(1) You have previously stated that you don't believe that the U.S. Navy submarines have the capability to fire a sub-surface to air missile (meaning that the missile can't hit a drone or aircraft). How certain are you of this?
(2) If a submarine fired the missile, then USN Director of Submarine Warfare Rear Adm Malcolm Fages should have knowledge of this. Have you ever spoken with him or sent him a Freedom of Information Act request? Would you be willing to do this?
I can't speak for Cmdr. Donaldson and he does not read or participate in message boards, but I believe he has stated that as far as he is aware the Navy does not have a sub launched surface to air missile. There are sub launched cruise missiles, but they are altogether a different thing with terrain following radar, not a heat seeking or radar guided anti-aircraft weapon. Afterall, why would you use a sub to shoot down aircraft in the first place? Subs are used for stealth to either seek out other subs or to launch ballistic missiles. It seems wholly unproductive to develop a sub launched anti-aircraft weapon.
As for Bill sending a FOIA on any subject, he has not and sees no reason to do so. Bill served with many of the current top brass in the Navy over the years and every one of them has assured him that the Navy was not involved and could not have possibly have kept it quiet if they had been. You have to remember that the majority of sailors on any Navy ship are 18-24 years old and only in the service for one or two tours and then discharged. A Standard Missile launch would be known by everyone in the ship without question. It is a huge event. There is no way you could keep hundreds or thousands of these kids quiet after they left the Navy (assuming you could keep them quiet while in the Navy). They would be standing in line to sell their stories to the Networks, tabloids, etc.
You stated that the Navy can't possibly keep it a secret because sailors would talk as soon as they are discharged from the service. Well, first of all, who would ever think that a missile shootdown of an aircraft in the U.S. could be kept out of the national press. Yet this is exactly what has happened for the past 4 years. You are making the BIG assumption that hundreds or thousands of sailors are aware what happened. What if it was one crew on a submarine. What if they were told that this is a "matter of national security" and if they talk they will be killed and their families may be harmed "in some way". What would you do in that situation?
Cmdr. Donaldson's bias against possible Navy involvement has been apparent since the Interim Report when he identified the Russian SA-6 missile as the likely agent of TWA800's destruction. He should not have speculated as to which missile type was involved at that early stage of his investigation. An SM-1 would cause damage indistinguishable from an SA-6. His bias continues to this day, and (in my opinion) has greatly hampered his investigation.
If Deputy FBI Director James Kallstrom was telling the truth when he stated that several Islip radar surface contacts were US Navy vessels on classified operations, and one or more of those vessels was involved in the FL800 shootdown, any sailor onboard could be forced into silence under threat of court-martial, imprisonment and possible execution for revealing details of that classified mission to the public. Senior Navy brass who knew the truth would also be subject to such punishment. Cmdr. Donaldson should keep those facts in mind as he conducts his investigation.
Incidentally, in a reply to Accuracy in Media's ad in the "Washington Times" on 8/15/00 which asked persons with knowledge to come forward, it received two ANONYMOUS callers who stated that two US sailors had come forward to their families with knowledge that SM-1's were fired by US naval vessels that were allegedly supposed to "fall short" of TWA800. Once word started to spread, their family members were intimidated into silence by government agents who threatened imprisonment. Also, at least one of those sailors is alleged to have been transferred to a mental hospital.
That's how cover-ups work. The methods of secrecy employed aren't pretty. And there aren't many sailors who would voluntarily go up against that kind of extreme coercion just to act in the public's interest.
Executions for whistle blowing? That's a pretty bleak picture you've painted of the USA. It might fit the Soviet Union under Stalin but I don't believe that our government is quite that corrupt. First of all, what you describe would require a cover-up of massive proportions. Every sailor intimidated, every officer a part of the cover-up or equally intimidated. I believe that it would be virtually impossible to keep hundreds of sailors quiet. Especially considering that everyone in the military is indoctrinated with the principle that you don't have to obey an illegal order. That was established pretty well at Nuremberg, is behind the war crimes trials in the Balkans and more recently epitomized in the movie "A few good men."
On the other hand, a cover-up of a terrorist incident would be much easier to pull off. Only the top people in the FBI, the NTSB and the White House have to be involved. Then they simply do not accept conclusions that don't fit the official pet theory. They simply keep raising the bar for proof. "Find me the rocket motor with a serial number and then I will believe it." Everything but the official theory is ignored and pretty soon the underlings know what not to show to the boss. That's the way it works in large bureaucracies.
I sure hope my version is right, because I sure don't want to live in the world you have conjured up!
As for Cmdr. Donaldson's bias toward the Navy, sure there is the incredulity factor. Bill knows how the system works and that's why he is so sure that it would be impossible to keep a Navy accident a secret. On the other hand, you have to ask yourself why he, Admiral Moorer, Admiral Hill and General Partin have put their weight behind finding out the truth? Because if they are right, there is a continuing threat to air safety that needs to be addressed and this president is doing nothing about it, so its bound to happen again.
Some have speculated that Bill & the others are pursuing the terrorist theory as a red herring to protect their precious Navy. If that were the case, why have they continued their investigation after the case has been Officially closed by the NTSB and written off by the press. Keeping it alive would be the surest way to keep the Navy in jeopardy if they were truly guilty. If they were really trying to protect the Navy, they would simply drop out and fade away. But that's not what is happening. Bill does a one or two radio shows each week and was on the Investigative Journal with David Bresnahan this evening. He is going to keep pushing this until the truth is known, regardless of where it falls.
Lastly, why in gods name would Clinton jeopardize his presidency to protect someone who screwed up in the Navy. Slick Willy would have turned on the Navy in a New York minute!. All he would have to do is court marshal the dumb bastard that screwed up and wash his hands of it. In fact, it would have been good campaign material, a counterpoint to the Republicans who want a bigger military. He would have pledged to reduce the military's influence even further "so this kind of thing would never happen again".
On the other hand, if it was a terrorist act, 3 days before the Olympics and 16 weeks before the presidential election, to have a US flag carrier shot down in our home waters without warning the airlines that there were specific threats to us flag carriers, would have been political poison.
>>On the other hand, if it was a terrorist act, 3 days before the Olympics and 16 weeks before the presidential election, to have a US flag carrier shot down in our home waters without warning the airlines that there were specific threats to us flag carriers, would have been political poison.<<
At last, a reasonably plausible hypothesis as to the threat to the Presidents election prospects.
I too believe that such a scenario would be devastating to the pride and credibility of the US military and Government. It's probably the only thing which makes sense amongst the tangle of possibilities and reasons for a cover-up - if a cover-up exists.
I think you could sell that to the people too, but I wonder why 'they' wouldn't approach the Commander, Adm Moorer and Gen Partin with this fact and ask for their support. Unless of course they suspected it would be rebuffed. I'm not convinced that they would not have gone along with this reasoning and backed off.
According to James Sanders, p352 of Altered Evidence, "A CEC [Cooperative Engagement Capability - an enormous breakthrough in warfare technology] exercise was conducted by the Navy in W-105 the afternoon of July 17, 1996. That evening a large 'movement of significant Naval units' was observed by FAA and Navy radar. Also seen on the Navy radar was a military asset with transponder number 1275, at 98,000 feet, near this group of Naval units south of Long Island."
According to Sanders, this technology uses advanced radar and communication capabilities and surface-to-air missiles for protecting ships at sea from Cruise type missiles. Sanders also claims that CEC was due for it final testing prior to combat certification, and unlike previous testing, this one had to be carried out in a high traffic area...
If a U.S. (or U.N.) Naval operation involving live fire of surface-to-air missiles was taking place in that particular area, wouldn't Clinton have had to authorize it -- at least indirectly?
If so, wouldn't that account for the cover-up? Note that the 96 elections were just 4 months away.
Note also that the NTSB Final Report has not actually been released -- only its CONCLUSIONS have been released -- and will not be released until after the COMING elections. If anyone is waiting to see what kind of job the NTSB has done to address the many claimed irregularities in this story, he will have to wait until after the elections...
B.D.: "I don't believe the government is that corrupt."
I have studied the US government exclusively for the past twelve years. In that time I have discovered many unhappy realities about how it really operates that 98% of the public does not know.
B.D.: "I don't want to live in the world that you conjured up."
I do not enjoy that harsh reality either. I do not enjoy conspiracy theories. Others see them as a game. I see them a public duty to seek the truth no matter how unpleasant that reality may be in order to inform the public, no matter how difficult the task. I have learned the hard way that perpetrators of conspiracies THRIVE on the public's DENIAL. I've had to destroy my OWN denial in the process to learn that fact, and I have.
Your incredulity factor is a combination of denial and your affection for the Navy. I understand this. I do not think ARAP's investigation is a red herring to protect the Navy. You are right that keeping this conspiracy alive is the surest way to keep the Navy in jeopardy. That is why I have concluded that despite your inherent biases, your investigation is genuine. Otherwise, I would not have wasted my time with you.
B.D.: "Why would Clinton jeopardize the Presidency to protect the Navy from a screw-up?"
HE WOULDN'T! That's why ANY Navy involvement in the downing of TWA 800 WAS NOT A SCREW-UP!
This was NO accident.
This was NO terrorist act.
This was NO screw-up.
It IS the FOURTH OPTION which you have not yet seriously considered!!
Do you understand? This is BIG, Bob. Really big. I'm pulling for you. But be careful. You're in over your head, but you don't realize it yet. I don't want to scare you, but that's the truth. This conspiracy isn't just big, it's MASSIVE. And you can blow it apart if you keep trying. If ARAP brings forth evidence of US Navy involvement, it will have instant credibility because of your brother. No other private investigative organization is capable of that. That's why either ARAP will break this thing wide open or no one will.
I don't want this to end up like the JFK assassination. I want the perpetrators PUNISHED! I want the conspiracy EXPOSED!
In order to do so, you'll have to destroy your denial like I have.
Bob: Are you Cmdr. Donaldson or Cmdr. Donaldson's brother?
Is Cmdr. William Donaldson (Bill)? Is your name Robert (Bob)
Donaldson? This has created some confusion. Can you please explain this for the viewers of this message board? Also, I believe you stated that the water depth off the southern coast of long island is not deep enough for submarines to travel through it? It's part of the Atlantic Ocean. Have you looked at any depth charts to determine what the depth would be in waters 12 -40 miles from the shore? Also, the type 688 los angeles class submarine supposedly uses the VLS (vertical launch system). The Mark 41 can supposedly fire tomahawk, harpoon, sea sparrow, and navy standard missiles. Any comments on this?
There's some confusion in my mind about how this forum works, are there posts that have a 'respond', and those that don't?
If so, can I choose to not be responded to, to drop something and demand no answer?
Or am I missing something here? Do I reply to the thread - the first post, and nothing else?
This scoring stuff is wierd, I've NEVER seen that anywhere else, what is it supposed to prove?
That someone thinks you're a jerk because you get no score, or that a single 4 means you've got a point?
Frankly, m'dear and all that.....
We are supposed to be discussing the pro's and con's of the myriad of theories that led to this disaster. It seems it's more important to play a game of 'you're out' or tag even.
Who's running this discussion group?
I'd like an answer to the Bill/Bob/William/Robert question too, it's raised its head a few times over the years.
Is Bill in fact Bob? Will Bob marry Bill's wife? Will they all...
Sounds a bit like SOAP don't it?
I don't mean to demean this discussion, but some of this stuff is a bit wierd, evwen for an English guy.
I scored a 4 on one post, does that mean I'm 80% right?
If I get no score does it mean I'm drummed out of the regiment, should leave with my tail between my legs?
I realise this is a list provider's option, but it does seem a little bizarre.
'I think Bob Donaldson's a fraud' - I know of at least one guy who'd give that a 10 out of 5, but is he right? Is he even on the same planet?
Okay you guys, I can give myself a '5' and reduce the other 'scores' as I please, so let's not bother with the scores eh?
What sort of scheme this is I don't know, but it's definitely bogus. You'd think that the originatoer of this scheme would at least make sure that the author of a post could not score his own post.
I thought I made it clear at the begining of this thread that Cmdr. Donaldson does not read or participate in this message board. By default then, I cannot be him! I am his brother and manage the website for him. Any views I express here are my own, but obviously I share Bill's views on a lot of the issues on Flight 800.
I created this message board to advance the discussion. I did not write the software. If you don't like the way it works, take it up with Network 54. (link at the bottom of page). This is a free message board service. For that we have to put up with the ads at the top of the page. I do not control the board except that he who giveth can taketh away. I don't edit posts or review them before posting. In fact I don't even have time to read all the posts, but I'll do what I can. The scoring is part of the system, us it or don't, I don't care.