How The FBI Misled The Public

WorldNetDaily ^ | 12 July 2006 | Robert Donaldson

[bkepley]

zzzzzz..

[Jaded]

.

[MeanWestTexan]

I don't agree or disagree.

I would note when I dropped flares and other countermeasures, I also did some extreme manuvers with which the flying public would not comport.

Accordingly, such countermeasures would be of limited use.

Really the only viable defense is a guarded perimeter and steep approaches.

[utcamper]

Thanks! A very interesting read.

[sionnsar]

Leaving politics aside,

This was the Clinton era. Can't do that.

[Stepan12]

This happened on July 17th -- my birthday :(

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

this piece doesn't mention the theories out there at the time re the Navy's training exercises in the area when this happened.....

[Wolverine]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b58858c35db.htm

[the crow]

govt. lies bump

[Reactionary]

What are hundreds of eyewitnesses compared to the sleazy machinations of the Clinton administration?

Evidently, the answer is... "a distraction."

[MikeA]

I don't know, this piece seems to make the case that a missile could have shot down the plane but doesn't present much evidence one did. Just because something could have happened doesn't translate into that it actually happened. Yes the eyewitness testimony is interesting, but I think the piece is too quick to dismiss the possibility that what they were seeing was the flaming aircraft rather than something coming off the surface of the earth. And the article doesn't mention the strong evidence that shows the plane went down because of faulty wiring in the AC system. The case that this is what brought down the aircraft is a strong one.

The explosive pattern of the aircraft parts just are not consistent with an explosion from a missile, but much more consistent with an internal explosion as I understand it. I'd buy an on-board bomb easier than a missile.

Some questions that need to be answered:

A) Has a terrorist group ever claimed to have shot down this aircraft?

B) Do the batteries for Stingers last as long as 7 years? My understanding is that they have a very short life. Thus the Stingers we supplied to the Afghan resistance up until 1989 would likely not have been usuable by 1996 and we did not supply them with extra batteries. As I understand it, batteries for Stingers are only good for a few months. I'm open to contrary information from anyone who may know.

C) If the batteries could not last that long, then the question needs to be asked as to where they could have gotten other Stingers.

D) Any terrorists who shot down the plane would not have been able to count on a clean get-away and likely would have left the Stinger launchers behind to facilitate their escape. They never could have guessed they'd have such an easy get-away and that there wouldn't be clear evidence of an aircraft shoot down and now close-by witnesses. I think they'd have been prepared for a manhunt and the need to not have any evidence on their persons. Thus I don't think they'd have been eager to carry off their Stinger launchers, especially back across an international border. So why were there no launchers ever found?

Just some questions. I'm not claiming I know the aircraft wasn't shot down, but I just don't see a compelling case yet that it was. Like I say, I could buy a bomb on the aircraft, but I am just not convinced of a missile.

[Richard Axtell]

Anyone remember Elmer and his multimedia Anti-800 shootdown spamload? This pretty well takes that garbage out and dumps it. A shoulder fired missile seems like a plausibility. Let's hear from a whistle blower, and find out just what really happened. It is high time that we did.

[AlexandriaDuke]

I was suspicious of several crashes going back to the 80s. Just my personal conspiracy theory, I don't claim to be an expert. But this was just too obvious.

That one over Queens was pretty fishy too.

[sportutegrl]

I misplaced my tinfoil hat after Clinton left office.

[Hegemony Cricket]

just believe

[agere_contra]

Re the battery life, and the whole unclaimed missile thing: this interesting site mentions the finding of a fully armed ready-to-fire French Mistral MANPADS missile in Maryland, 1994. It was sitting on its tripod directly under a busy American air route. I haven't verified the source, but we probably shouldn't get hung up on Stingers just because the Feds did.

[John Valentine]

You haven't done much reading on this case, it seems, other than the New York Times.

[pabianice]

[MikeA]

Why do people of Free Republic have to get so nasty if a contrary opinion is expressed? I never claimed to have had all the facts. And I never read the New York Times. And I freely admit I've not done extensive reading on the topic but I have done enough to know there's nothing like an open and shut case for a missile shoot down. But as I expressed in my post, I'm open to contrary information. But instead what I got was nastiness rather than substance. People like you make Free Republic really unpleasant sometimes. Why is any contrary view personalized and treated with such hostility, especially on a matter like this where there are no clear answers?? Thanks for helping to make Free Republic a little less fun.