Time: Sun Nov 30 14:16:50 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA20900
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:16:29 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA26975;
	Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:11:59 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd026896; Sun Nov 30 14:11:17 1997
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:04:07 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
  Credibility (fwd)

> TWA-800 Probe Loses Credibility
> by Edward Zehr
>Can the mainstream press survive the unraveling  of  any  of  the
>major  coverups  in which they have participated? Journalists are
>already regarded by most Americans as being a cut below  lawyers,
>which is to say they might have a narrow edge over serial killers
>in a closely contested popularity poll.
>How did things come to such a pretty pass? A recent letter from a
>reader of Washington Weekly set me thinking about this. I believe
>that the two world wars this country has fought, followed by half
>a century of protracted conflict, had a lot to do with it.
>The reader to whom I refer is also a writer with a degree from  a
>well-known  graduate  school  of  journalism.  She told some very
>interesting tales out of school, including  one  about  a  widely
>known  journalist  and  author  of  many books who was a featured
>guest at her graduation luncheon. He entertained the new grads by
>telling  them  of the "enormous power" they were soon to have. In
>particular, he explained how the mainstream press had  sandbagged
>President  Ford  in  retaliation for his pardon of Richard Nixon.
>Remember all those stories about  what  a  clumsy  oaf  Ford  was
>supposed  to  be?  The  journalist  told how they had poured over
>presidential photographs for hours,  looking  for  examples  that
>would  make Ford look a "bumbling fool." To drive the point home,
>they planted a succession of stories that played upon this theme.
>Was it effective? You bet. The celebrity journalist boasted  that
>they  had  been  able  to  secure  Ford's defeat, largely through
>ridicule. I saw reverberations of this story even while living in
>Germany.  The  subject came up during a dinner conversation as to
>who would likely run for the presidency in 1980, and when  Ford's
>name  was  mentioned,  one  of the Germans present chimed in, "He
>won't do -- he keeps falling over."
>The truth is that Ford was one of the more athletic and  graceful
>persons  to  occupy  the  White  House, but it didn't matter. The
>propagandists who control the press  in  this  country  have  the
>power  to  invent their own "truth." But what has this to do with
>world wars and such? Well, I just happened to recall a film  clip
>that  some  newsreel journalists made of Adolf Hitler, "dancing a
>jig," following the fall of France in 1940. Years later,  one  of
>the  journalists proudly recounted how they had doctored the film
>in an effort to make der Fuehrer appear  ridiculous.  We  weren't
>supposed  to  care,  you  see,  because  almost  everybody  today
>considers Hitler to have been a terrible person.
>But  surely  this  misses  the  point.  It  wasn't  Hitler  these
>journalists  lied  to  --  it  was us. Well, what's the harm, you
>might ask? As the Germans say, "Ende gut, alles gut." The problem
>is,  it  didn't  end with Hitler who, after all, understood these
>things. At about the same time, his own propaganda  minister  was
>portraying  Churchill  as  a  drunken buffoon. Years later we see
>journalists using the same sort of sleazy propaganda trick on  an
>American  president,  to  punish him for an official act of which
>they, in the godlike majesty of their  omniscience,  disapproved.
>This  sort  of  propaganda  is  designed to trick and mislead the
>public, depriving them of  the  opportunity  to  draw  their  own
>conclusions about the real substance of the issues.
>Thus we have the example of Dan Quayle, reduced to the status  of
>a  sort  of  world-class  village  idiot by a series of viciously
>tendentious stories, many of them totally false and  many  others
>grossly  distorted.  Or  Newt  Gingrich,  who  many Americans are
>firmly convinced has done something truly  awful,  although  they
>aren't  quite  certain  just what it might have been. Christopher
>Ruddy recently noted, in a talk carried by  C-SPAN,  that  Newt's
>trouble  with  the press started soon after he suggested that the
>House might want to investigate the death of Vincent Foster.
>The mainstream press have arrogated unto themselves the power  to
>turn  thumbs  up or thumbs down on almost anybody in public life.
>Their fair-haired boys are protected,  no  matter  how  egregious
>their  offenses  may  be.  When  an  author such as Seymour Hersh
>points out that the sainted JFK, a media  icon,  stole  the  1960
>presidential election from Richard Nixon, with a little help from
>the Mafia, it is Hersh, not Kennedy who draws  the  wrath  of  an
>enraged press. Not that the story is untrue. It has been known to
>be true for a number of years.  It's  just  that  the  mainstream
>press,  in the supreme arrogance of their greedily hoarded power,
>forbid anybody to mention it publicly. Thus we have  an  arrogant
>caste  of would-be elitists using the enormous power granted them
>by the First Amendment, not to report the truth, but to silence a
>critic of whom they disapprove.
>All of this would be bad enough if the media represented any kind
>of  real  elite. In truth they are little more than an untutored,
>emotionally immature rabble who lack both  the  insight  and  the
>life  experience  to  comment  intelligently upon the events they
>presume to cover. Take, for example, the Gulf War.  The  nonsense
>spewed  by the mainstream press just prior to the commencement of
>hostilities  beggars  belief.  The  Iraqi  Army  was  seen  as  a
>formidable military organization capable of inflicting "thousands
>of casualties" upon the U.S. forces and those of its allies.  The
>press   outdid   themselves  demonstrating  their  total,  abject
>ignorance of all things military.  Most of them were boomer-brats
>who  grew  up  loathing  the  military. They seemed to wear their
>ignorance on their sleeve as a badge of honor.
>In one memorable piece of  buffoonery,  Ted  Koppell  interviewed
>Edward Lutwach, whom he represented to his viewers as a "military
>expert." Lutwach proceeded to expound upon a very  limited  Iraqi
>reconnaissance  in force, that had been stopped in its tracks and
>pounded to pieces, as an ominous portent of things  to  come.  He
>then  went  on  to characterize it as being comparable to the Tet
>offensive during the Vietnam War. This was a bit  much  even  for
>Koppell,  who  seemed to do a double-take, although his questions
>were hesitant and non-committal. What other enterprise could  get
>away  with  peddling such shoddy goods? Here we have a nationwide
>"news" program, with a "distinguished" host, that is supposed  to
>provide  vital  information  to  the  public on a matter of grave
>concern to all of us,  trafficking  in  the  most  ludicrous  and
>abject  nonsense  --  and  there  is  no  penalty for doing so. A
>legitimate business would go  belly-up  overnight  for  unloading
>such garbage on an unsuspecting public.
>Speaking of  garbage,  the  Boston  Globe  ran  an  editorial  on
>November  22  that  extolled the "FBI's commendable report to the
>public on TWA Flight 800's destruction." The editorial quoted the
>star   of  the  CIA's  "commendable"  cartoon  presentation,  FBI
>spokesman James Kallstrom (who hardly seems to know one end of an
>airplane  from  the other, although he appears to be in charge of
>the FBI's "accident"  investigation)  as  saying  that  the  main
>reason   for   "his  detailed  explanation  of  the  researchers'
>findings"  was  to  counteract  the  effect  of  the  "conspiracy
>theorists."  Now  that  is an interesting perspective -- normally
>the purpose of such an investigation is to determine the cause of
>the mishap, not to counter somebody's opinion about it.
>Alas, poor Kallstrom was forced to concede that  "no  matter  how
>much  evidence  to  the contrary has been presented to them, some
>people" would just go on believing the evidence of their eyes, or
>their  conclusions  based  on common sense, or technical insight,
>instead of the slickly  packaged  boob  bait  ginned  up  by  CIA
>propagandists. All right, he didn't phrase it quite that way, but
>that's my interpretation.
>The editorial did  not  mention  the  nature  of  the  "evidence"
>presented by Kallstrom. No doubt it was way over the heads of the
>writers at the Boston Globe. Nevertheless, they are  prepared  to
>commend the "report" and give it their seal of approval. (See how
>easy it is to be a  mainstream  editorial  writer,  handing  down
>instant evaluations of technical issues that are beyond your ken?
>It isn't as  though  you  really  have  to  know  anything  about
>anything -- an authoritative rumble is usually enough to enable a
>mainstream writer to bluff his way  through  even  the  trickiest
>editorializing these days).
>The celebrated 14-minute video tape was concocted by the  CIA  to
>convince  us that eyewitnesses who "thought they saw" a streak of
>light ascend into the sky and "mistook" it for a missile,  really
>must have seen something else.
>James Hall, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety  Board
>points out that the closest eyewitness was 10 miles away from the
>aircraft when  the  explosion  occurred.  Referring  to  the  244
>witnesses  whose sightings were mentioned on the tape, Hall said,
>"Most of these witnesses reported that the sound of an  explosion
>or  a flash of light drew their attention to the direction of the
>Kallstrom was even more explicit at his news conference. "All the
>witnesses  saw  events  that  happened after the center tank blew
>up," he told the assembled reporters.
>James Sanders, author of a book titled "The Downing of TWA Flight
>800," characterized the assertion in the CIA tape that all of the
>eyewitnesses first heard a noise as  "a  lie,"  during  a  recent
>radio  interview  with  Michael  Reagan.  He claims that at least
>twenty people saw a missile before it hit Flight 800.   According
>to  Sanders,  "They saw it rise either from the ocean or over the
>horizon slowly and burst and then  saw  it  accelerate  and  then
>Flight  800  came  down."  He  said that the FBI and the CIA have
>access to these people.
>David Hendrix wrote in the November 23 Riversides-Enterprise that
>Sanders   has  accused  the  CIA  of  selectively  choosing  "244
>eyewitnesses from among more than 400 interviewed," in  order  to
>discredit the missile theory.
>A  retired  naval  officer  who  has  been  conducting  his   own
>investigation   into   the  TWA-800  incident,  Cdr.  William  S.
>Donaldson, noted in a letter to Hall last summer that  while  the
>NTSB  had  "accepted eye witness statements attributing lightning
>as the  ignition  source  of  the  Iranian  Air  Force  747  tank
>explosion  21  years  ago"  which  statements  were  cited in the
>board's  1996 Safety Recommendation, they have ignored more  than
>30  "extremely credible TWA FL800 eyewitnesses, some of whom were
>combat veteran military pilots  who  actually  saw  the  ignition
>source of TWA FL800."
>Donaldson cites several eyewitnesses like Mr. Roland Penney and a
>group  of  eight  other  people  who "not only saw a missile-like
>object rise up from the haze at sea leaving  a  thin  gray  smoke
>trail,  but  distinctly  describe  a  bright white flash, 'like a
>flashbulb' when it hit TWA FL800." He notes  that  all  of  these
>observations "preceded aircraft breakup and subsequent explosions
>and fuel ignitions."
>Describing  Mr  Penny's  statement   as   "a   perfect   layman's
>description  of  a  successful  missile  engagement  with warhead
>detonation," Donaldson goes on to describe a bright, white  flash
>of  light  that  could not be caused by a kerosene air explosion,
>especially  under  atmospheric  conditions  at  13,700  ft,   the
>altitude  of  the  aircraft when it exploded. Donaldson mentioned
>that nobody from the  NTSB  had  interviewed  Mr.  Penny  or  his
>The CIA videotape entered the  twilight  zone  however,  when  it
>asserted  that  witnesses who thought the flash of light they saw
>ascend into the sky, and believed  was  a  missile,  were  really
>seeing  the  aircraft  climb 3200 feet just after the center fuel
>tank exploded, and the nose fell off.
>Apparently they are unaware that engineers  have  ways  of  doing
>"reality  checks"  upon  such  brash statements. Some of the news
>accounts have suggested that the CIA cartoon video was based on a
>"simulation"  although  it is not clear that the CIA or Kallstrom
>have made any such claim. The simulation of an aircraft  that  is
>in  the  process  of  disintegrating is problematical at best. It
>would be necessary to know which parts fell off  and  when.  This
>necessarily  involves  a certain amount of guesswork when all one
>really knows is the distribution  of  the  debris  on  the  ocean
>floor.    Nevertheless,   it   is   possible   to   make  certain
>determinations on the basis of the debris field. For example, the
>NTSB  "Sequencing Report" tells us that Fuselage pieces recovered
>from the "red zone" were originally located at  fuselage  station
>1000.  The  "red  zone"  is  the  recovery area where most of the
>cockpit debris was found, thus it seems that the forward  section
>of  the  fuselage,  all  the  way  to  the front of the wing root
>separated shortly after the explosion in the  center  fuel  tank.
>This  is  confirmed  by statements made by Donaldson, Sanders and
>Now fuselage station 1000 would be located 83  feet  aft  of  the
>aircraft's  nose.  That is a pretty big chunk of an airplane that
>is 220 feet long. There can be no doubt that such a  catastrophic
>event  as  the  separation of almost 40 percent of the aircraft's
>fuselage would utterly destroy its longitudinal static stability.
>I was able to locate a data base of aircraft coefficients for the
>Boeing  747  comprising  three flight conditions in the following
>reference:  Airplane  Flight  Dynamics   and   Automatic   Flight
>Controls,   published   by   the   University  of  Kansas.  These
>coefficients would be suitable for use in an aircraft simulation,
>unfortunately, most of them would have to be radically altered to
>reflect the "structural modifications."
>I was, however, able to make use of them to determine the "static
>margin" of the undamaged aircraft. That, in effect, is the moment
>arm through which the lift vector acts  to  rotate  the  aircraft
>about  its  center  of  gravity.  If you will recall the "seesaw"
>analogy from last week's  column,  when  an  aircraft  loses  its
>static  stability,  the  lift  vector  is  located forward of the
>center of gravity (which acts as the pivot  of  the  seesaw).  If
>this  moment  arm can be determined for the "truncated" aircraft,
>it should be possible to make a rough  estimate  of  the  angular
>acceleration  of the aircraft about its pitch axis after the nose
>fell off. The relationship is simply:
>     Pitching Moment = Moment of Inertia X Pitch Acceleration
>In level flight the lift force  will  equal  the  weight  of  the
>aircraft. The pitching moment will be equal to the lift times the
>moment arm through which it acts, which will depend upon how  far
>aft the center of gravity has shifted.
>Now suppose we had a 220 foot long seesaw and we decided  to  saw
>83  feet off one end. In order to get the thing back into balance
>it would be necessary to move the pivot back  half  the  distance
>that  was removed from the end, or 41.5 feet. But the fuselage of
>an aircraft is not uniform throughout, and the aircraft's  weight
>is  not  uniformly  distributed.  So,  just to be conservative, I
>moved the center of gravity back only 21 feet. From the  aircraft
>data  I  was  able to estimate the static margin at about 7 feet,
>thus the moment arm I used was 7 - 21 = -14 feet. That gave me  a
>pitching  moment  of 7 million foot pounds. The moment of inertia
>obtained from the reference previously cited is 33  million  slug
>ft  sq.  (Actually, it would be a good deal less, since the front
>of the aircraft has fallen off, but it  is  conservative  to  use
>that number). Thus the pitch acceleration can be estimated as:
>    7,000,000 ft lb / 33,000,000 slug ft sq. = 0.212 rad/sec sq.
>                                             = 12.15 deg/sec sq.
>As we shall see, that is a pretty brisk acceleration.  To  obtain
>the  pitch  rate at a given time it is only necessary to multiply
>the (constant) acceleration by the time elapsed  since  the  nose
>fell  off. The pitch angle can be obtained by averaging the pitch
>rate over time and multiplying the  average  pitch  rate  by  the
>elapsed  time. (For those familiar with calculus, the same result
>will be obtained by integrating the pitch acceleration twice with
>respect  to  time).   The bottom line is that we can now estimate
>the pitch angle  of  the  aircraft  at  a  given  time  from  the
>      pitch angle = pitch acceleration X (time squared) / 2
>Plugging in the numbers, we find that the aircraft has pitched  6
>degrees  in  1  second,  24 degrees in 2 seconds, 55 degrees in 3
>seconds and 97 degrees in 4 seconds. This  is  somewhat  academic
>since  the  aircraft  will  most  likely  have  stalled somewhere
>between 2 and 3 seconds. At the time the stall condition  occurs,
>the  lift  force  will  dissipate. However, there is a large drag
>force, acting upon the gaping hole in  the  fuselage,  that  will
>continue to push the remnant of the airplane "over the top."
>But that is neither here nor there. The object of  this  "reality
>check"  was to determine whether it is reasonable to suppose that
>a 747 will "continue to climb" 3200 feet after losing 83 feet  of
>fuselage  in  front of the wings.  According to the CIA/Kallstrom
>cartoon, the aircraft climbed for 20 seconds  in  it's  truncated
>condition.  Basic  stability considerations suggest that it would
>stall in about one-tenth that time, at the outside.
>I realize that this is a very quick and  dirty  calculation,  and
>that  there  are many other things to be considered. Nevertheless
>one cannot simply ignore basic principles. It is just a  fact  of
>life  that  an  aircraft  will rotate much faster about its pitch
>axis than it will change directions through the air. That is  why
>aircraft  stall.  In  order  for  the  aircraft to pull up for 20
>seconds  it  would  be  necessary  that  the  pilot  maintain   a
>reasonable angle of attack by controlling the elevators, but that
>would not have been possible since the pilot  departed  with  the
>nose.  In  any  event,  he  would have been unable to control the
>effects of such radical instability.
>Perhaps the most  foolish  theory  to  emanate  from  the  public
>relations  flacks  who  appear to be controlling the direction of
>this investigation was the suggestion that people  who  claim  to
>have  seen  a  missile approach TWA-800 were actually seeing fuel
>streaming from the  ruptured  tanks  ignite.  The  flacks  didn't
>actually  have  the  guts  to take responsibility for this bit of
>fantasy, but it seems  clear  that  they  put  the  media  up  to
>spreading this story, knowing full well what a load of rubbish it
>is. The basic scenario was described by Bob Riordan in an article
>that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
>  "...if a stream of jet fuel is ignited as it falls  from  the
>  plane,  flames  will  shoot  UP.  The  stream  of flame could
>  resemble a missile trail ending in the fireball of the plane.
>  Observers  could  have a problem realizing that the fuel came
>  from the plane."
>What's wrong with this notion? In the first place, fuel would not
>fall  from  an  aircraft  traveling  at 400 mph in a "stream." It
>would be aspirated into  a  cloud  of  tiny  droplets  which,  if
>ignited,  would  resemble  a  fireball, not a bright streak. Most
>likely, unless ignited at the  source,  the  fuel  would  quickly
>become  dispersed  in the atmosphere and nothing would happen. In
>the second place, what would ignite the "stream" of fuel from the
>"bottom  up"?   Nobody  has  suggested an answer to that one, but
>then nobody who had passed high school physics would consider  it
>Mr. Riordan  devotes the rest of his column to speculating  about
>the  possibility that metal fatigue was responsible for the crash
>of TWA-800. I hate to be such a wet blanket, but that is  one  of
>the  first  things checked in an aircraft accident investigation.
>In fact, aircraft structures are checked for fatigue cracks on  a
>regular basis.
>Everybody seems to agree that  there  was  an  explosion  in  the
>center  fuel tank.  The point of contention would seem to be what
>caused the fuel to explode.  Cdr. Donaldson points  out  the  two
>ways  an  explosive atmosphere could be produced in the fuel tank
>of a Boeing 747:
>  A highly volatile fuel such as  JP4  or  JetB,  subjected  to
>  elevated  temperatures for a time could produce a potentially
>  explosive mixture of fuel vapor and air.  That,  essentially,
>  is  the  assumption  made  by the official investigation. The
>  problem with this assumption is that the Jet A-1 fuel used by
>  TWA-800 is of low volatility.
>  An explosive mixture of fuel droplets and air can  be  formed
>  when  a  low  volatility  fuel such as Jet A-1, JP5 or JP8 is
>  used, but only if there has been extreme agitation  or  shock
>  to the tank.
>It is Donaldson's contention that the  overpressure  produced  by
>the  explosion  points to "mechanical misting of residual fuel as
>the internal primordial event."
>In his letter to Hall, Donaldson pressed his point:
>  "Your agency has been depicting the volatility of the fuel as
>  if  it were nitro benzene however, the chemical properties of
>  the Jet A-1 turbine fuel TWA  FL800  was  using  had  a  huge
>  margin  of  safety. It could not have been made to explode in
>  the centerline tank except as a secondary  event  to  another
>  explosion."
>Donaldson says that under ordinary conditions the fuel would  not
>ignite  unless  "the  fuel and container (tons of aluminum)" were
>heated to a temperature above 127 degrees F.  However,  "the  one
>other  way  Jet  A-1 could be made to explode is through physical
>misting of the fuel as accomplished by a fuel injector or through
>the kinetic shock provided by a high explosive 'booster.'"
>The point, according to Donaldson, is that the residual  fuel  in
>the tank would have to be heated to between 130 and 160 degree F.
>But if a shock were applied to the tank the same effect would  be
>produced at only 72 degrees F.
>The one other fuel tank explosion known to  have  occurred  in  a
>Boeing 747 while in flight was an Iranian mishap mentioned by the
>NTSB in its Safety Recommendation of 13 December 1996. The report
>failed to mention, however, that the aircraft was not fueled with
>Jet A-1. Donaldson speculates that if it had been,  the  aircraft
>"would probably have landed safely because explosive vapors would
>not have been present to ignite."
>In his criticism of an NTSB test of temperature increase in a 747
>center  wing  tank, Donaldson pointed out that they had used only
>one temperature probe to record a 40 deg F temperature  increase,
>citing the slow heat transfer in jet fuel due to its poor thermal
>conductivity. Furthermore, he points out, the test was  performed
>in   the   desert,  whereas  the  "TWA  FL800  had  just  made  a
>Transatlantic crossing prior to the two hour  turnaround  at  New
>York,  the  tank  and  fuel  were  exposed  to minus 67 degrees F
>stratospheric temperatures throughout that  time."  The  aircraft
>used in the NTSB test had not been subjected to a comparable cold
>soak -- it had been sitting on a ramp in the desert.
>At the time TWA-890 took off from New  York  ambient  temperature
>was  77  degree  F  and falling and 29 degrees F at the explosion
>On the day of the NTSB test in the desert, the  temperature  rose
>from  69.8  degree F to 95.0 degree F. Even so, the test aircraft
>fuel temperature did not  get  anywhere  near  127  degrees.  The
>moderate  77  degree  F  temperature  at  New York would not have
>caused  TWA-800's air-conditioning packs  to  generate  excessive
>In summarizing his points, Donaldson asserts  that  "no  aircraft
>loaded  with Jet A-1 has ever had or will ever have an internally
>ignited fuel tank explosion due  to  latent  fuel  vapor  in  the
>Sanders said last week that the  FBI's  assertion  that  the  red
>residue found on some of the seats "came from a patented adhesive
>and  not  solid  fuel  for  missiles"  is  contradicted  by   the
>manufacturer  of the seats used on TWA-800. The manufacturer told
>Sanders that his adhesive did not contain the  same  elements  as
>those  found in the independent testing performed by a laboratory
>to whom Sanders supplied a sample of the residue.
>Fabric samples impregnated with the red residue were  taken  from
>three  adjacent  rows  of  seats  and given to Sanders by a crash
>investigator who was working  at  the  time  on  the  Flight  800
>mishap.  The elements found in the test are said to be consistent
>with the  ingredients found in solid rocket fuel, according to  a
>missile  specialist  consulted by Sanders, who theorizes that the
>residue was deposited  by  a  missile  that  passed  through  the
>Richard  Russell,  a  retired  747  pilot  and  aviation   safety
>specialist,  said  that  a  radar  tape  left in his mailbox last
>February shows an object approaching Flight 800 at a steady  rate
>from  the  front while another is visible for a few brief seconds
>approaching from behind the 747.
>It was later determined that the first blip was a Navy P-3 Orion.
>Last  Tuesday  Kallstrom  identified  the  blip  approaching from
>behind as Jet Express Flight 18.  Russell's response was that  if
>the  second  blip  had been an aircraft it would have shown up on
>other tapes  --  but  it  didn't.  "I  think  that  the   coverup
>continues  and that now what they are attempting to do is sell it
>to the American public," Russell commented.
>Frederick Meyer, an attorney and former Air National Guard pilot,
>who  witnessed  the  explosion  of  TWA-800 while piloting an Air
>National Guard rescue helicopter  on  the  night  of  the  crash,
>commented,  "I  saw  the (CIA video) scenario. It just isn't what
>happened. They've changed the sequence of events."  According  to
>reporter  David Hendrix, Meyer, a combat veteran who had missiles
>fired at his helicopter in Vietnam, "saw a  streak  approach  the
>jetliner   in   a  slight  downward  arc,  two  small  but  sharp
>explosions, and then the huge fireball that fell to the ocean."
>Meanwhile, back at the Boston Globe, the editorial  writers  were
>beating  up  on  easy  targets  such  as  Ian  Goddard and Pierre
>  "Salinger's gullibility may be taken as  a  telling  paradigm
>  for those weak spirits who feed on the conspiratorial garbage
>  dumped on the Internet.  Unfettered by the standards and peer
>  review required of scholarship or the transparent sourcing of
>  journalism, anonymous communicators on the Internet  post  up
>  the most preposterous theories . . ."
>As though they knew or understood anything about it. Peer  review
>indeed.    When   is  the  last  time  any  of  these  mainstream
>microcephalics took the trouble to consult an  authority  with  a
>background  in  flight dynamics regarding the preposterous claims
>made by official sources with respect  to  unstable  (pieces  of)
>aircraft that are supposed to climb for 20 seconds while pitching
>up and disintegrating? The pomposity of these swaggering airheads
>is  beyond  comprehension. They are too busy licking the boots of
>the bureaucrats who hand  feed  them  propaganda  based  on  junk
>science  to get a second opinion. And why not? They might have to
>do an honest day's work if the handouts stopped coming down  from
>on high.
>Underlying the Boston Globe's irrational outburst  is  a  gnawing
>fear  of  the  Internet  in their future. People are beginning to
>understand what a bunch of  blow-hards  and  know-nothings  staff
>their  daily newspaper and the newsies just can't figure out what
>to do about it, beyond resorting to the smear tactics  that  have
>served them so well in the past. The Globe concluded its diatribe
>on a petulant note:
>  "Unlike radio, which made possible the communication  between
>  a  Fuehrer  and his Volk, or the telephone, with its dialogue
>  between individuals, the Internet  realizes  the  anarchist's
>  dream  of  an  unmediated  conversation between each and all.
>  Government must not censor that conversation, but  a  society
>  that  fails  to  teach  citizens  the  necessity  of critical
>  thinking risks being submerged in gullible Salingers."
>Do you see where they are going with this? The nasty little swipe
>at  talk radio? They are scared to death that citizens will start
>comparing notes on them and begin to grasp what they have been up
>to  for  the  past  few decades.  Unmediated conversation between
>each and all? Quel horreur! We cannot allow the lower  orders  to
>converse with each other without the wise "mediation" of a higher
>authority. Egad sir!  Why  --  splut,  splut  --  that  would  be
>      [ Edward Zehr can be reached at ezehr@capaccess.org ]

>  Published in the Dec.  1, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly
>  Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
>          Reposting permitted with this message intact

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail