For the Sake of Us All by Daniel T. Zanoza
It cannot be refuted or denied, but it can be ignored. For whatever the reason, there have been times in American history where the U.S. government participated in the spreading of disinformation or lies. For example, until this day, many believe both Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew the Japanese were about to attack Pearl Harbor. Indeed, the conventional wisdom at the time was either Midway Island or Pearl Harbor, Hawaii would be targeted by the Japanese war machine.
It is important to remember most Americans believed the country should follow a policy of isolation. It was a problem of the Europeans and the Orient. Therefore, U.S. interests would be best served if we simply stayed out of a war that many felt was not our business.
Those who argue against the idea Roosevelt and Churchill knew we would come under attack at any moment from the Japanese, have little solid ground to stand on. Indeed, American Armed Forces in the Pacific were told to expect an attack on either Midway or Pearl. But after the day that will live in infamy, individuals like Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter Short were appointed to be the fall guys in the light of history. But they were responsible for the December 7th 1941 disaster only if what happened on that day were scrutinized under a very dim light.
Roosevelt and Churchill might be given a pass for their actions which led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans during the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor--if one truly believes, without this conspiracy, Japan and Germany might have grown so powerful they would have been unstoppable if America had not gone to war when it did. Roosevelt believed, in the opinion of many, only such an attack would galvanize American support that would lead the country into World War II.
In contrast, events like the downing of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996 and the crash of Airbus A300-600 in Queens, New York on November 12, 2001 may have been covered up for different reasons. Imagine, it's almost two months to the day after two jetliners were purposely flown into the World Trade Center, causing one of the greatest disasters in American history. It had to be another act of terrorism, didn't it? Well, as I wrote in parts 1 and 2 of this series, the key to finding the truth about any event is to watch the media. I'm not saying the mainstream press always reports the truth. I simply know, if the media is shying away from something, there is a good chance there is a reason why.
The Airbus flight, which crashed into the Rockaway neighborhood in Queens, New York, seemed to be a sure act of terror to most Americans. After all, how could it happen again in America's most populous city. Was it a coincidence or had Osama Bin Laden struck again? If you depended on information dispensed solely by the media, the possibility of terrorism was soon being downplayed. In fact, there was little mention that the downing of Airbus Flight 587 out of JFK International Airport could have been a terrorist act. The media ran from the subject and quickly featured eyewitnesses who said they saw the engine fall off of the plane shortly before its demise. The eyewitness reports did not match what the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) ultimately claimed had occurred leading to the Airbus crash. According to the NTSB, an experienced co-pilot erratically manipulated the aircraft's rudder. These actions, allegedly, led to the failure of five bolts which helped to affix the vertical stabilizer to the aircraft and this, in turn, put too much stress on the plane's tail, causing it to fall off.
In essence, the government placed all the blame on one man, even though they admitted the co-pilot had gone through a similar situation before and was warned about inappropriately manipulating the Airbus rudder.
It was a nice, cozy, little package. There was nothing to fix on similar airplanes. If the co-pilot had acted in a different manner, Airbus Flight 587 would have never crashed into the Queens neighborhood.
However, there is another scenario which could have taken place on November 12th of 2001. Is it possible terrorists may have, once again, entered the cockpit, taking over control of the Airbus? Of course it is. And could the plane have crashed because of an inexperienced pilot hell bent on destruction? Or could this have been a Flight 93 type scenario where a cockpit struggle may have caused the Airbus to go into erratic flight, hence leading to the vertical stabilizer breaking free from the aircraft? Again, the answer to this question is a resounding "yes!" There were no witnesses left alive to tell us what happened on Airbus Flight 587. Therefore, the sole possessors of information concerning what happened on that aircraft was the government.
On July 17, 1996, Flight 800 was cut in two by a devastating explosion over the Atlantic, after departing JFK. This time literally hundreds of individuals swore they saw a ground to air missile strike the airliner which carried 230 passengers and crew. Here the media could not disregard the possibility of a terrorist act. Just too many witnesses. But every time the mainstream media talked about the crash of Flight 800, the primary focus was on mechanical failure. Next, the press paid some attention to the possibility a bomb brought the cross-Atlantic flight down to the sea and only begrudgingly did the media consider Flight 800 was a victim of a ground to air missile attack, intentional or otherwise.
I say otherwise because it soon became common knowledge a U.S. missile cruiser was in the area of the Flight 800 tragedy. Was it possible an errant launch of an American missile took down Flight 800 or were the deaths of 230 people caused by terrorists who fired a missile at the aircraft from an offshore platform?
I quickly came to the conclusion, if it were anything but mechanical failure, the American public would never hear about it. And even though traces of explosives were detected among the plane's wreckage, the crash supposedly was due to a spark near one of its fuel tanks.
Now, were all Boeing 747's grounded until the problem was corrected? No. Why weren't the planes grounded? Was it because the FBI and the NTSB knew mechanical failure was not the cause for the crash of Flight 800? From that date on, passengers were presumably told to roll the dice when boarding a Boeing 747 and, if they made it to their destination in one piece, it was a good day.
Why would the government cover-up these possible acts of terror? The answer is simple. Economics. If Airbus Flight 587 were in fact another victim of a terrorist attack, Americans' trust in the aviation industry would have been totally destroyed. After all, it is only during the last two years the number of those flying has reached pre 9/11 numbers. If Airbus Flight 587 could be brought down by terrorists just months after the horrors of 9/11, it might have taken the commercial aviation industry many more years to recover, if at all. The subsequent impact this would have had on America's economy would be incalculable. Therefore, wouldn't keeping another terrorist attack on a commercial flight secret be a good thing in the minds of some?
The same can be said about Flight 800, but with one caveat. What would have happened if Flight 800 had been the target of an errant sea to air missile fired from an American war ship? The ramifications of this scenario would have been devastating to the military, the current administration and to the airline industry. There is no way this information would have been released to the public. Yet there is no way the Navy could say, "it couldn't happen."
For a moment, let us harken back to July 3, 1988. The U.S. Navy warship Vincennes mistakenly fired a missile at an Iranian commercial airliner, killing 290 innocent people in the Persian Gulf. It was a terrible accident, but just the same, it happened. However, this time, the U.S. Navy could not deny the incident, due to international attention. Is this what happened on a steamy night in July of 1996? We will probably never know.
Conspiracies take shape for many different reasons. Some are enacted with good intentions in mind. However, to say it all happened as the book said it did, is folly.
Part 1: Could Conspiracies, Including the Kennedy Assassination and Others, Survive in Time of Internet? http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/04/could-conspirac.html
Part 2: Could They Have Killed Kennedy In The Age Of Internet Technology? http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/05/part-2-conspira.html
NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: Dan@rffm.org