the SA-14, also now in use around the world.

Two later Soviet models, the SA-16 and SA-18, have longer ranges (3 miles) and are not impeded as easily as the SA-14 by flares or metallic chaff. Their availability outside Russia is limited, defense officials said.

"With respect to how easy it is to use a shoulder-guided weapon, that's a matter of range to the target. During the very low altitude, takeoff phase, IR-guided (heat-seeking) SAMS (surface-to-air missiles) would be effective," Paul Kaminski, the Pentagon's undersecretary for acquisition, told reporters Tuesday.


Copyright 1996,95, The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on July 24, 1996.
Volume 116, Number 29.
This story appeared on page 2.

This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details.


23 posted on 02/01/2003 8:50:31 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
bump
24 posted on 02/01/2003 8:50:32 AM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Tracing back the hoax known as "The TWA800 Shoot-down Missile Theory" to it's origins:
When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile,

... Pierre was the victim of one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the internet:

"After his debacle of last November, when he mistook a widely circulated Net posting for a "secret" government document, "

The overall story from: TWA 800 and Friendly Fire: The Rest of the Story


Editor’s Note: Here at 60GCAT, we honestly don’t know how much our readership overlaps with that of the New York Times, but a few of our more devoted followers may have noticed that back on Nov. 17, your humble (read: self-aggrandizing, career-obsessed) authors published a little piece in the Times’ Sunday magazine detailing how the TWA 800 conspiracy theory got started and the tortured path it took through the Internet and into the mainstream media. As much as we’d like you to believe that it was just a little something we dashed off in our copious free time, in between checking the point spread on the Nebraska game and desperately trying to get the VCR to tape Xena: Warrior Princess, the fact is, we actually worked on this thing. We wrote plenty more than the Times could fit into its 1,670 word space.

Here, then, is an earlier, much longer version of the story. This version runs through developments up to Oct. 15, 1996. Plenty happened after that, so for updates, consult Conspiracy Currents No. 26 and Conspiracy Currents No. 30. But for now, just remember that the whole thing is

© 1996 by Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen

Media Bomb

A scant 11 minutes after 230 people settled in for a sleepy, seven-hour night flight to Paris from New York's JFK International Airport, their Boeing 747-100 burst into a fireball and plummeted, in pieces, 2 1/2 miles into the ocean waters off of Long Island. No one on board survived. The known facts of the July 17, 1996 TWA Flight 800 calamity remain sketchy to say the least. Investigators continue looking at three possibilities: a massive mechanical failure, a bomb or a missile. None of them have been confirmed or ruled out.

That, anyway, is what they want you to believe.

But we, the people, are not fooled. We know the dark secret of TWA 800. A United States military missile shot it down and now the government, right up to President Bill Clinton, is determined to cover up the terrible truth.

Another crazy conspiracy theory?

Just like the theories that crop up anytime there's a major public crisis, tragedy or scandal? Perhaps. And there doesn't seem to be any strong evidence to support it. So why should we give this conspiracy theory any further attention? Because the TWA 800 theory ushers the culture of suspicion into the age of the Internet. And it shows how conspiracy theories -- traditionally dismissed with a sneer or a chuckle by the "mainstream" media -- are beginning to play a part in shaping important public debates, thanks largely to the buzz they generate on the global information network.

With an alternative media as ubiquitous as the Internet, and one capable of transmitting large chunks of information withthe speed of a mouse click, conspiracy theories are no longer easy to ignore. Unlike most pre-Net conspiracy theories, the TWA 800 theory made a swift impact on the major media. In mid-September, with little else besides the rampant discussion of the theory on the Internet to go on, reporters began quizzing crash investigators about the "friendly fire" scenario.

...

As Kallstrom put it earlier in the investigation, conspiratorial speculation is bound to flourish "in a vacuum of information, because the evidence is sitting at the bottom of the ocean." The complicating factor that few anticipated was the Internet, a potent new medium that would rush to fill that informational vacuum with an ether of instant conjecture, prompting the traditional media to respond, in turn triggering a whole new round of speculation on the popular bandwidth of the information superhighway.


25 posted on 02/01/2003 9:01:18 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Bump.
26 posted on 02/01/2003 9:20:35 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Back to the top!
27 posted on 02/01/2003 9:26:45 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

BTTT.
28 posted on 02/01/2003 9:40:24 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

BTTT
29 posted on 02/01/2003 10:07:01 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: newfreep
The article is apparently saying that a navy missile hit the terrorist plane very close to 800. The resulting explosion destroyet the missile, the terrorist and 800.
30 posted on 02/01/2003 10:10:17 AM PST by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

BTTT
31 posted on 02/01/2003 10:28:44 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I have trouble believing that a secret as big as this could be held by all the people involved.

But, I must say, that when I saw the video a few weeks ago that purported to show what the shoe bomber's explosives could have done, I thought it was eerily reminiscent of TWA 800.

Different type of aircraft, I know; but the nose section fell off after the explosion and I couldn't help but wonder.

32 posted on 02/01/2003 11:00:32 AM PST by BfloGuy (The past is like a different country, they do things different there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

BTTT
33 posted on 02/01/2003 11:13:55 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Radix
If it was any president other than Clinton I would not be suspicious.
34 posted on 02/01/2003 12:21:55 PM PST by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

btttop


35 posted on 03/13/2010 7:42:16 PM PST by InvisibleChurch (i prefer my-partisan over bi-partisan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

36 posted on 03/13/2010 7:43:32 PM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or are you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Hey, watch your asterix!


37 posted on 03/13/2010 7:50:33 PM PST by InvisibleChurch (i prefer my-partisan over bi-partisan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
A: According to the FBI, 270 people – several of them in the military – saw flare-like objects with smoke trails converging on TWA 800 in the seconds before it exploded. FAA radar technicians saw an object merging with TWA 800 at the moment of the first explosion. These facts are indisputable.

I was in Greater NY area at the time and news casts reported this being caught on video and the FBI had confiscated the tape "for analysis".

38 posted on 03/13/2010 8:06:02 PM PST by stig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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