It's plausible

Submitted by John W McGinley (United States), Aug 30, 2004 at 13:53

This report rings true. It certaily matches my initial gut feeling when the plane went down. The official report was a beautiful exercise in qualification. did they ever think to ask WHY the "verticle fin" came off? I am not surprised that the Bush Administration -- or any other Administration -- would be disposed to deny terrorism as a cause unless the situation was over-whelimingly unambiguous ......

Other plane crashes: What's the truth behind the NYC-to-Paris flight circa 1995 which blew up over the Eastern portion of Long Island? There was, at the time, one credible report that it was an unarmed missile which hit the plane and detonated the fuel tank. The Navy was apparently carrying out testing at the time. President Clinton was very quick to implicitly deny the terrorism angle very early on before there was any investigation, as though to make sure that no one would be fanning those flames of fear since he already knew the truth about the crash. And the investigation itself was just a circus, drawn out in such a way as to make people forget. I believe that TWA was cajoled into making payments to the victims, but I would not be surpised at all if it came out that they were secretly compensated by the government for the payout. John W. McGinley

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".