Re: TWA 800: THE CAT IS OUT !!

Michael Lorrey (
Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:07:27 -0500

Ira Brodsky wrote:
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
> There is a difference between be willing and being able. The White House
> may be willing to cover up anything ...but can they cast a spell on
> hundreds of investigators? Are there no political rivalries within the
> U.S. government to get in their way? If things are so monolithic, why
> doesn't Clinton just declare himself Emperor For Life?

They are not monolithic. They only appear so until someone is brave
enough to point out that the Emperor has no clothes, and not worry about
getting his head cut off.

> The phrase "we take care of our own" has
> >many meanings, some of which are pretty insidious.
> You are right about naval vessels. My experience with the U.S. Military,
> however, is somewhat different.
> And, I see other revelations coming out of the military almost daily. If
> people are willing to circumvent the system to reveal sex scandels, I would
> think some would do the same for mass murder.

Yes there are members who have not been properly "taken care of". Many
women still do not feel like they are treated as part of the military,
or only view it as a way to get free education, or try to use the system
for personal aggrandizement. I've witnessed flase harassment cases
personally. Not against myself, but against others. I was the key
witness in a case in which two female airmen framed a male airman with
such claims. If I had not overheard them talking about it beforehand,
his life would be over.

I am not saying the truth may not come out. If some agency with
equivalent power shows an interest in invesigating this in earnest, I
can guarrantee that any witnesses will come out of the woodwork. Until
such a time, the operating rule among lower ranking people is: COVER
IT JAMMED DOWN THEIR THROATS. I've been there, done that, I know what I
am talking about. Anyone with a tale to tell needs a lot of cover
overhead to make it home.

> >> just don't think they could pull it off if they tried. Gov't employees
> >> aren't that competent.
> >
> >US military personnel are not your regular government employees.
> That's true, but we are talking about the military *plus* other government
> agencies. I am hardly convinced that Bill Clinton loves, respects, and
> would protect the U.S. military.

But he loves himself and his own power far more than the Constitution.

>In fact, I can see a motivation for
> Clinton to nail the military.

If word got out right before the election that a navy missile shot down
one of our own airplanes full of people, with all the other examples of
either corruption or incompetence in this White House, his approval
rating would have gone into the shitter, and Dole would have had a field

> >The facts are that mechanical failure of the sort necessary to have the
> >failure that occured in that plane by itself has been determined to be
> >fantastically unlikely. It is also a fact that they have only found bomb
> >traces on sections of the plane where ordinances had been stored for
> >shipment during Operation Desert Storm. THe traces they found were no
> >where near that beleived needed to induce the blast the plane
> >experienced. What is left?
> >
> >The fact that it is Navy vessels collecting the debris is like letting a
> >crime suspect examine and collect the evidence at a crime scene.
> That could be. But it contradicts your theory that only a small part of
> the destroyer crew ever knew. This would mean several ships are now in on
> it.

It would mean only a few knew of the missile being fired. Likewise, only
a few members of a salvage crew ever see the debris recovered, and
incriminating pieces could easily be tagged underwater with transponders
to be picked up by sub. Sub based salvage operations have been conducted
by the Navy in the past, including the recovery of a whole Soviet
submarine. Never heard about that, did you?

> Skeptics are people who demand truth and proof. That's your definition --
> and I agree with it.

So when are you going to demand the truth about the crash?

> The issue here isn't whether you are skeptical and I am not. To me, the
> issue is that some people are suggesting that since the government
> sometimes lies (which it does), it always lies (which it does not).

Yet if someone you knew lied to you half the time, wouldn't you only
believe 50% of what they say? 50% is enough to suspect someone, even
enough to bring criminal charges against someone in court or convene a
grand jury.

> I don't say you are wrong to doubt the official investigation, I say I am
> also not wrong to doubt the conspiracy theories. The fact is, the
> conspiracy theories are based on selective reading of what are at bottom
> just more press reports.

And the commonly accepted views of events operate the same way. The
"winners" in history pick a story that is believeable, and find the
facts to fit. ANything else is dismissed as wacko.

> So it comes down to what we know and don't know. We know 100+ people
> believe they saw a missile. We know eyewitnesses at night can be
> unreliable. However, even if we decide they really did see a missile --
> which I do not consider unreasonable -- I have heard no "facts" that prove
> it was fired by a US Navy ship.

The Captains log has not been released to the public, and has been
classfied. Until it is released, a suspect is still out there.
> You can't argue *both* that the US Navy can keep anything quiet they want
> *and* that you or others know it was the Navy -- unless there is objective
> proof like photographs of the ship firing the missile, US Navy missile
> debris washed ashore, or whatever. Otherwise, how did you find out what
> they are so good at concealing?

Witnesses and the public statement of a DEMOCRAT who has long experience
in White House and other high level government business. 157 eye
witnesses corroborating each other is a much bigger statistical lump to
dismiss than just a few confused reports. If facts are not true, they
typically are widely varied in being described by witnesses. When they
all agree, that typically means that is accceptable as a fact.

> I recognize the US Navy missile theory is in many ways more attractive and
> exciting. Arguments like "here's what really happened" and "you are being
> lied to" and "we know the true story because we have pieced it together"
> are not based in fact, however.

Yet people are condemned to the death chamber on less every day.

> We know that terrorists have been targeting US passenger planes. We know
> there have been some Islamic fundamentalists arrested and convicted in the
> New York City area who have vowed to take revenge. So I lean towards the
> terrorist theory.

Yet where is the bomb residue?

> But I am not mad at anyone for leaning in other directions. For me, this
> isn't about which theory wins or loses, this is about finding out what
> really happened.

A good investigator does not take someone off a suspect list simply
because they say "I didn't do it". Anyone with means and opportunity
should be pursued to the fullest extent of the law, even if they are the
law, and especially so if that is the case.