Posted on 04/16/2015 10:55:24 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
What are your thoughts as to the reason for the shoot down?
One option I’m considering is that it was intended to be a 9/11 type action and it was shot down by the US in order to prevent a greater disaster like 9/11. But the fallout that would be caused if Americans knew we shot down our own people would have been great, so they had to cover it up.
If this is correct and I were going to give any credit whatsoever to the Clinton administration, it would be for making a tough decision and choosing the lesser of two tragedies. It would be a no-win situation for anyone to make that decision.
The other option which some people seem to favor is that the Clintons needed another Arkancide. I have little doubt that they would be willing to have their enemies eliminated, but a whole planeload of innocents along with them strikes me as a bit much even for them - Ron Brown notwithstanding. I would expect a smaller, less spectacular “accident” could be more easily arranged and would attract less attention.
Don’t know if the previous poster is a DU troll, but to give him the benefit the doubt, he may not have meant “justified” in its literal sense. And I agree with him that there was a fair amount of hysteria after 9/11 - particularly in the NYC and DC areas which were most directly affected.
There are many in positions of power in our government who believe that information should be kept from us for “our own good.”
I have personally had discussions with people who bragged about how various systems or agencies have kept us safe or prevented terrorist attacks. When I asked why they don’t publicize that information (for positive PR with Americans, to demoralize the enemy, to alert Americans to be aware of similar attempts) even when there would be no compromise of intelligence secrets, they claim there would be mass hysteria if the public knew about the near misses. I disagree. I don’t believe that Americans are such big sissies that they can’t handle truth. So either those in power disagree with me OR there are few, if any, prevented terror attacks to brag about. They just need to justify their jobs and their budgets. The BentOne isn’t the only one who was willing to cover up to protect his job.
I have a couple of people in mind and I couldn’t tell you their politics. My best guess is left-leaning, but pretending to be more conservative than they really are - at least when they are talking to me.
At the time I had a very serious discussion with my two brothers. One a 25 year pilot who few 747’s and the other an engineer who helped build the 747’s and then the 777’s. Both of them laughed at me when I said you cannot deny the 700 witness’. I even exclaimed, “the victims families want to sue Boeing for the fuel tank explosion, has any fuel tank explosion happened on any other plane in history?”
I looked. A lot of deleted threads.
I ran a search and this article did not show up. Ssorry.
Not a biggie. Both include some good insights. Thought you might want to read the other one as well. Check out post #75 on my thread for a particularly juicy tidbit that I had never heard previously.
Very interesting...that would explain several things.
There is only one reason that all senior officials in both parties would echo the fuel tank story as they did - to protect the reputation and good name of the United States military.
That tidbit was mentioned either on this thread, or on the other one that I posted today (that claims that the FBI was warned of a bomb to be placed on TWA 800 via the mob and Ramzi Yousef). I’d never read that before (about the El Al plane).
I think Rush’s stance on this came about from his already-friendship with Kallstrom.
Probably was real reluctant to say his friend was lying.
TWA 800 started us driving a lot of places where we had previously flown. At the time TWA 800 went down we had 2 plane tickets to CA for a class reunion. We called Northwest and they happily exchanged them for tickets in the future with no extra fee tacked on.
I remember the ticket agent replying when I said we did not feel comfortable flying right then because of the Olympics the same week. “I don’t blame you. You can use your tickets anytime in the future.”
That unnerved me a bit. We just hopped into our car and drove West. Made it in 2 days from Milwaukee (northern route).
bttt
I’ve driven cross country twice in my life. By far the best trips I have ever made. I can’t wait to do it again.
My kids all live east and south of here, and until a year ago my aged mother, as well as my inlaws, lived in CA where I grew up. For 10 years I had a Golden Retriever who liked to travel too, so we’ve driven to both coasts numerous times; but TWA 800 started it all.
We’ve logged a lot of miles in all kinds of weather. I refuse to go either direction for Christmas any more, however, after a couple of particularly grueling trips. And I no longer wish to drive straight through. We used to pride ourselves in doing 900 miles a day. No more.
Wouldn't it be considered a product safety defect, and wouldn't the government react, as it does in the military when an aircraft exhibits some questionable defect, result in the GROUNDING OF THE AIR FLEET?
The fact that the government did NOT ground that type of airframe until inspections were made, worldwide, indicates the government itself DOES NOT BELIEVE it was a fuel tank explosion.
There was a wedding party of dozens of people who say a missile streak upwards. I am a news junkie; it was shown on TV...but within hours, the news networks pulled that from the TV.
And why wasn't the NTSB in charge? Why the FBI? That's another "indicator" that something wasn't as they said.
We were hit on that day. Did anyone claim credit (blame) for it? I'd like to know. It would be too easy to rent a small boat, sit just offshore and fire a U.S.-made Stinger missile, one of the countless that we gave the Afghans during their war against Soviet occupation.
I think that's what happened; it was one of our Stingers, and the outcry, if the American people ever found that out, would be terrible.
Clinton said he was coming to comfort the families of the dead. O'Connor was already there, and told him that if he showed up, O'Connor would leave immediately.
Clinton did not show up.
As a side note O'Connor would not permit Clinton to speak at St Patrick's the entire time he was Cardinal of NYC. He had to be dead for Clinton to even show up at St. Patrick's
Could be. It is very strange to me to see someone choose a friend over truth. I have no obligation to a friend to betray my beliefs or nation. I don’t understand people who do.
Missiles on ships do not go off by accident.
So what happened? A missile shot TWA 800 down and it was covered up. I rate the possibility of that scenario at 99%+. It was such an obvious cover-up. Hundreds of witnesses saw the launch and the explosion.
The probability of that happening actually hovers somewhere between zilch and none. We're not talking about shooting a pistol by accident. There is a lot of steps and a lot of people involved in shooting a missile.
If you have a better explanation you should post it.
Sometimes things are as they seem.
Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes.
Name one.
And it is certainly possible that one was being tested....
No, it isn't.
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.