New information on the TWA Flt. 800 Coverup:

[Dog Wonder]

OK

 

[MCI transplant]

The conspiracy theorists believe that all those sailors or anyone else in the know were threatened not to speak about it...
Not ONE pf them has a conscience or the moral obligation to come forward. 
All they need to do is to walk into any major TV News Network ask for the well known anchorman or anchorwoman,,,,,Then go before hundreds of millions of people and tell the world he or she was involved in the missile launch and TELL THE NATION AND THE WORLD WHAT HAPPENED AND WHO EXACTLY THREATENED HIM/HER AND THEIR FAMILIES!!!  TELL THE WORLD......NAME F###ING NAMES AS TO WHO THREATENED THEM....
But no, the conspiracy theorists only want to focus on the missile and NOT THE PEOPLE INVOLVED.
 
No takers I guess.

Mover, the Inspectors who were on the boats, and on the floor of the hanger, told me that they were told to keep their mouths shut about what they saw, or hey would end up in Leavenworth. If in fact this was a coverup, which I still think it was, it only could have been pulled off by direction from the highest office.------- Now you wanted names? You fill in the blanks!

 

[Ms Tree]

Just think about that one for a moment. An inspector comes out with proof that the US took out a 747 in a military exercise and the person with the proof ends up in Leavenworth. How do you see that working out for the government? I can understand if the inspector said that if they said something that they would be killed but in jail where they can still talk? More over, if the government was willing to kill everyone on a 747 and then cover it up, do you really think that they would be alive to tell you that they 'knew what really happened'? There are careers and fortunes at stake. They were left alive to tell you. But they ad no proof. Keeping that proof secret only makes them a target. If I had proof, I going to get it out there. That makes me not a target anymore. Hundreds of people saw the wreckage. Anyone of them could drop proof off in a mail box or what ever and no one would be the wiser.

I'm sorry, but this story has so many holes in it that there is nothing left.

 

[777 fixer]

 
 
The likely speculation is, of course, that the U.S. military committed this crime.  Was someone on the plane targeted for murder, and everyone else killed in the process?  Was this a test of technology?  Was it a mistake?  Was it part of some larger plot that failed to develop?  I don’t know.

 
Of course he doesn't know, that much is obvious.  
 

 
 
If the U.S. military blew up a passenger jet full of passengers, including U.S. citizens, for no damn good reason, wouldn’t we need an explanation for its wanting to go public with that?  Doesn’t the military’s wanting to keep that quiet require no explanation at all?  When the Joint Special Operations Command murders Afghan women in a night raid and then digs bullets out of their bodies with knives and claims that they were killed by their families, and then later admits the truth, are we shocked by the routine lies or by the vicious crime?  Wouldn’t we be more seriously shocked if the U.S. military gratuitously blurted out something true?  Wouldn’t taking responsibility for TWA 800 be a remarkable act of civic virtue worthy of the record books?

 
Seems like the author is under the impression that those in the military and remorseless killing machines.  Do you share the same opinion dell?

 

[777 fixer]

New information is coming out about The Clinton's coverup of TWA Flt. 800, which caused the deaths of 230 passengers and crew. 

 
How can a cover up result in deaths after the fact?
 

   http://milfuegos.blogspot.com/2014/07/uss-seawolf-missile-shot-down-twa-800.html

 
You of all people should have raised the bullcrap flag when you read  The Seawolf's missile was to have struck a drone reportedly being towed by a Navy P-3 Orion maritime surveillance aircraft.  As someone once associated with NavAir you should be able to tell us what's wrong with that statement.

 

[MetalMover]

Mover, the Inspectors who were on the boats, and on the floor of the hanger, told me that they were told to keep their mouths shut about what they saw, or hey would end up in Leavenworth. If in fact this was a coverup, which I still think it was, it only could have been pulled off by direction from the highest office.------- Now you wanted names? You fill in the blanks!

Yawn!

 

[MetalMover]

Just think about that one for a moment. An inspector comes out with proof that the US took out a 747 in a military exercise and the person with the proof ends up in Leavenworth. How do you see that working out for the government? I can understand if the inspector said that if they said something that they would be killed but in jail where they can still talk? More over, if the government was willing to kill everyone on a 747 and then cover it up, do you really think that they would be alive to tell you that they 'knew what really happened'? There are careers and fortunes at stake. They were left alive to tell you. But they ad no proof. Keeping that proof secret only makes them a target. If I had proof, I going to get it out there. That makes me not a target anymore. Hundreds of people saw the wreckage. Anyone of them could drop proof off in a mail box or what ever and no one would be the wiser. I'm sorry, but this story has so many holes in it that there is nothing left.

This is all about former TWA employees who refuse to believe that nothing BUT a missile brought the plane down. They Google all the conspiracy theory reports and articles and cherry pick the ones that suit their position, but do NOT Google the fuel tank explosion reports. 
"WELL I KNOW TWA EMPLOYEES WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS A MISSILE..BLAH BLAH BLAH..."
What is a TWA employee going to say?
 
Leavenworth? for CIVILIANS? Please!
 
MCI, wat about my idea of the whistleblower going on a MAJOR news network in front of hundreds and hundreds of millions of people and TELLING THE WORLD HE/SHE DID IT......FIRED THAT MISSILE,, LOADED THAT MISSILE PRE FLIGHT AND IT WAS MISSING POST FLIGHT?
 
HEY MCI, ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GO ON THE OREILLY FACTOR OR RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW WITH THIS EARTH SHATTERING BREAKING NEWS! Since it incriminates the Clintons, I am sure oreilly will have you on and give you a coffee mug, T-shirt and autographed copy of his latest book!

 

[MetalMover]

The Missiles That Brought Down TWA Flight 800
Posted on August 9, 2013 by DavidSwanson

If the U.S. public began to raise a fuss about U.S. missile strikes that blow up large numbers of civilians at wedding parties abroad, it’s not beyond the realm of the imaginable that the U.S. government would begin blaming the explosions on faulty candles in the wedding cakes.  A similarly implausible excuse was used to explain the 1996 explosion of TWA flight 800 off Long Island, New York, and the U.S. public has thus far either swallowed the story whole or ignored the matter.
If you watch Kristina Borjesson’s new film, TWA Flight 800, you’ll see a highly persuasive case that this passenger jet full of passengers was brought down by missiles, killing all on board.
A CIA propaganda video aired by U.S. television networks fits with none of the known facts, makes the claim that there were no missiles, and offers no theory as to what then did cause the explosion(s) and crash into the sea.
A coverup by the FBI and the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) was blatant and extensive, involving intimidation of witnesses and investigators, tampering with evidence, false testimony before Congress, censoring reports, and numerous violations of normal protocols.  Some of the government’s own official investigators concluded that the explosion(s) occurred outside the airplane.  They were not permitted to write analyses in their reports, as in every other investigation.  Their reports were censored.  They were forbidden to testify.  Some 200 eyewitnesses — people on the ground and in other planes, at least many of whom described seeing one or more missiles rising from the ground to the airplane — were censored as well.  Not a single witness was permitted to testify at the public hearing.
The military staged a test firing of missiles with witnesses, in an attempt to prove that the witnesses would either not see the missiles or testify inaccurately about what they saw.  However, the witnesses all reported seeing the missiles well.  The report on this test came to the opposite conclusion of what had been hoped for, but the government fed the original, hoped-for line to the media, which dutifully reported it.
Investigators thought and still think a missile or missiles brought down the plane.  Eye-witnesses thought and still think the same.  Explosives residue in the plane wreckage and other physical evidence in the wreckage suggests missile(s).  Data from several different radars at the time of the disaster show pieces of the plane being blown off at speeds that could only have been generated by high explosives, not by a fuel tank exploding.  Radar data also show the plane falling, not rising.  (The CIA claimed, without offering any evidence, that the plane rose into the sky as it was exploding, thus accounting for witnesses’ reports of seeing objects rising.)  The damage to the seats and passengers in the plane was random, not greater closer to a fuel tank.
No more evidence was ever offered for a fuel tank exploding than could be offered in the theoretical fiction of a wedding cake exploding, or — for that matter — was ever offered for the Maine having been attacked by the Spanish in Havana harbor or for the Gulf of Tonkin incident having occurred or for the WMDs piling up in Iraq, or than has been offered thus far for the dreaded Iranian nuclear bomb program. There was no wiring near the fuel tank that could have caused it to explode and no other explanation than faulty wiring even hypothesized.
The film concludes that likely three missiles were shot from near the Long Island coast, including at least one from a ship at sea.  The film does not address the question of who did this or why.  But it presents the evidence that it happened, and that the coverup began immediately, with the disaster site being quickly closed off and guarded by roughly 1,000 police officers, roughly half of them FBI — not the normal procedure for a plane crash.  The likely speculation is, of course, that the U.S. military committed this crime.  Was someone on the plane targeted for murder, and everyone else killed in the process?  Was this a test of technology?  Was it a mistake?  Was it part of some larger plot that failed to develop?  I don’t know.
But I do know that the nation didn’t go into a collective state of vicious rabid insanity, demanding vengeance against evildoers who hate us for our freedoms.  No nations were destroyed in a sick parody of justice following the destruction of TWA flight 800.  But neither were those responsible held publicly accountable in any way.
The New York Times seems impressed by the film and favors a new investigation but laments the supposed lack of any entity that could credibly perform an investigation.  Think about that.  The U.S. government comes off as so untrustworthy in the film that it can’t be trusted to re-investigate itself.  And a leading newspaper, whose job it ought to be to investigate the government, feels at a loss for what to do without a government that can credibly and voluntarily perform the media’s own job for it and hold itself accountable.
The New York Post, too, takes the film quite seriously, and simply recounts its arguments without adding any commentary other than agreement.  But the Daily News offers instead a textbook example of how self-censorship and obedience to authoritarianism work.  Here’s the complete Daily News review with my comments inserted:

“If you need to get a person’s attention fast, just whisper, ‘There’s something the government isn’t telling you.’
“Works every time.”

Like the time the NSA claimed to be complying with the Fourth Amendment? Like the time nobody was being tortured in Iraq? Like the time the fracking studies showed no damage to ground water? Like the time drones weren’t killing any civilians with their missile strikes?
Sure, there are bound to be times when the government is honest with us. I can’t think of any off the top of my head, but it stands to reason that there are.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  And it’s certainly possible to invent all sorts of fantasies to allege the government to be lying about.  I’m not convinced Obama was born in Africa, aliens visited New Mexico, the World Trade Center was blown up from within, or every person who emails me to complain about it is really being zapped with invisible mind-control weapons (for all I know they just watch television and come away feeling like that).  But shouldn’t we take claims of government deception as possibly right and possibly wrong and follow the evidence where it leads? I’m not willing to swear any of the things I list here isn’t true unless evidence establishes that.

“In this case, filmmakers Kristina Borjesson and Tom Stalcup are convinced that ill-fated TWA Flight 800, which exploded over Great South Bay on July 17, 1996, was shot down by a missile.”

And does the evidence suggest that they are right or wrong?  Should we just pretend to know that they’re wrong because the government says so?  Yep:

“The original government investigation and later a second probe by the National Transportation Safety Board disagreed. Both concluded the explosion was caused by a spark in the center fuel tank.”

Yet they offered no explanation for where such a spark might have come from, or why so many airplanes have been permitted to fly since, in danger of falling victim to such a spark.

“So someone is wrong. But ‘TWA Flight 800′ says it’s more insidious than that. The government also knows it was a missile, the film strongly suggests, and simply chooses to lie.  Charges of conspiratorial coverups are as common as jaywalking, of course, but ‘TWA Flight 800′ has more evidence than most. The advocates here include several original investigators as well as aircraft engineers, transportation and safety experts. There also are a half dozen people, civilians with no agendas, who all say they saw something streaking across the sky toward the plane before it exploded.”

Why is that insidious?  You don’t know whether all these people are right, but the suggestion that they might be is insidious?  The film in fact doesn’t say the government “simply” chooses to lie.  In fact, many in the government choose to speak out, forming much of the basis for the film.  Others choose to cover up what happened.  Most of them are clearly just following orders.  Others must have motivations, but whether those motivations are simple or complex is not touched on in the film — as this review goes on to acknowledge:

“The film doesn’t really address two of the biggest questions raised by most conspiracy charges. First, why would someone cover up the truth, and second, given the number of people involved in this investigation, could they all keep a secret this big for 17 years?”

In fact, they aren’t all keeping it secret.  Many have been shouting the truth, as they see it, from the rooftops.  Others recount why they’ve kept quiet.  One woman explains that she was applying for U.S. citizenship and was threatened that her application would be rejected if she spoke out.  The film does not address motivations for the coverup, but let me take a wild stab at doing so: If the U.S. military blew up a passenger jet full of passengers, including U.S. citizens, for no damn good reason, wouldn’t we need an explanation for its wanting to go public with that?  Doesn’t the military’s wanting to keep that quiet require no explanation at all?  When the Joint Special Operations Command murders Afghan women in a night raid and then digs bullets out of their bodies with knives and claims that they were killed by their families, and then later admits the truth, are we shocked by the routine lies or by the vicious crime?  Wouldn’t we be more seriously shocked if the U.S. military gratuitously blurted out something true?  Wouldn’t taking responsibility for TWA 800 be a remarkable act of civic virtue worthy of the record books?

“But the film isn’t after ‘why.’ It just wants to say that a lot of physical and circumstantial evidence points to a missile.
“Toward that goal, it’s on target.”

It is indeed, though one wouldn’t have guessed that from the beginning of this newspaper’s review, from media coverage in general, from history books, or from how most people have been conditioned to react to the next suspicious disaster yet to come.

 
Yall been hoodwinked.


Are you kidding us with these BS articles from BLOGS? WHAT'S THE MATTER? CAN'T FIND A ROCK SOLID ARTICLE FORM THE NY TIMES OR WASHINGTON POST?

 

[delldude]

Tell you what, you get the documentary and make the radar go away.
 
You guys ask why no one has come forward, well for 17 years these people have.
 
Why weren't 200 credible witnesses permitted to testify?
 
Why were trained investigators who found missile evidence told not to file it.
 
The only thing the people behind the film question is the NTSB findings and back it up with evidence to reopen.
 
Ample evidence of a missile event.
 
Lot of government asss sucking here I see, same gov't that had NSA monitoring everyone for some 30 years.
 
No chance they'd be involved in some type cover up....no way.

 

[delldude]

 
Of course he doesn't know, that much is obvious.  
 
 
Seems like the author is under the impression that those in the military and remorseless killing machines.  Do you share the same opinion dell?

 
The navy has a sorry ass record with passenger planes. Must be remorseless as they never apologized for 655.
 
Navy also has a terrible history of lying, cover ups and obfuscation. You should know that.

 

[delldude]

Just think about that one for a moment. An inspector comes out with proof that the US took out a 747 in a military exercise and the person with the proof ends up in Leavenworth. How do you see that working out for the government? I can understand if the inspector said that if they said something that they would be killed but in jail where they can still talk? More over, if the government was willing to kill everyone on a 747 and then cover it up, do you really think that they would be alive to tell you that they 'knew what really happened'? There are careers and fortunes at stake. They were left alive to tell you. But they ad no proof. Keeping that proof secret only makes them a target. If I had proof, I going to get it out there. That makes me not a target anymore. Hundreds of people saw the wreckage. Anyone of them could drop proof off in a mail box or what ever and no one would be the wiser. I'm sorry, but this story has so many holes in it that there is nothing left.

 
We'll call you Ron Brown.He was going to rat out Crinton.

 

[Ms Tree]

You would think that if the US WAS going to cover something up they would have started with that airliner shot down in the Gulf several years back. That came out and a bunch of people got canned.

The idea that the government could cover this up does not pass the smell test with me.

 

[MCI transplant]

Just think about that one for a moment. An inspector comes out with proof that the US took out a 747 in a military exercise and the person with the proof ends up in Leavenworth. How do you see that working out for the government? I can understand if the inspector said that if they said something that they would be killed but in jail where they can still talk? More over, if the government was willing to kill everyone on a 747 and then cover it up, do you really think that they would be alive to tell you that they 'knew what really happened'? There are careers and fortunes at stake. They were left alive to tell you. But they ad no proof. Keeping that proof secret only makes them a target. If I had proof, I going to get it out there. That makes me not a target anymore. Hundreds of people saw the wreckage. Anyone of them could drop proof off in a mail box or what ever and no one would be the wiser. I'm sorry, but this story has so many holes in it that there is nothing left.

Let's get one thing straight here Tree, no one is saying, or implying, that TWA flt. 800 was purposely targeted by the government! What we are saying is that it was shut out of the sky, and that fact was covered up by the Clinton administration for political  reasons. Now if that aircraft was blown out of the sky and 230 people killed, by the U.S. Navy, or Ben Ladin, is questionable.As for proof, at this point in time, I don't believe there would be anything that would satisfy you, or the world.

 

[delldude]

Wonder what public confidence would be for re-electing Crinton if this was made pubic immediately after the incident.

 

[Ms Tree]

There is plenty that would convince me it was a cover up. If one of the people supposedly involved in the downing of the plane were to come out and say 'I was thee and this is what happened' then we can talk.

I don't understand how the Clinton administration can keep everyone quite over this but could not shut Lewinsky up.

How can the Clinton administration keep the military quiet? I think it's safe to say that most in the military are conservatives and you want to tell.me that none of them are willing to.speak out to sink them?

Why would republican members of Congress be involved in the coverup? Because what you are saying is that republican members of Congress who have been in Congress long that Clinton has been in elected office and who have built up a power structure that would.dwarf Clinton are not digging for witness and guaranteeing their safety to testify that the Clinton covered it up.

The bottom line is that there are way too many people who don't like the Clinton who would also have to involved in this cover up and that just makes no sense.