New information on the TWA Flt. 800 Coverup:

[MetalMover]

 
You want to take it a step further, DHS does keyword scans ala NSA on all kinds of electronic comm's. 
 
So you're toast too.
 
Wait, someone's at the door......

You're the one who believes this nonsense..Not me.

 

[MCI transplant]

MCI,

I have a more basic question. According to what I have read here you were in the Navy. If you were on that sub that launched the missile would you remain quite if ordered.to do so even though you know what was done was wrong and innocent people were killed as a result?

Liston Tree, first of all, I'm not 100% sure it was the Navy that pulled the trigger. I am just saying that the report has enough detailed information to warrant investigating it further. The other scenario would be if someone else fired the missile. What bothered me most at the time was, when they were debunking that one is that they kept harping on the fact that a "shoulder held missile" didn't have the range to shot it down.------ Well, hell, who says it had to be a "shoulder held missile"?  The French had a missile at the time that was fired from a tripod that had the ranged required to take it out! And there were others out there also. Tree, it sounds like you've never been in the military. Like dell said, if your ordered to keep your moth shut, that's what you do!  Especially if the words "national security" are brandished around! -------O.K. let's do a hypothetical scenario here. An American Airlines 777 takes off from JFK going to Paris, with 316 passengers and crew. The plane is blown out of the sky! Intelligence (CIA) finds out it was perpetrated by Iranian terrorists backed by the Iranian Government. As a the POTUS, running for reelection,, what do you do? Take the Country to War which may escalate into WWIII? What would be your chances of reelection be if things got nasty? Or sweep it under the rug, and hope for a better day? ------ What do you think obama would have done?

 

[delldude]

You're the one who believes this nonsense..Not me.

 
Ok........
 

 
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's practice of monitoring social media services could lead to abuse and could discourage U.S. residents from speaking out against the government, several lawmakers said Thursday.
Several members of the U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee's intelligence subcommittee questioned a recently revealed DHS contract for General Dynamics to monitor media stories that reflect adversely on DHS or the U.S. government.
Lawmakers are "deeply troubled" by the contract, which also allows General Dynamics to monitor traditional and social media for public views on major government proposals, Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, said during a hearing.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/250124/lawmakers_question_dhs_monitoring_of_social_media.html

 
 
 
 

 
The Homeland Security Department monitors social media sites, blogs and online comment threads to gather "situational awareness" about threats and emergencies, but it doesn't pull identifying information about average citizens out of those comments unless it's a "life or death situation," officials told a House panel Thursday.
The hearing of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence follows news that an agency contractor mined Facebook, Twitter and the comments sections of online news articles in 2009 to gauge Standish, Mich., residents' thoughts about a short-lived proposal to move Guantanamo Bay prisoners to an area prison.
The contract with General Dynamics was uncovered after the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an online privacy advocacy group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request and subsequent lawsuit.
http://www.nextgov.com/technology-news/2012/02/dhs-defends-social-media-monitoring-program/50659/

 

[MetalMover]

 
Ok........
 
 
 
 
 

You're a whiz at copying and pasting...But it is YOU and MCI accusing the government of a coverup...not ME...
SO why don't you do something substantial about it instead of posting on an airline blog?

 

[Ms Tree]

MCI,
 
How about we stick with one conspiracy at a time?  The link you posted in the OP said that a missile from the USS Seawolf toox down TW800.  It said that the Clintons knew about it and covered it up.
 
So, with that scenario in mind, if you were on board the USS Seawolf on July 19, 1996 would you have remained quiet?
 
BTW, I believe you asked earlier why the FBI was involved in the investigation.  The lonk you posted gave a possible explanation.
 

The FBI initially believed that terrorism was the cause of the crash of TWA 800 and it ran a criminal investigation parallel to that of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 
 

 

From what I understand, Dell has never been in the military so his opinion on this issue does not amount to a warm bucket of piss.  777 has served and he indicated that if he felt it was a cover up, he would squeal like a stuck pig (no insult intended 777).  I believe there is even something in the code of conduct that says you cannot/should not follow an illegal order.  I would suggest that abetting a cover up is an illegal order and I am guessing that if you were caught covering up a crime, you could be prosecuted.  
 
Accusing a foreign country of taking out the aircraft is a bit different than accusing the USN of doing it.  I have no idea what I would do if Iran took out a plane.  First off I am pretty sure there is no way in hell it would be kept quiet.  Russia took out KL007.  Russia took out MH17.  The US took out IR688.  I think there is history to say that just because a plane is shot down, war does not need to ensue.  I would do everything possible to avoid a confrontation with Iran.  A war could tank economies all over the world depending on how it escalated and impacted oil production in the ME.  Iran would invariably draw Israel in to the conflict.  How many more people would need to die to avenge the 316 that died in the plane? 
 
Speaking of planes being shot down.  How is it that the 3 I mentioned above (especially IR 688) were not covered up?  Perhaps because you can't cover something like that up?  The scenarios you presented never happened in the other shootings.  No one tried to cover it up.  No one went to war.  Why would it have to happen here?  Regan for all his bluster never raised a finger to Russia and he got elected just fine in '84.  I guess Reagan knew going to war with Russia would have been a pretty stupid idea.  Just as Obama would hopefully know that going to war with Iran would be a pretty stupid idea.
 
So, back to the question.  Would you keep quiet and abet the cover up of the murdering of the passengers on TW 800?  

 

[MCI transplant]

You're a whiz at copying and pasting...But it is YOU and MCI accusing the government of a coverup...not ME...
SO why don't you do something substantial about it instead of posting on an airline blog?

So, you don't think the Government would lie to you now do you? -------- No! Never happen!

 

[MCI transplant]

 
MCI,
 
How about we stick with one conspiracy at a time?  The link you posted in the OP said that a missile from the USS Seawolf toox down TW800.  It said that the Clintons knew about it and covered it up.
 
So, with that scenario in mind, if you were on board the USS Seawolf on July 19, 1996 would you have remained quiet?
 
BTW, I believe you asked earlier why the FBI was involved in the investigation.  The lonk you posted gave a possible explanation.
 

 

From what I understand, Dell has never been in the military so his opinion on this issue does not amount to a warm bucket of piss.  777 has served and he indicated that if he felt it was a cover up, he would squeal like a stuck pig (no insult intended 777).  I believe there is even something in the code of conduct that says you cannot/should not follow an illegal order.  I would suggest that abetting a cover up is an illegal order and I am guessing that if you were caught covering up a crime, you could be prosecuted.  
 
Accusing a foreign country of taking out the aircraft is a bit different than accusing the USN of doing it.  I have no idea what I would do if Iran took out a plane.  First off I am pretty sure there is no way in hell it would be kept quiet.  Russia took out KL007.  Russia took out MH17.  The US took out IR688.  I think there is history to say that just because a plane is shot down, war does not need to ensue.  I would do everything possible to avoid a confrontation with Iran.  A war could tank economies all over the world depending on how it escalated and impacted oil production in the ME.  Iran would invariably draw Israel in to the conflict.  How many more people would need to die to avenge the 316 that died in the plane? 
 
Speaking of planes being shot down.  How is it that the 3 I mentioned above (especially IR 688) were not covered up?  Perhaps because you can't cover something like that up?  The scenarios you presented never happened in the other shootings.  No one tried to cover it up.  No one went to war.  Why would it have to happen here?  Regan for all his bluster never raised a finger to Russia and he got elected just fine in '84.  I guess Reagan knew going to war with Russia would have been a pretty stupid idea.  Just as Obama would hopefully know that going to war with Iran would be a pretty stupid idea.
 
So, back to the question.  Would you keep quiet and abet the cover up of the murdering of the passengers on TW 800?  
 

Tree, your hung up on the Navy thing aren't you? First let's put things in prospective. This was in the 1970's, not 2015, completely different political atmosphere. Next the three Aircraft you mentioned were not American, and weren't shot down practically within New York City Limits!  And a curtain POTUS was not running for reelection! Del may, or may,or may not, have been in the military, but I was! But I was on an Aircraft carrier, not a Sub. I guess you wouldn't know what it takes to become a crew member on one of our Subs. They just don't put anyone on them! They go through special training, and are chosen, not only for their knowledge, but also for mental stability.They live, and work, in close quarters for extended periods of time. They don't give those dolphins to anyone, they are earned! The discipline aboard a sub is paramount to it's mission. ------- Now "if" in fact the sub in question did fire that missile.and the crew knew it, but were ordered to keep quit about it for national security reasons, or any other contrived reason, I'd imagine that's what they'd do!

 

[MetalMover]

So, you don't think the Government would lie to you now do you? -------- No! Never happen!

So do something about it rather than making "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH" speeches on an airline forum.

 

[Ms Tree]

Me?  WTF???  It was the sole topic of the link you posted in the OP.  It the sole basis of the 'cover up' from your OP.  Why the heck would I be hung up on it?  It was your post!
 
All I want to know is if in THAT particular scenario you would stay quiet and abet the cover up?
 
What was in the 1970's?
 
A president is always running for re-election their first term.    Fair point on not being a US aircraft.  No I never served.  Never pretended to nor did I have eny interest in serving in the military.  None of which has any thing to do with the question posed to you which you have been dancing around like Fred Astaire.  
 
So what I gather from your post is that if you were on that sub you would keep quiet and abet a cover up of the murder of all passengers on board TW 800.  I see this as meaning 1 of 2 things.  Either there was some sort of justification for the cover up in which case it was done for national security.  Were that the case the cover up would be justified.  OR.  The USN screwed the pooch and made a boo boo in which case your silence would have nothing to do with national security and I am guessing your silence might be criminally culpable if found out.  Perhaps 777 can shed some light on the legalities of covering up an action you know to be a crime.  Let me know if I am missing anything as you still have not given a definitive answer.
 
So now we can move on to the other theory you mentioned.  Someone/thing with a missile of some sort that took down the plane.  All the people involved in the investigation seemingly had no clue what happened just that the explanation given was wrong (according to the IAM) yet not a single republican in elected office has made any attempt nor brought forth any evidence of a cover up by the Clinton administration.  So what possible motivation could good up standing folks like Gingrich, Helms, Dornan and others have for keeping Clintons secret quiet?  You know if it was shot down that the CIA and FBI would have known about it so they were in on the secret too.  H Bush was head of the CIA for a period and I would guess he would have 1 or 2 connections.  Why did he keep quiet?  Was his life threatened as well?  
 
So same question.  If you were in the CIA, FBI or Congress and knew what happened to TW 800 would you stay quiet?  Would you abet the cover up?

 

[delldude]

You're a whiz at copying and pasting...But it is YOU and MCI accusing the government of a coverup...not ME...
SO why don't you do something substantial about it instead of posting on an airline blog?

 
Dude, when they waterboard me, I'm giving you up.

 

[delldude]

Me?  WTF???  It was the sole topic of the link you posted in the OP.  It the sole basis of the 'cover up' from your OP.  Why the heck would I be hung up on it?  It was your post!
 
All I want to know is if in THAT particular scenario you would stay quiet and abet the cover up?
 
What was in the 1970's?
 
A president is always running for re-election their first term.    Fair point on not being a US aircraft.  No I never served.  Never pretended to nor did I have eny interest in serving in the military.  None of which has any thing to do with the question posed to you which you have been dancing around like Fred Astaire.  
 
So what I gather from your post is that if you were on that sub you would keep quiet and abet a cover up of the murder of all passengers on board TW 800.  I see this as meaning 1 of 2 things.  Either there was some sort of justification for the cover up in which case it was done for national security.  Were that the case the cover up would be justified.  OR.  The USN screwed the pooch and made a boo boo in which case your silence would have nothing to do with national security and I am guessing your silence might be criminally culpable if found out.  Perhaps 777 can shed some light on the legalities of covering up an action you know to be a crime.  Let me know if I am missing anything as you still have not given a definitive answer.
 
So now we can move on to the other theory you mentioned.  Someone/thing with a missile of some sort that took down the plane.  All the people involved in the investigation seemingly had no clue what happened just that the explanation given was wrong (according to the IAM) yet not a single republican in elected office has made any attempt nor brought forth any evidence of a cover up by the Clinton administration.  So what possible motivation could good up standing folks like Gingrich, Helms, Dornan and others have for keeping Clintons secret quiet?  You know if it was shot down that the CIA and FBI would have known about it so they were in on the secret too.  H Bush was head of the CIA for a period and I would guess he would have 1 or 2 connections.  Why did he keep quiet?  Was his life threatened as well?  
 
So same question.  If you were in the CIA, FBI or Congress and knew what happened to TW 800 would you stay quiet?  Would you abet the cover up?

 
Orders are orders

 

[MCI transplant]

 I'm am aircraft mechanic Tree! Not a politician! I have no idea how they pulled it off. But what makes you think Congress  knew anything about it? ----- Hell if obama, and clinton, can stonewall Congress over Benghazi, what makes you think she didn't learn something from Flt.800?

 

[delldude]

I got a better one.
 
JFK

 

[Ms Tree]

I'm am aircraft mechanic Tree! Not a politician! I have no idea how they pulled it off. But what makes you think Congress  knew anything about it? ----- Hell if obama, and clinton, can stonewall Congress over Benghazi, what makes you think she didn't learn something from Flt.800?

If people like you can talk to IAM investigators who are in the know, you think members of Congress don't have access to the info? Sorry but I don't by that. There have been 7 investigations into Benghazi. All came to the same conclusion, not the one you desired but a conclusion none the less.

What ever Clinton learned, did she learn it from the USN or the other country that shot it down? I'm still unclear which of the various theories you have proposed you believe in.

 

[delldude]

If people like you can talk to IAM investigators who are in the know, you think members of Congress don't have access to the info? Sorry but I don't by that. There have been 7 investigations into Benghazi. All came to the same conclusion, not the one you desired but a conclusion none the less.

What ever Clinton learned, did she learn it from the USN or the other country that shot it down? I'm still unclear which of the various theories you have proposed you believe in.

 
Does it matter who knew or didn't know, if there is enough physical evidence to warrant another look?