New information about Flight 800.

Dear ATSers,

I tried, really I did, to find this information by using Sumaru, or Subaru, or Shamu, or whatever it's called, and I didn't see it. If it's been covered, please alert the Mods and shut this down. But it seems to resolve the questions asked.

First here's the source article:
www.americanthinker.com...

The gist of the story is that the plane was shot down, most likely by a missile, and that missile was linked by Clinton to Iran. Clinton decided not to retaliate because of possible damage to his presidential campaign.

"Holy Christ, this looks bad," said Ron Schleede of the National Transportation Safety Board upon first seeing the data that "suggested something fast made the turn and took the airplane."

As he reported in his bestseller Against All Enemies, Clinton anti-terror czar Richard Clarke got the message, too. By 9 p.m., he was driving in to the White House to convene a meeting of his security group. He did not call such a meeting after the ValuJet crash two months earlier. Clarke was clearly worried.

"I dreaded what I thought was about to happen," he wrote, "The Eisenhower option." Had Iran been behind the downing of TWA Flight 800, the president would have had to respond. Two weeks later, in his monthly interview with historian Taylor Branch, President Clinton actually traced the seeming missile attack to Iran. "They want war," he told Branch.

By 3 a.m. the Clintons had apparently gathered enough information to call National Security Adviser Lake with the following message: "Dust off the contingency plans." Yes, the Eisenhower Option. But right now, especially on these terms, with the 1996 election comfortably in the bag, the Clintons no more wanted an international dust-up than Obama did in Benghazi in 2012.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


A buddy of mine almost went insane trying to get to the bottom of the TWA 800 story. He was a junior operating the radio from the right seat on approach to LaGuardia, about fifteen minutes after the plane went down, and he remembers seeing the burning fuel trail and hearing the ELT beacon and being told by the terminal controller that it was being tended to.

He spent a good deal of time looking into it, and to this day he still believes the old missile defence theory.

It is pretty wild, and not mine so don't shoot the messenger. In case you aren't aware of it, it was a big contender in the days after the loss, before the CIA cleaned up the press mess, and made a comeback a few years after 9/11. Apparently congress was looking at cutting the Navy's budget, and on the chopping block were a series of submarines that were untested and intended to be part of forward air missile defence shield. So one of them was rushed into service with a young captain and a rookie crew and they accidentally shot down TWA 800, during targeting exercises.

In walks Ray Mabus, the CIA brainchild that Bush senior wished was his own son, and he uses the accident to test out the CIA ability to control a media nightmare and save face for the NAVY. They bump off the petty officer who squealed to the media, collected the local camera footage, reassigned the captain of the sub, and released a wonderfully aerodynamically impossible video, similar to the pancake simulations that followed the world trade centre knock down. In their minds the worst thing that could happen is the truth comes out, and they apologize, but the exercise would be useful to fill in some gaps in their world trade centre destruction plan. It goes off without a hitch, the story goes away, and the navy become duplicitous in the 911 world trade centre event, which again many believe was orchestrated from Saudi Embassy employee, Ray Mabus. The very same Ray Mabus who is assigned to the Navy and christened the SS New York, made from bits of the towers as a big FU to the American people.

It's a long stretch, but what I find interesting is that the story that so many conspiracy theorist cut their teeth on, is virtually nowhere to be found. Conspicuously absent. Nice to see someone drudging it up. A lot of people died a horrible death in that air plane. The Pump failure causing the explosion defies my understanding of stoichiometry.

AX
FTNWO

reply to post by charles1952


There were a number of US warships in the area that were engaged in excercises at the time the airliner was shot down....so can anyone explain to me how the Iranians managed to shoot down the plane? Does this seem plausible? Especially with US warships in the area?

Is there one shred of evidence the Iranians had anything to do with this?

charles1952
Dear ATSers,



First here's the source article:
www.americanthinker.com...

The gist of the story is that the plane was shot down, most likely by a missile, and that missile was linked by Clinton to Iran. Clinton decided not to retaliate because of possible damage to his presidential campaign.


With respect,
Charles1952

So, basically the flight was shot down as so many people who saw the event described it as such.
Repeat, shot down. Nothing further to add.

reply to post by charles1952


There is little doubt what, who and why of that event.
We shot down an Iranian passenger jet by some sort of error on July 3, 1988
On July 17, 1996, TWA was taken down.

I suspect that the Iranians wanted the job to be done near the July date of their aircraft being downed. It probably took them that long to develop or buy a missile from somebody for the job. It wouldn't surprise me if they had been helped to acquire that missile from one of our "friends."

We have sufficient reason to believe it was their retribution to us, and Clinton knew it and did nothing, tit-for-tat as the saying goes.

Netflix has a documentary out TWA: Flight 800. EPIX film released this year.

Interviews of witnesses from all over the area that saw it. And how there were little to no help from one agency to another. I won't go into to much detail. I don't recall the agents talking of Iran. But I'll watch it again.

You brought up missile shield. Makes some sense since some witnesses describe seeing at one point 4-5 launches from sea up. One missile was witnessed though from a beach house. Not the sea. So not a sub for that one.


Edit: considering the US is always looking for a reason to strike Iran. Why was this not acted on. Hmm.

Thank you all, very much. I'm not much of a conspiracy fan (So, what are you doing here?) and I knew absolutely nothing about this incident until I saw this particular article.

If we believe that Clinton was telling the truth when he was talking to the Presidential historian at their regular meeting, and why would he lie, he wasn't talking to the press, then it was an Iranian linked missile. Of course, he might have been lying.

Further, it seems reasonable to believe the intended target was the El-Al flight that should have been in the space occupied by Flight 800. Iranians targeting an Israeli plane? Who would have guessed? Ten days later the Olympic Park bombing occurred, wounding over 100.

The behavior of the aides seemed to indicate that they knew this was different and serious. With the president telling them to "Dust off the Contingency Plans," I'm led to believe this was no fake or prepared exercise. It doesn't sound like he thought it was an American missile, either. Of course, he could have been lying to his aides as well, in order to make them believe he was worried.

I guess this is why I don't spend much time with conspiracies. Thanks again.

Aliensun
reply to post by charles1952

 

It probably took them that long to develop or buy a missile from somebody for the job. It wouldn't surprise me if they had been helped to acquire that missile from one of our "friends."

We have sufficient reason to believe it was their retribution to us, and Clinton knew it and did nothing, tit-for-tat as the saying goes.

No kidding eh? whodda thought it! Somewhere in the back of my brain is telling me that Israel gave them missiles back in 1985, American made missiles maybe? see how it can go?...'cos Israel didn't like SH too much. Meh, maybe I'm telling porkies.

Just read the article you had linked. At the end it mentions the documentary.

But I still don't recall the Iranian involvement. Back to the documentary I go.

reply to post by AlphaExray


Yep, it was a missile and it was not Iranian.
With Louis Freeh running the FBI it was covered up.
I don't think it was an accident myself.
I think it was the neocons trying to force Clinton in to a foreign debacle with Iran to cost him the election and build the military budget.

When the plane was shot down, there was actually a video shot of the missile homing in the plane and going right into it and poof.. This vid was shown on some nationwide news, but only once.. Then someone pulled the curtain down on that real fast, and after that no one in the news business would even mention anything related to a shoot down scenario..

They did this the same way they ran other events like Boston marathon and the recent one at Sandy Hook..
I remember seeing the vid, and I remember talk shows a day later getting calls with people that mentioned the video being shown once, which was met with huge outbursts of ridicule and anger against anyone claiming to have seen any missile video hitting the plane..

They used extreme character attacks on anyone insinuating it was a missile.. Total media blitzkrieg..

Someone even called Art bell show and mentioned this video and Art got angry and hung up on the caller.

The level and style of counter intelligence used was insane to witness..

I have stated this on more than one occasion when this topic comes up on here. My roommate at the time worked on a small Navy base in Dania Beach Fla., across from the Port of Fort Lauderdale. He was working the night this happened. When he came home and we were talking about it, he told me that yes, the radio chatter that night was that the Navy did do it and it was one their "oppsies" as he put it, but that I didnt hear it from him.

Take from that what you will.

eta: I guess I better add, as I stated, this was the night it happened, so there was no type of story changes in affect at that point in time.

I think if I was a president and knew my own navy did a whoops, I would probably be quick to blame it on some one else too....

With all due respect to the victims and so forth…


This actually one of the only events that nearly all conspiracy nuts like us actually agree on. We all agree it was a missile. Not a fault.



Kinda refreshing.

I would not be at all surprised to find out the missile was fired by the Zionist occupiers of Palestine.

reply to post by brace22


yes you can tell from the ATC recording

alienreality
When the plane was shot down, there was actually a video shot of the missile homing in the plane and going right into it and poof.. This vid was shown on some nationwide news, but only once.. Then someone pulled the curtain down on that real fast, and after that no one in the news business would even mention anything related to a shoot down scenario..

They did this the same way they ran other events like Boston marathon and the recent one at Sandy Hook..
I remember seeing the vid, and I remember talk shows a day later getting calls with people that mentioned the video being shown once, which was met with huge outbursts of ridicule and anger against anyone claiming to have seen any missile video hitting the plane..

They used extreme character attacks on anyone insinuating it was a missile.. Total media blitzkrieg..

Someone even called Art bell show and mentioned this video and Art got angry and hung up on the caller.

The level and style of counter intelligence used was insane to witness..

edit on 20-11-2013 by alienreality because: (no reason given)

I remember within the year after 9/11 a coworker sent me a video (avi) of a cruise-missle skimming across the NY/NJ area supposedly on that fateful day. I didn't save it unfortunately but haven't seen that video since.

Thinking about that as well as these other videos that disappear, could it be part of the operation to solidify the official story? I mean, to put it into perspective....let's say you see a video of your grandmother robbing a bank. That video then vanishes without a trace. If you go around telling people that you say your grandmother robbing a bank on video, what is everyone going to think about it? Your nuts, right?

see where I'm going with this?

reply to post by charles1952


Back then I read the newspaper everyday, checking areas of interest, like business announcements.
New technologies, company projects and such.
Just before this crash in July of 1996, there was the announcement of a Star Wars Defense project test on Long Island. I read it. Do I have a copy or anything to support it? No

A clue maybe: Global Security.org

Nautilus Tactical High Energy Laser The cooperative Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) Demonstrator ACTD was initiated by a memorandum of agreement between the United States and the Government of Israel on 18 July 1996. The THEL is a high- energy laser weapon system that uses proven laser beam generation technologies, proven beam- pointing technologies, and existing sensors and communication networks to provide a new active defense capability in counterair missions. The THEL can provide an innovative solution not offered by other systems or technologies for the acquisition and close-in engagement problems associated with short- to medium-range threats, thereby significantly enhancing coverage of combat forces and theater-level assets. The THEL low-cost per kill (about $3,000 per kill) will also provide a cost-effective defense against low-cost air threats. It features up to 60 shots without reloading and a P(k) near 1 at ranges of some 5 km.

The next day? Please note the use of the word proven twice?
The effect of the cover up is amazing! There were stories at the time. If you live in some little town with a library and a newspaper collection, you can find them...

Extra backgroung info

Several years ago I had a guy a few cubes down that was a retired TWA mechanic at that time and he flat said it was a missle but it didn't go off just punched a hole and the plane blew itself apart. He said Boeing took the blame and the government would give them several big contracts for doing so. this was all out of the blue talk

reply to post by mikell


Did find a interesting page The real reason TWA Flight 800 was destroyed

Think this guy is a ATS poster for sure?

No matter the bad things the rest of the world says about conspiracy theorists, I will always salute you for having flexible, creative minds. "Out of the box" seems invented for you. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to keep up.

I have to admit that despite your best efforts, I'm still leaning towards Iran. Some of the arguments against the Iran theory seem to be just statements, without offering much insight into the reason for the conclusion. Here's one that did, however:

I think it was the neocons trying to force Clinton in to a foreign debacle with Iran to cost him the election and build the military budget.

What I don't understand about this one is that it depends completely on Clinton making public announcements to the effect "The Iranians did it. Let's go get 'em." The plotters never seemed to make any efforts to connect the missile to Iran, and Clinton didn't seem to want to volunteer to hang himself. It doesn't seem like a real Washington plot, especially considering it killed hundreds for an outrageous gamble.

If the neocons (and I'm not sure anymore what that means) wanted to drag Clinton into war with Iran, they could have planted three or four bombs around New York and D.C. without killing anybody, but leaving behind "evidence" implicating Iran.

For me, the insoluble problem is this:

By 3 a.m. the Clintons had apparently gathered enough information to call National Security Adviser Lake with the following message: "Dust off the contingency plans."

I can't think of any explanation for this other than that Clinton was seriously thinking about blowing the stuffing out of somebody.