Home LoginSearchHelpPassword Retrieval Contact Us
Get your FREE FTW Catalog today!
START HERE
| How to Use this Website
| About Michael C. Ruppert & FTW
| Why Subscribe?
| Glossary
| The World Since September 11th
| C.I.A. & Drugs
| Politics
| Regional Conflicts
| The Economy
| Pandora's Box
| Hall of Unsung Heroes
| Get Involved
| The Forum
| Upcoming Events
| Store Main Page
| New Products
| Package Deals
| Subscribe to FTW
| FTW Back Issues
| Videos & DVDs
| Special Investigations
| Books & Magazines
| Renewals
| Donations
| FTW CATALOG
| Economy Watch
| Nation Watch
| Media Watch
| About Michael C. Ruppert
| Recommended Reading
| Links
| What People Are Saying
| Announcements
| Whistle Blowers
| Copyright Policy
| Terms & Conditions
| Privacy Policy
| Site Map
FTW P.O. Box 6061-350 Sherman Oaks, CA 91413 Phone: (818) 788-8791 E-mail: service@copvcia.com
1998 - 2003© Copyright From The Wilderness Publications
-- BOOK REVIEW Richard Clarke's Orchestra: Maestro Plays Simple Waltz; Shackled Media Manage to Dance Along by Jamey Hecht, PhD © Copyright 2004, From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only. [There's a very troubling aspect of Clarke's testimonies that can and should be questioned. He maintains that he had repeatedly urged, both in the Clinton and Bush administrations, that direct action be taken to destroy A l Qaeda and the Taliban. But there is abundant evidence that Clarke's plans had been listened to and implemented. A great many publications, from the Indian magazine, “India Reacts” (June 26, 2001) to the BBC's George A rney (Sept. 18, 2001) to authors Jean Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié “Bin Laden the Forbidden Truth” documented clearly that plans and staging for a US military invasion of A fghanistan in October of 2001 were in place and being pursued long before 9/11. It is absurd to think Clarke didn't know of this. It was, in fact, common knowledge in the region. US special operations troop deployments in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan through 2000 and early 2001 belie Clarke's assertions that nothing was being done. It was the fact of these preparations that gave weight to Forbidden Truth's allegations that an ultimatum was delivered to the Taliban by a group called the 6+2 in the fall of 2001 (before the attacks),”Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we will bury you in a carpet of bombs.” Their goal: to secure pipeline routes intended to bring Turkmeni natural gas to market and supply and Enron-owned power plant in India and to “monetize' what were then hoped for large oil reserves in the Caspian Sea basin. A s FTW has repeatedly reported, drilling operations in Kazakhstan from 2000 through 2002 showed that the Caspian reserves just weren't there in the quantities hoped for. Ultimately, we are left to answer a deeper question. How much truth does Richard Clarke actually wish to tell? Can we assume that his motives are entirely pure? Or is he, to one extent or another, still protecting some of the deepest secrets of a system which raised him and in which he still hopes to function? Either way, Clarke has left a lot of meat on the table to work with. -- MCR] APRIL 5, 2004 1800 PDT ( FTW) – At the end of a distinguished three-decade intelligence career in various offices of the U.S. government, Richard Clarke has just published a sharply critical account of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism record. Timed to appear on the day of Mr. Clarke's public testimony in the 9-11 Commission hearings, the book has caused a wave of indignation among those it chides. It has also done much to redirect the country's attention back to 9-11, even as the Bush group tries to wield that day of mass murder as its own private political instrument. Readers of FTW and other critics of the official 9-11 narrative will be right to condemn Clarke's book as too little, too late. But it's not too little to embarrass the administration, and it's not too late to influence the November election (assuming that there will be a 2004 election). Incisive readers and critics perceive that 9-11 was a false flag operation, perpetrated by a consortium that included elements of the Bush junta and the bin Laden organization with which it enjoys financial and personal ties. Readers of the mainstream Left-progressive press (like the Nation, which this writer has critiqued on these grounds in Media Monitors Network and From the Wilderness) regard 9-11 as an episode of colossal incompetence and “intelligence failure.” Clarke espouses that view and attributes much of the failure to the President and his appointees, while distinguishing himself from them by taking on a measure of the blame with a heartfelt apology. But the rhetorical flavor of Clarke's book is very strange. It doesn't read like a progressive's complaint, nor like an insider's defense. Maybe we're projecting or reading wishfully, but we seem to hear Clarke speaking in two voices – an overt voice that tells the public about the Bush administration's incompetence and neglect, and a covert voice that whispers to those who can hear it: false flag. En route to his explicit case for Bush's incompetent negligence, Clarke's narrative provides context by revisiting several other episodes of recent history, among them the crash of TWA 800 in July 1996, and the triggering of Desert Storm in 1990. My aim in discussing those incidents here is not to revisit them for their intrinsic interest, but to examine Clarke's weirdly self-defeating treatments of them in the light of his book's ostensible purpose. If I'm correct in concluding that Mr. Clarke knows full well that the official explanations are bogus – and that he's implying this knowledge in these very pages, for those who can see it – then his message regarding 9-11 is much more radical than it appears. He's in no position to say “Bush did it.” If he were to say that, the media would disappear and he could accomplish much less. Clarke must be vividly aware of this, since in Chapter 5 he tells the story of Pierre Salinger, President Kennedy's White House Press Secretary who publicly claimed in the months following the TWA 800 crash that he had radar images and documentary evidence indicating a missile had destroyed the plane. Salinger is called by an NSC staffer “whacked; he's lost it. The real world is a planet he left long ago.” Whatever the facts of Salinger's case, it's instructive that Clarke has chosen to invoke it here. The lesson of the Salinger anecdote is: say too much, and you won't be heard; say a little, and you might move some people. The book that ate the month of March, 2004 has some very interesting merits. It's easy to overlook them if you're furious about the murder of three thousand people. But from a strategic point of view, this book is definitely a win for the political justice movement. On rare occasions, a certain kind of limited hangout can do more than aid the cover-up; if it comes from deep enough inside the establishment, it can quietly destabilize the cover-up, sometimes more effectively than a direct attack. That position might seem like a sell-out compromise, but let's be clear: the effective thing about Clarke's particular attack is its source and its timing – not its completeness or its force (it has little of either). Finding something to applaud in A gainst A ll Enemies (and the corresponding Clarke performance in the sham hearings) does not imply that you, or I, or FTW, or the 9-11 political justice movement, should take Clarke's position. We absolutely shouldn't, because he denounces the tip of the criminal 9-11 iceberg and tacitly accepts the rest. That much is pretty clear before you read the book. But as you make your way through it, something very interesting happens. Clarke seems to leave a trail of breadcrumbs for those who know about the dark side of September 11. It's as if he wants the better-informed among his readers to know that the book is really a politically pragmatic strike against a consortium of murderers, not the frank complaint against administration failure and incompetence that the media sees in it. Watch the Frontline episode archived in Realvideo at the PBS website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/ And read the additional transcript interview of Clarke on the neighboring page: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/interviews/clarke.html I think you'll agree that one of the burning motivations behind Clarke's current activity is his bereavement and anger over the loss of his friend John O'Neill, the talented, maverick FBI agent who foiled the Millennium NYC plot, investigated the USS Cole bombing (until the US Yemeni ambassador stopped him) and nearly prevented 9-11. O'Neill left the FBI to become security director at the World Trade Center. He died in the attacks, and you can see his name among the thousands of others written on the makeshift paper wall-hanging which passersby created in the weeks following 9-11; it's preserved in the Union Square subway station in New York City. As certain exceptionally courageous individuals among the 9-11 victims' families can attest, when a person you really need is killed, you feel driven to find out who did it and expose them. I believe this may well be what Clarke is doing, albeit in a subtle and indirect way. Before we turn to the text, let's suppose Richard Clarke does know that Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, [FBI Supervisory Special Agent Dave] Frasca, and key players in the relevant agencies are guilty of criminal complicity in the September 11 th murders. If he overtly says what he knows, he'll trigger one of the standard responses from media and government; they'll ignore him, slander him, ridicule him, and quickly move on. Instead, the wily Clarke is singing a moderate war song against the Bush Administration, FAA, FBI, and CIA – a tune so finely adjusted to the media's tin ear that even Time and Newsweek and the national papers can hear it and dance along. Allegro, ma non troppo (fast, but not too much). Here's what I'm seeing as a trail of breadcrumbs. This is Clarke on Ramzi Yousef, pp. 94-5: With almost every terrorist incident or similar event, an urban legend develops that challenges the official story. After the events of 9/11, one widespread legend had it that Israel had attacked the World Trade Center and had warned Jews not to go to work that day. After TWA 800 crashed, the legend was that the US Navy had shot down the civilian 747. With Ramzi Yousef, the legend was that there were actually two people: one was the man arrested by the FBI in Pakistan and the other was a mastermind of Iraqi intelligence, the Muhabarat. This legend was part of the theories of Laurie Mylroie. A bit later on, in the next paragraph: Mylroie's thesis was that there was an elaborate plot by Saddam to attack the United States and that Yousef / Basit was his instrument, beginning with the first World Trade Center bombing. Her writing gathered a small cult following, including the recently relieved CIA Director Jim Woolsey and Wolfowitz. Next, Clarke quotes Jason Vest's November 27, 2001 article in the Village Voice: According to intelligence and diplomatic sources, Powell – as well as George Tenet – was infuriated by a private intelligence endeavor arranged by Wolfowitz in September. Apparently obsessed with proving a convoluted theory put forth by American Enterprise Institute adjunct fellow Laurie Mylroie that tied Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Wolfowitz, according to a veteran intelligence officer, dispatched former Director of Intelligence and cabalist James Woolsey to the United Kingdom, tasking him with gathering additional ‘evidence' to make the case. Clarke has no immediate need to mention these “legends,” but he does so. Why? The first one is false; Israel didn't perpetrate the attacks, and its intelligence agency repeatedly tried to warn the U.S. government about them. 1 This is not to ignore a serious body of evidence however, including DEA reports, showing that Israeli intelligence acted as an accomplice with US intelligence in facilitating the attacks before they happened. But the second is probably true. If TWA 800 wasn't shot down by a missile (Navy or not), then what are we to make of all the physical evidence suggesting that it was, 2 and why did the FBI threaten and harass witnesses, 116 of whom insisted they saw some kind of missile rise from near the horizon and blow the plane to bits? 3 Both of these are called “urban legend.” But Clarke's third example is the Yousef story, which he treats as if it were the work of some independent researcher, the sort of conspiracy critic who might have come up with the aforementioned pair of “legends.” He calls the Yousef story a “theory” by “author Laurie Mylroie.” How did this particular theory get so influential? “Her writing gathered a small cult following, including Woolsey and Wolfowitz.” Everybody knows that the American Enterprise Institute is one among many right-wing Washington think tanks that produce useful position papers more or less on command. It's housed in the same building as PNAC (Project for a New American century). Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney are members. 4 You don't have to be Mike Ruppert to read between the lines here. Clarke is being understated to the point of sarcasm: of course the story of a connection between Ramzi Yousef and Saddam Hussein is not an “urban legend”; of course Laurie Mylroie is not some neutral, disinterested “author”; and of course, one has to surmise, Wolfowitz directed her to produce this absurdity from her post at AEI in the first place. I'm trying to call attention to Clarke's tone. It implies that he knows this is all a limited hangout. In the same chapter, Clarke mentions a striking detail of the personnel situation on 9-11: in a conversation with FAA administrator Jane Garvey, Clarke asks how long it will take to clear the skies: ‘The air traffic manager,' Jane went on, ‘says there are 4,400 birds up now. We can cancel all takeoffs quickly, but grounding them all that are already up… Nobody's ever done this before. Don't know how long it will take. By the way, it's Ben's first day on the job.' Garvey was referring to Ben Sliney, the very new National Operations Manager at FAA. (p.5) Very new indeed! If Clarke had no suspicion that 9-11 was an inside job, wouldn't he be a bit less understated here? Wouldn't he comment on the appalling coincidence that the man at the controls of the FAA's National Operations on the morning of September 11th had logged no hours whatsoever in that position? Sure, piquant irony is just a writing style – but in Clarke's pages it certainly sounds loaded. 5 His discussion of the origins of the first Gulf War is strange; it's as if he were trying to give two opposite accounts at once. Changes in Iraqi troop readiness (i.e., a switch to the radio silence called “Emcon”) suggest the possibility that Iraq may be about to move against Kuwait. This triggers a meeting within which only a few people are concerned, but everyone is surprised: Only [Bob] Kimmit, NSC's Richard Haasm and I seemed concerned. CIA Deputy Director Dick Kerr said there was no chance of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Admiral Dave Jeremiah agreed and refused my suggestion to retain U.S. forces that were leaving the area after an exercise. State's own Middle East bureau had a report from our Ambassador, April Glaspie, noting Saddam's reassurances to her [my emphasis]. The meeting broke up without a sense of urgency. I went home. (p.56) But for the educated audience, the very name “April Glaspie” means the-person-who-gave-Saddam-a-green-light-to-invade-Kuwait. Let me remind the reader, as Mr. Clarke does not, that on July 25, 1990 Saddam didn't give reassurances to Ambassador Glaspie; she gave reassurances to Saddam: Saddam Hussein: "If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab [waterway between Iraq and Iran] - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Saddam's view, includes Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?" (Pause, then Ambassador Glaspie speaks carefully) U.S. Ambassador Glaspie: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."6 Yet on page 69, Clarke claims that “[Secretary of State] Baker would never have gone to war in the Gulf and made that clear at several points in the months after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.” Mr. Baker was Ms. Glaspie's boss. If he didn't want a U.S. war in the Gulf, why would he have “directed” Glaspie (or State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler, or John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs) to indicate that an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was not going to bother the U.S., when he knew that G.H.W.B. hoped to retaliate with a major attack on Iraq? When Clarke says that Baker claimed to be against the Gulf War, I'm not sure I'm supposed to believe him. Now, Clarke has just referred to the TWA 800 shoot-down hypothesis as an example of “legend.” On pages 121-126 his discussion of TWA 800 rejects that hypothesis and offers the official alternative. But the way he goes about it is, again, a little weird. Here he is talking to his friend the late John O'Neill: I tried to dissuade him from the Stinger theory. ‘It was at 15,000 feet. No Stinger or any missile like it can go that high. The distance and angle are too far from the beach, and even from a boat right under the flight path, you can't get that high.' John wanted proof from the Pentagon. I agreed to get it. (p.124) But what follows is a description of Clarke's visit to the FBI lab, and there is no further mention of Pentagon input regarding TWA 800. It's a bright red herring anyway, since the “Stinger theory” is no longer (if it ever was) the major hypothesis of the critics at the time of Clarke's writing (2004). The Stinger was initially interesting because it didn't require a vehicle; somebody standing on the beach could have shot one from his shoulder. But it turned out there were several ships nearby that night, and in the air, a Navy P-3 Orion. Regarding the latter, says the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization, “The McArthur/Islip Airport radar (ISP radar) was the FAA's closest radar site to Flight 800 when it exploded. For approximately 28 minutes up until Flight 800 lost electrical power, only a Navy P-3 Orion aircraft was tracked by the ISP radar in the airspace near where Flight 800 exploded and fell to the sea (see Figure 1).”7 So, off Clarke goes to the FBI lab where the wreckage is being assembled. 8 An anonymous technician shows him what to look for on the metal wreckage: “See the pitting pattern and the tear. It was a slow, gaseous eruption from the inside.” But later on the same page, Clarke explains that he's convinced of the FBI's official explanation, summing up this way: “There was no pitting or tear [!], no indication of an inbound explosion from a Stinger-like missile…” If that's not tipping your hand, I don't know what is. That Clarke does not mention that traces of solid rocket fuel were recovered from seat cushions inside TWA 800 is a sign that he's limiting his discussion to avoid going too far. Now for the big elephant in the room. On pages 126-127, just after the TWA 800 discussion, are the paragraphs that drove me to write this article. I have to quote them in full: Unfortunately, the public debate over the [TWA 800] incident was clouded by conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are a constant in counterterrorism. Conspiracy theorists simultaneously hold two contrary beliefs: a) that the U.S. government is so incompetent that it can miss explanations that the theorists can uncover, and b) that the U.S. government can keep a big and juicy secret. The first belief has some validity. The second idea is pure fantasy. Dismissing conspiracy theorists out of hand, however, is dangerous. (p.126) Let's take this a sentence at a time: 1) “Unfortunately, the public debate over the [TWA 800] incident was clouded by conspiracy theory.” Yes, it's unfortunate when a perfectly good debate is ruined – clouded – by the presence of more than one point of view. 2) “Conspiracy theories are a constant in counterterrorism.” Except for the part that counters terrorism by lone nuts. 3) “Conspiracy theorists simultaneously hold two contrary beliefs: a) that the U.S. government is so incompetent that it can miss explanations that the theorists can uncover …” This takes the cake. It's the cover-up that alleges government incompetence and intelligence failure; the critics allege government complicity and guilt. The central claim of Clarke's book is that the Bush administration accidentally permitted 9-11 because it was incompetent, in that it focused on missile defense and Iraq instead of on al Qaeda; in Clarke's words, the government missed the explanation whereas he uncovered it. By his own definition, then, Clarke is a conspiracy theorist. Yet everybody knows that the phrase is a derogatory term for anybody who argues that the U.S. government includes murderers with the power to cover up their own crimes. By definition, nobody in the mainstream makes that argument; not Al Franken's new Air America radio show, not the Nation magazine, not NPR, not PBS, and certainly not the 9-11 Warren Commission. Those are the voices crying “incompetence,” and Clarke's is the loudest. 4) “Conspiracy theorists… hold …b) that the U.S. government can keep a big and juicy secret.” No, we hold that the huge quantities of information (e.g., documents, recordings, transcripts, testimony, diaries and logbooks, photographs, interviews and physical evidence) which the government emits (some of it deliberately, some accidentally, some through FOIA and litigation) might be worth looking at. For instance, Mike Ruppert pointed out long ago that Dave Frasca, Special Agent In Charge at the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit, was the choke point high up in the Bureau, the man who quashed important investigations of Moussaoui and his cohorts prior to 9-11, including those by Colleen Rowley, Kenneth Williams and others. The lesson in the Frasca story is that you don't need the secrecy of thousands, just the obstructionism of a few people in the right places. But the other lesson is that stuff gets out – stuff like the Rowley memo, the Phoenix memo, and the data with which FTW established the identity of the man so bitterly described in those memos. And things have always gotten out. Already in 1964, pioneer researchers like Sylvia Meagher and Mark Lane uncovered scores of facts indicating the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. Clarke's assertion that critics overestimate the government's capacity for secrecy is itself “pure fantasy.” If there were no evidence discovered or leaked, there would be nothing to discuss. How could a critical discussion of the evidence include the belief that the government keeps its secrets perfectly and therefore there is no evidence to discuss? So Clarke's dismissal of “conspiracy theory” does not sound sincere, but it doesn't exactly sound like confident disinformation, either. It sounds transparent. And what makes it more transparent is the last passage I want to discuss: Another conspiracy theory intrigued me because I could never disprove it. The theory seemed unlikely on its face: Ramzi Yousef or Khalid Sheik Mohammad had taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building. The problem was that, upon investigation, we established that both Ramzi Yousef and Nichols had been in the city of Cebu on the same days. I had been to Cebu years earlier; it is on an island in the central Philippines. It was a town in which word could have spread that a local girl was bringing her American boyfriend home and that the American hated the U.S. government. Yousef and Khalid Sheik Muhammad had gone there to help create an al Qaeda spinoff, a Philippine affiliate chapter, named after a hero of the Afghan war against the Soviets, Abu Sayaff. Could the al Qaeda explosives expert have been introduced to the angry American who proclaimed his hatred for the U.S. government? We do not know, despite some FBI investigation. We do know that Nichols's bombs did not work before his Philippine stay and were deadly when he returned. We also know that Nichols continued to call Cebu long after his wife returned to the United States. The final coincidence is that several al Qaeda operatives had attended a radical Islamic conference a few years earlier in, in all places, Oklahoma City. (p.127) A disinformationist who wanted to succeed wouldn't round out his list of misguided “conspiracy theories” with a story that he “could never disprove,” while continuing to call it a “conspiracy theory.” Peter Dale Scott once remarked, with his characteristic brilliance, "Disinformation, in order to be successful, must be 95% accurate." He meant that if you want to deceive the public, tell a story that's mostly the truth and then slip in something that's your very own lie. But Clarke is doing the opposite. He's telling what serious critics will read as barely disguised lies, then adding something he “could never disprove.” Might he be trying to tell us something which others won't hear? The phrase AGAINST ALL ENEMIES comes from the Oath of Office, in which officials like the President solemnly swear to “defend the Constitution Against All Enemies, foreign and domestic." And who is the main target of Clarke's book, the enemy against whom it levels its charges? The Bush administration. Are they foreign? No, they are domestic. Now for what reason would anybody call the Bush administration domestic enemies? It's hard to miss, if you know the facts of 9-11. The explicit meaning of the book's title is that Bush did not defend the country against foreign enemies; the implicit meaning is that by attacking Bush, Clarke is now defending it against domestic enemies. ENDNOTES 1. See item 64 of FTW's 9-11 timeline: Sept. 11, 2001 - Employees of Odigo, Inc. in Israel, one of the world's largest instant messaging companies with offices in New York, receive threat warnings of an imminent attack on the WTC less than two hours before the first plane hits. Law enforcement authorities have gone silent about any investigation of this. The Odigo research and development offices in Israel are located in the city of Herzliyya, a ritzy suburb of Tel Aviv that is the same location as the Institute for Counter Terrorism, which eight days later reports details of insider trading on 9-11. [Source: CNN's Daniel Sieberg, Sept. 28, 2001; MSNBC Newsbytes, Brian McWilliams, Sept. 27, 2001; Ha'aretz, Sept. 26, 2001] 2. http://www.flight800.org/petition/pet_contents.htm 3. http://www.flight800.org/witness-review.htm; http://www.flight800.org/petition/pet_sect9.htm 4. For a profile of AEI, see http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/aei.php 5. “I thought I was missing something here,” writes Clarke in his recounting of a meeting on the afternoon of September 12th, 2001 inside the White House. “Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor” (pp. 30-31). I doubt this is a conscious covert reference to America's actual invasion of Mexico, triggered in 1898 by a U.S. false flag operation against one of its own ships, the USS Maine. But there sure is a reference to Pearl Harbor here, the most famous false flag operation in history, which triggered U.S. entry into WWII as American authorities knowingly permitted the Japanese attack. Is Clarke trying to tell us something? 6. As the sources found on the following web page demonstrate, this was no mistranslation; Glaspie knew exactly what she was doing, as did her colleagues: http://www.mideastfacts.com/saddam_glaspie.html A longer transcript of the Glaspie-Hussein meeting is here: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html 7.http://www.flight800.org/petition/pet_sect4.htm. FIRO also points out the presence of ships near the scene and the FBI's failure to identify them: “When Flight 800 crashed, boats and ships up and down Long Island's coast converged on the crash site. But the four closest didn't react at all. Two of these four were due west and within six miles of Flight 800 when it exploded. They were on parallel, east-southeast headings, as Flight 800 became a cascade of flames just off the port side of their bows. But strangely, neither changed course or speed during or after the crash.” FIRO is currently suing the FBI. Perhaps it's worth mentioning that although the presence of these ships and the Navy aircraft are enough to provide for a non-Stinger explanation, it's also quite possible to shoot down a commercial jet at 15,000 feet (and TWA 800 was actually only 13,800 feet up) with a ground based HAWK missile from the beach. Easily transportable on a 5-ton flatbed truck, the HAWK system's ceiling is 30,000 feet, and you can watch a film of a HAWK launch – on a beach, firing into the sky over the water – at the website of the Federation of American Scientists, page: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/hawk.htm. 8. Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid write in Media Monitor, a publication of Accuracy In Media: “The penchant of the FBI and NTSB for hiding, altering and finally destroying TWA Flight 800 evidence is very revealing. Last summer the NTSB, headed by a Bush appointee, secretly sold all the TWA 800 wreckage that had been kept at the Calverton hangar as scrap metal to be recycled. The buyer had to promise to keep it secret to get the contract.” http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2002/06/10.html http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/books.shtml
FROM email: Your name: TO email: |  |
Sign Up Here for FREE Email Alerts! [Subscribe to the From The Wilderness Newsletter] Become a Member Today!