HOME  NEWS   MESSENGER   SITE  INDEX   LINKS   CONTACT

 

REPORTS INDEX    ALASKA P1

AIRCRAFT INCIDENT REPORTS

ALASKA AIR REPORTS - part 2

Although it would be impossible to maintain a complete archive of reports on anomalous airline crashes,
we have kept some articles here for those who may wish to do further investigation.
Many of the original sources for these articles are no longer online.


2.18.00 Information on Fl. 261 & Pt Mugu Naval Air Warfare Station
We're forwarding to our list a copy of an email letter we just sent to the attorneys representing the widow of one of the victims killed in the crash of Fl. 261. Susan Friedmann, wife of victim Allen Friedmann, is suing Alaska Airlines for criminal incompetence in regard to the actions of the pilots of Flight 261: claiming that the pilots bypassed up to nine safe landing sites in deciding--SUPPOSEDLY, according to the feds--to turn their crippled plane around and fly back south over 40 miles to LAX; one of the busiest airports in the world in a city of 10 million people.

The VERY CLOSEST of these other landing sites, of course, would have been Pt. Mugu Naval Air Warfare Station, as we and others have pointed out in numerous articles.

Why DIDN'T Fl. 261 land at Mugu?

Perhaps the attorneys for the victims' families will be able to find out. However, it's our belief that attorneys for the victims' families should JOIN FORCES with attorneys for Alaska Airlines and sue the Navy, the NTSB, the FAA and any other federal agency which had ANYTHING to do with either causing the crash or covering up the true facts thereof. ---NewsHawk(r) Inc.


2.18.00 To the law offices of Robert Clifford
Dear Kevin, Robert, et al:
My associate Anthony Hilder was in touch with your office yesterday, 2.17.00, in regard to the lawsuit filed on behalf of Susan Friedmann, widow of Allen Friedmann.

Both I and Mr. Hilder, in addition to at least one other investigative journalist who is also a professional air transport pilot, have been shall we say "suspicious" of some of the circumstances surrounding the crash of Alaska Airlines Fl. 261, as in fact it appears your client and your offices are as well, judging from what I understand about the particulars of the lawsuit as reported in the press..

It seems INCREDIBLE that the pilots of this craft, when faced with what was obviously a rapidly-worsening situation in regard to control of the aircraft, would have sought to turn the plane around and fly approximately 45 (+ or -) miles south in an attempt to land their crippled aircraft at one of the BUSIEST airports in the world-directly over the heads of millions of Los Angeles area residents.

News articles state that your suit claims the pilots bypassed or ignored up to nine possible landing sites in the process of this genuinely astonishing and incomprehensible decision on their part.

Of course, this is only what the public has been TOLD about the incident by federal agencies. Obviously, we're not getting the pilots' or crews' or passengers' version of the story.

Somehow, I have some difficulty believing that these professional pilots, Ted Thompson and William Tansky, were insane, moronic or suicidal. Not only were they entrusted with the lives of 88 passengers and other crew members, but surely they also possessed those most basic survival instincts common to us all. Why would they want to die?

What, then, would have precipitated such an extraordinary misreading of the situation on their part, IF in fact that's actually what occurred?

To be perfectly honest, it seems beyond the bounds of credibility, and yet as we know, the plane crashed into the ocean, killing everyone on board.

However, we the public and I assume yourselves and your client as well, are dealing only with the information which has been made public by certain government agencies, such as the NTSB and the FAA. And the Navy.

According to reliable information relayed to me by the professional air transport pilot mentioned at the beginning of this letter, much of this "information" being told to the public by federal agencies about the particulars of this crash is utterly and completely erroneous--to such an extent that it could only be deliberate.

Let me cite but one example of this "official" DIS-information; though a VERY significant one indeed.

Here's a claim being made by the NTSB which has been pandered to the media and of course thereby to the public; in this case as reported by Associated Press, 9:52 AM EST 2/10/00:

"Flight 261's cockpit voice recorder revealed that pilots had problems with the horizontal stabilizer after taking off from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, for San Francisco and Seattle."

FACT: The CVR only records for THIRTY MINUTES at a time! After 30 minutes of recording, it automatically ERASES audio inputs older than 30 minutes and starts recording over again.

Therefore the above statement by the NTSB, attempting to portray the craft as having had continual problems with the stabilizer since its departure from Puerto Vallarta, is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT a COMPLETE LIE.

The FACT is, this aircraft appeared to be doing JUST FINE, until it approached the vicinity of Pt, Mugu Naval Air Warfare Station.

Ah, the Navy.

Perhaps you are aware that of ALL the possible places this aircraft could have landed there was one place in PARTICULAR which was so CLOSE to the scene of the disaster landing that the pilots saw it from the cockpit, only seven miles away to their right (east). The location I'm referring to is Pt. Mugu Naval Air Warfare Station.

What's more, there was NO place ANYWHERE within such close proximity to Flight 261 which could have been more PERFECTLY SUITED for a landing.

Pt. Mugu NAWS has several runways; all in excellent condition, at least ONE of which is nearly TWELVE THOUSAND FEET LONG. This runway can handle the largest aircraft in the world with ease, including C-130s, 747s and the like. In fact this was where Air Force One set down when Ronald Reagan was President and flew into the Santa Barbara area.

It's quite essential to keep in mind that this aircraft was apparently in no distress at all until it reached the vicinity of this Naval base. It's also essential to keep in mind that there was NOWHERE else anywhere NEAR as close where Fl. 261 could have been brought to a safe landing than Pt. Mugu Naval NAWS.

Now, do YOU think that when faced with a rapidly worsening and potentially terminal emergency these pilots would have wanted to turn their plane around and fly 50 miles back to LOS ANGELES, when there was a TWELVE THOUSAND FOOT RUNWAY they could see with their naked eyes smack dab to their right, no more than seven or eight miles away?

This "official scenario" just cannot POSSIBLY be true, and given the lies which we have already PROVEN the NTSB has disseminated about the crash, there is every reason to believe that the public is being lied to about this aspect of the situation as well.

FAA and military regulations governing such a situation state UNEQUIVOCALLY that ANY aircraft in an emergency is authorized to land at ANY military facility with the necessary facilities--no ifs, ands or buts. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that Flight 261 would have been authorized to land at Pt, Mugu; there is no doubt it was INCREDIBLY CLOSE to Pt. Mugu; there is no doubt there's a TWELVE THOUSAND FOOT runway at Pt. Mugu and there is NO DOUBT that the pilots could SEE these landing strips at the base as clear as can be. And yet, for some reason the pilots of Flight 261 didn't attempt a landing there; or were told NOT to land there.

Does something begin to seem just a little bit wrong with this picture? Well, it sure does to us.

Flight 261, as noted, was flying along just fine at a standard cruising altitude of approximately 31,000 feet until it reached the vicinity of this base.

Then, everything started to go to hell.

Pt. Mugu Naval Air Warfare Station is just that: a military base specifically dedicated to the testing and development of advanced forms of weaponry, including not only a wide variety of different missiles but also more exotic forms of weaponry such as electromagnetic pulse and particle beam weapons, to name but two. The Star Wars" stuff.

And significantly, not ONE SINGLE WORD has ever been said to THE PUBLIC by any government agency or by the mainstream press about the existence of this immediately accessible and indeed PERFECT place to land in relation to the crash of Flight 261.

In our opinion, all these facts, taken in conjunction with one another, point clearly to the fact that either intentionally or unintentionally, Fight 261 was "negatively affected" by SOME form of weapons system emanating from Pt. Mugu Naval Air Warfare Station. The fact that subsequently this craft was apparently SPECIFICALLY DENIED PERMISSION to land at the base (NOT that any such permission is even NEEDED, according to applicable regulations as noted above), appears to make this scenario even MORE likely. In fact, it would seem to STRONGLY argue that the craft was targeted INTENTIONALLY, otherwise why WOULDN'T the Navy have immediately had their air traffic personnel at Pt. Mugu contact the pilots and tell them to bring it in; to the 12,000 foot runway mere miles away from the fast-failing flight?

Furthermore, information relayed to us by professional pilots indicate that the scenario being painted by the NTSB about the horizontal stabilizer "problems," the damaged "jackscrew" and all the rest of this web of disinformation, is completely implausible--indeed, impossible.

Dealing with a "runaway" stabilizer problem is not even in the EMERGENCY section of the pilots' manual for this craft--it's considered a relatively minor problem which can be dealt with fairly easily. This craft was suffering from MUCH more than a balky stabilizer. Our contacts indicate that the ENTIRE tail section of the craft was blown away.

And that jackscrew business? The assessment of knowledgeable sources who aren't on some federal government payroll or other is that nothing short of a tremendously powerful force could have ripped the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew mechanism from it's moorings on ill-fated Alaska Air Fl. 261.

This mechanism is in fact DIRECTLY connected to the PRIMARY structural members of the aircraft itself. One way or another, the rear section of Fl. 261 was torn TO HELL; whether by an electromagnetic/radio-frequency weapon, a missile or something else. And it's a virtual CERTAINTY that whatever it was it came from Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Station, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that the craft was barred from landing there, and that not a single word of the existence of perfectly suitable 12,000 foot runways at the base has been ever ONCE mentioned by federal agencies "in charge" of the crash "investigation." Indeed this body of information would appear to argue strongly that the plane was INTENTIONALLY hit.

I think that your law offices should avail yourselves of the material contained in the various articles we and others have published on these deeply troubling aspects of the crash of Flight 261, which are included below.

Indeed, it seems quite clear that yourselves and your client(s) should be JOINING forces with Alaska Airlines and suing the federal government, the U.S. Navy, The NTSB and the FAA, for starters. For either intentionally or accidentally irreparably damaging the aircraft and then refusing to allow it to land--at Pt. Mugu Naval Air Warfare Station.

Best Wishes, John Quinn/NewsHawk(r) Inc.


2.17.00 FL. 261 CRASH--IT DEFIES ALL LOGIC

Several days ago, Anthony Hilder paid a visit to Pt. Mugu Naval Air Station. You know, the military base which had nothing to do with the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 2 1/2 weeks ago, not seven miles away. You know, the place that has a TWELVE THOUSAND FOOT runway capable of landing the biggest jets in the world, where the pilots of Flight 261

were for some reason unable to land; or where they were told NOT to land. The place with the readily available, 12,000 foot runway about which not ONE SINGLE WORD has yet been said to THE PUBLIC by any government agency or by the mainstream press, in relation to the crash.

NewsHawk and Anthony Hilder have already written several articles on the indescribably bizarre aspects of this crash: about the fact that it went down into the Pacific Ocean, killing EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING on board, when there was a place for the jet to land which was CLEARLY VISIBLE TO THE PILOTS, only 7 miles away.

Something, in fact EVERYTHING, is VERY WRONG with the sickening, indeed horrifying, pack of lies which OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has been vomiting in our faces from the very moment the jet met its disastrous end; and Anthony Hilder, as a result of his "surprise" visit to Pt. Mugu Naval Air Warfare Station and the extraordinary events that transpired there during his visit, has now BLOWN THIS COVER-UP WIDE OPEN for all to see, plain as day.

One day after Hilder's visit to the base, during which time his license plate number was taken, the main computer of his Free World Alliance website was hacked into and ALL data destroyed.

This is an INCREDIBLE, and absolutely CRUCIAL article which every American, indeed every person in the world, should read.

We are URGENTLY requesting that ALL recipients of this article reprint, reproduce, distribute, (re-)post, forward and otherwise DISSEMINATE this article as far and wide as possible. THIS TRUTH MUST BE HEARD! --NewsHawk(r) Inc.


FL. 261 CRASH--IT DEFIES ALL LOGIC: "Denied Access" By Anthony J. Hilder

The absolute insanity of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 turning away from the huge landing strip at the US Navy Facility at Point Mugu boggles the brain. The long air strip, which once welcomed Air Force One's Giant 747 with President Ronald Reagan and his full entourage on board, was immediately to the aircraft's (MD-83) starboard side. It must have looked like a welcome mat to the crippled craft and panicked plots, promising CERTAIN SAFETY on its empty tarmac. Al they had to do was descend, but "defying" all logic, they turned the aircraft leftward away from the friendly runway, and headed outward towards the open sea.

What were the plots thinking? Had they been denied permission to land by Point Mugu's Control Tower? Or were Ted Thompson and William Tansky, the pilots of Alaska Air 261 "heroes" as the National Air Traffic Controllers Association described them? Hamid Gheffari, representing the "CONTROLLERS" told the families of the crash victims that "it was an extremely courageous move to stay over water and not endanger more lives over land with an aircraft that could not be controlled." That statement reported in the LA Times really stuck in the confines of my cranium.

The pilots had radioed the Los Angeles Airport Control Tower at least seven minutes before the fatal crash; stating that they were turning away from a safe landing at Point Mugu with its ample, empty runway and heading back to LAX for an EMERGENCY LANDING. Assuming that this is in fact the TRUTH, what in the hell is in Hamid's head? LAX, some 50 miles to the south of where the crash occurred, is one of the world's BUSIEST airports, with as many as 7 or 8 planes approaching the runways to land at virtually the same time. To bring down Alaska Air's "Broken Bird" there, over the nation's second largest city, would be insane. In case Hamid didn't know, LA County has a population over 10 Million. Mr. Gheffari identified the plane as "an aircraft that could not be controlled." To return to LAX then would not be an act of heroism, it would be an act of insanity!

Were Ted Thompson and William Tansky crazy? I just couldn't bring myself to believe that. Alaska Air has always been my choice as a carrier on the West Coast. So why did the pilots turn from certain safety to CERTAIN DEATH - in the deep, dark waters off Anacapa Island?

It would be outright criminal if Point Mugu's Air Traffic Control denied them permission to land. To deny access to a "Crippled Craft' would be tantamount to MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE. (FAA regulations SPECIFICALLY authorize ANY craft to land at a military facility in a serious emergency--NewsHawk) In fact it WOULD be Mega-Murder, as 88 innocent people died a horrible, ungodly death as the plans sank into the icy waters off of California's Channel Islands. The 88 people who perished could have been saved had the pilots made "THE RIGHT TURN" both literally and figuratively.

I knew that, that if I went to the Navy facility at Point Mugu to get the facts in my capacity as a journalist and got the "cold shoulder", was turned away, or if they were 'tight-lipped," it would validate my suspicion that something wasn't quite kosher with the official story of the crash. However, if there was nothing to hide and they were cooperative to those seeking to find out "what really happened," I might well have chalked this crazy crash up to "pilot error," temporary insanity, or some arcane air safety procedure that was locked away in some dusty manual, written not long after Wilbur Wright took flight at Kitty Hawk.

Like Sherlock Holmes, I felt drawn like a magnet to the site of a murder. As I drove up the Coast Highway towards Point Mugu the deep, blue-green Pacific Ocean lay ominous to my left. To my right were the Santa Monica Mountains, whose cliffs habitually cave in to the angry seas. The plagued pilots who were steering Alaska's Air ailing aircraft just days before had been traveling in the same direction when they met their watery death. I realized that the FIRST and ONLY OPPORTUNITY they would have had to land safely was the runway behind the craggy point that lay ahead. There was no place to land in "them thar hills" - that wouldn't have ended in a fiery Inferno.

Upon arrival at 'The Big Rock" landmark that kissed the sea, I took pictures from the road that once wrapped around Point Mugu. It had long since collapsed into the sea due to the elements of the wind and surf which perpetually pound the point. Directly to the west of the Navy facility with its large, round radar equipment I could spot Anacapa Island just a few miles in the distance. The crash site was straight out to sea, as I had recollected, almost exactly off the runways' end. Once again, I asked myself why would two pilots turn from Certain Safety to as what turned out to be Certain Death. Were these guys suicidal?

Once past "The Point" I drove towards the Wetlands that lay ahead. I envisioned from a "pilot's perspective" having to bring down that big injured bird in the marshlands. Its waters, whose depth ranged from but a few inches to a couple of feet, would have made for a soft landing. Compared to the mountains to the east this would have presented at least a viable alternative. Even an idiot could conclude that having to make an "emergency landing" there would have been a greatly preferable to diving into the wicked waters off the California Coast, whose depths can approach thousands of feet. The soft, sandy surface of the marsh would have been a welcome substitute to having to sink in the sea. Besides that, there were miles and miles of flat uninhabited vegetable fields to the east of the highway. Though obviously unpaved, they could have provided still another alternative to ditching that plane in the ocean.

As I approached Point Mugu's Naval Weapons Testing Facility, my pulse quickened. I was anxious to find out what they had to say about the crash and the sun was falling fast into the waters of the west which appeared blue-gray, as the sky was then overcast. I saw my photo opportunities fading. So I had my camera cocked, full of film and ready to shoot. At the gate I showed the Guard my Alaskan Press Card, which generally comped me an "entree" to various events and to certain areas under investigation. He said I would have to wait for "an escort" to enter the facility. About five minutes went by before a Naval Police Officer by the name of Richard Lerma drove up in a Jeep (License # US Navy 94620901).

Being a member of the Press, I had hoped for someone friendly from their Public Relations Department to give me the 'Cook's Tour" and explain what they knew about the crash. Instead l drew a cold-eyed cop, who said that he was on duty the day that Alaska Air's 261 came down, and nothing more. I asked him if I could take pictures of the runway, which drew an immediate and unfriendly "no." Officer Lerma said to follow him. I did. It was then that I realized that I would most likely hear some "Sanitized Sentences" and get the usual "Canned Conversation" about the crash. I closely followed the Naval cop car making a few turns through the base to a signal which had just turned red. He motioned for me to go on through. As I ran the light I looked In the rear view mirror to find that another Military Police car had pulled up directly behind me. I began to wonder if he had missed Lerma's hand signal and was about to pull me over to issue a ticket. Instead, he just drove up close behind my car and I drove "sandwiched" between the two Police cars as we turned left at the Base's Beach Motel, from where the road reached out and ended virtually NOWHERE. I knew then that they weren't taking me to a place where I might even accidentally "get a view or a clue" about anything that might be relative to the case. It was THE END OF THE ROAD and the beginning of the Wetlands which extended for about three miles along the beach back to the Point.

When I got out of the car, the Officer immediately asked for my identification, as the second officer, an oriental-looking fellow, got out of his vehicle and approached me on the right. Lerma became upset when he glanced at my press card that was issued by the Anchorage, Alaska City Police. Immediately he commanded, "step beck in your car, sir." It was the same tone one hears before they get arrested. He said that I had said I was from Alaska Airlines, which I hadn't. I had told the guard at the front gate I had been on the air In Alaska and was doing a story. His anger, when he discovered that I was with the Press, set off a Four Alarm Fire in the "Mainframe of my Mind." It all computed. COVER-UP!!

The Press was obviously "VERBOTEN." My desire to photograph the tarmac or anything else that might be related to the crash was "denied" as it must have been for any other reporter that might have preceded me. Certainly with AK Air Fight 261's crash being Front Page News all across America, I couldn't have been the only one that came to check out the OBVIOUS. So I asked If any other reporters had preceded me. Officer Lerma said, "NONE THAT I KNOW OF." In short, "Mum's the word." Lerma zipped his lip and I was escorted off the base immediately with their Police both fore and aft. They gave me no information; but apparently they wanted some. They took down my license plate to check out who was checking them out. The very next day the computer belonging to Rick, the Free World Alliance's Postmaster General, was hacked into and UTTERLY fried.

Recalling that Officer Richard Lerma claimed to have been on duty the afternoon that the plane plunged into the waters directly off their runways, I figured he had talked to many members of the media. I thought surely the press had been there to get answers to the questions that remain unanswered. How could this not be?

Let's make some sense of all this. Thinking that I was an investigator of sorts from Alaska Airlines who might ask "certain" questions, the Naval Police

1) abruptly denied access to view or photograph the runway;
2) called immediately for another patrol car to serve as a backup;
3) escorted me to the remotest spot on the base, essentially at the end of the road (past Laguna and 18th) where I couldn't speak to anyone who was "unapproved." I couldn't see or photograph anything of importance and I would hear only that which my escorts were "programmed" to say.

It was obvious that I was dealing with a Naval Police Officer who wasn't big on brains. Any investigator worth their salt would have immediately gotten the message they were being taken down the Primrose Path. Why would the Navy's "Damage Control" Commander be so short-sighted as to send over some idiot who would make it so damned OBVIOUS that the Navy has something to hide in regard to this matter? I know they are short on smarts, but you just don't send a simple servant to give the "Master's Message" to someone with access to the media.

What do we know about Point Mugu? With absolute certainty we know it's a Naval Weapon Testing Facility. They have shot off ten of thousands of Surface to Air Missiles (SAMS) over the years. Those heat-seeking suckers take out airplanes--any kind of airplanes! They are proud of their weapons. They display them outside their base for all to see. But that's the old stuff. The new-fangled state-of-the-art weaponry is still top secret. Do they test it? Of course. That's why they're there... to do the dirty work for the War Lords in Washington.

Do they have an underground facility there that connects (via tunnels) to China Lake and other military Installations? My contacts say, absolutely! But can it be confirmed? Not likely, unless someone from the "inside" steps forth with pictures from the INSIDE of the Cryptic Caverns. Could the U.S. Navy have accidentally or deliberately knocked Alaska Airlines 261 out of the air with a missile, as was the case with TWA Right 800? Absolutely! But unless some idiot made an error, one would have to have a motive. Star reporter John Quinn has been looking into that angle. Obviously, SOMETHING is not right.

Before leaving Mugu, I was able to get a picture, from behind the fence, of what appeared to be a 4-engine commercial plane taxiing up to the end of the runway about 3/4 of a mile from the highway. Ironically, the silhouette of Santa Cruz Island near where Flight 261 crashed, killing all 88 aboard, was in the same frame with "the setting sun."

Was permission to land denied to an American passenger plane that was flying under emergency conditions? Was AK Air 261 hit with a Magnetic Pulse Generator Weapon or some other electronic incapacitator which disabled the plane? Did it take a conventional missile hit, like TWA's Flight 800, which killed all aboard? Was the aircraft forced to turn out to sea and sudden death because they were denied access to land? Or were the pilots simply suicidal? Just what is on the recovered Voice Recorder that the public shouldn't hear? Is there a portion of the tape missing? Is it belong electronically alerted to fit the government's/NTSB's "Propaganda Pitch?" Why is it taking so long to get a transcript from the NTSB? Or will we ever get one?

Getting somebody at Point Mugu to talk honestly about Flight 261's crash is like pulling nails with your teeth. You can lost in their "bureaucratic web" of recorded messages and transfers back and forth from one agency, or individual, to another. I DID reach the Navy's Third Fleet Public Affairs Commander Susan Haeg in San Diego, [(819)656-7947], however. After four short questions, she ended her conversation with me by saying, "you're being speculative and I'm done talking with you."

Isn't that what investigative reporting is all about? Sure, it's speculation. You ask questions to get answers. Commander Haeg refused to answer any questions about the crash, saying "I'd have to get permission from the NTSB to discuss the AK Air Incident." Apparently, all comment about the Alaska Air crash other than the "Canned Crap" is "Classified." Why? What's there to hide?

If the Navy had tested any sort of electronic or conventional weaponry that day, would they tell me? It's not likely. I did ask those questions. To both she answered, "No." What if a pilot in an emergency situation requested permission to land on their runway? Would they permitted to land, I asked? Commander Haeg said "Yes." I believe that she believes it to be so, or at least that's what she has been told to say. And she says it, as do all the underlings in the chain of command. She referred me to the NTSB, whose number is (202)3144100. Their web site is www.ntsb.gov . For the record, Point Mugu's Public Affairs gal is Cora Fields (805)989-1705. Point Hueneme's Public Affairs number is (806)982-4493.

I had asked Ms. Haeg about the underground tunnels linking the base to other military installations such as China Lake Naval Weapons Center. She said she didn't know of any, but if she did, she couldn't say. And so it went. Except for Ms. Haeg, who answered her phone, everyone else was either not in, declined to talk, or referred me to somebody else. I even left a message at the NTSB. Many calls, no answers, no returns. But that's what "government" is all about. It's a Mindless Maze.

The IGORS (The Invisible Government Obedient Robotons) check in with our freeworldalliance.com website regularly to get information and find out what we found out about them. The IGORS are our most frequent visitors. We list their agencies and the number of visits they make in our IGOR section of the site. They get information, but never give it.

Now THINK about this. If the IGORS aren't working for the people of this country, then who pays their salaries? Just who are they working for? The Illuminati?

Attorney Robert Clifford is the first to have filed a lawsuit against Alaska Airlines. He did so on behalf of Susan Freidmann, whose husband Allen, an Executive Director of the National Holocaust Museum, perished on the plane. Clifford is claiming that the aircraft avoided as many as nine opportunities to land safely after the crew knew that there was BIG TROUBLE BREWING ON BOARD. I spoke to John White with Inland Business Systems [(916) 448-3221], who is a former roommate and business partner to Bill Knudson, who met his death in the disaster. He gave me the number of Gary Hirsch, still another attorney, who's looking hard at the evidence. I talked to Mr. Hirsch in Sacramento and have referred him to our web site at freeworldalliance.com where all who are interested can get continual updates on this exploding story.
(c) Anthony J. Hilder right of reproduction waived


2.18.00 Questions multiplying rapidly re: 261

And these forwarded below are just a FEW of such.
What's more: inside sources have now relayed DIRECTLY to top officials at Alaska Airlines certain crucial information about the crash and the extremely disturbing aspects thereof in relation to nearby Pt. Mugu NAWS, as brought forth in articles by Anthony Hilder, NewsHawk Inc. and John Prukop.

88 innocent human beings lost their lives in this plane crash and OUR GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO EVERYONE regarding EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the tragedy, and has been doing so since the very beginning.

We are NOT so brain-dead that we can't see this, as plainly as the pilots of Fl. 261 could see the airstrip at Pt. Mugu.

Ask yourselves--are we going to STAND FOR THIS?? I will NOT stand for it.
Would you stand for it if it were YOUR closest friends and family members who were killed??? --NewsHawk Inc.

- - - - - - - -
1) I have been traveling. And essentially out of touch with the net. Since 11 February 2000, it would appear as if the AS261 "incident" is being removed from public surveillance. From all venues. Even the guy that runs the Newshawk service has announced that he is backing off the story after veiled threats delivered to him by "surrogates" for the Seat Of Government [SOG]. (Well, we're now "backing" back ONTO it-JQ)

When I departed on my trip, Jim Hall had given a press conference. In his statement, as first published on the NTSB web site, I found some disorienting locutions.

Apparently, the chair of the NTSB has the same privilege as congresspersons of editing and expanding his "official" remarks, for what I read tonight is certainly a modification of what I first read immediately after its first release.

MORE RELEVANT QUESTIONS

1. According to this James Hall statement, the crew of AS261 disengaged the autopilot within minutes of departure from Puerto Vallarta. As best I can read this statement, the autopilot was disengaged until 12 minutes before the termination of the tape. For Hall says that at that monitoring point on the FDR, the autopilot is engaged.

Question: Why would the autopilot have been put back into operation by this crew when it had been disengaged for all but the first few minutes of this flight?

2. Somewhere, I have read that the reason that AS261 did not execute an emergency landing at San Diego was because of the treacherous nature of the approach. To throw out this is to throw out "chaff". Were the trim problems an impediment to safe flight, then AS261 should have returned to Puerto Vallarta.

But additionally to the point, consider all the airfields accessible to AS261 along its route. Acquire a Los Angeles Sectional Aeronautical Chart, 66th edition, 30 December 1999. At the very least, here are some fields that could have caught this aircraft that day. In an emergency. And with the aircraft making an approach from the sea:

Mazatlan, Cabo san Lucas, San Diego, NAS North Island/Halsey, MCAS/NAS Miramar, MCAS El Toro, Orange County AAF/NAS, Los Alamitos, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Santa Monica. And then there is Naval Air Station Pt Mugu. A field that could have caught AS261 in minutes if necessary.

Question: If the stabilizer was such a critical problem, why did the crew of AS261 avoid declaring an emergency and making a landing at one of these many fields along its flight path?

3. From the inception of this flight, this AS261 crew would have been having radio conversations with FAA controllers.

Question: Why is it that virtually no entity cares to ask about the "controller" records for the conduct of this flight? And the NTSB does not mention them.

4. There would be radar data about this flight at both LAX and NAS PT MUGU.

Question: Do you think that you will ever see the record of those radar pictures?

5. It is my thinking that there is a geosynchronous satellite monitoring NAS Pt Mugu.

Question: Why is it that no one asks the NRO for the satellite photos of this coastal area during the flight of AS261?

6. It is my thinking that there is a weather satellite monitoring this area.

Question: Has any journalistic entity sought out those weather pictures for the time that AS261 was in its lens?

For me, the questions seem so simple. Yet they are not being asked. By any entity. Almost makes me think that all portals on the net are government-controlled.

- - - - - - - -
2) I tried to run a search for the Pacific Missile Test Center. Only thing that comes up is this....
http://www.popovinc.com/clients/government.htm

Seems clear to me that this must be an interesting firm. But what interested me is that a Naval Air Station Pt. Mugu may be distinguishable from a Pacific Missile Test Center.

Can anyone tell us what all the commands are at Pt Mugu? And what is the chain of command for all those entities?

Is the Pacific Missile Test Center commanded by an Admiral at China Lake? Or is it some kind of joint command? And who commands the Naval Air Station?

Anyone out there with an organization [command & control] chart for all the ops at Pt Mugu?
Would be of interest. No one else seems to have aired such data as of yet.

- - - - - - - -
3) Have you visited the NTSB website that I transmitted to you? If you have, did you go to the chart of the incident that the NTSB links? It is an interesting chart. If only for the coastal geographical references. The chart excludes the location of LAX, for example. And it does not identify Naval Air Station Pt. Mugu.

It does identify Port Hueneme. And something called the Pacific Missile Test Center. How delightful. This graphic must be enlarged so as to make that out.

After all this time, this is the first instance where I have seen this terminology used to describe the military facilities outside of Oxnard, California.

Do you think that there has been some kind of censorship in the press that prevents the word "missile" being associated with Pt Mugu? (Uh... YES!!!-JQ)

- - - - - - - -
4) The reason that I smell something tainted in the role of the USN/USG in this instance (Fl. 261 crash) is because virtually no member of the press-card-carrying media has discussed Pt Mugu, nor China Lake, nor St. Nicolas Island.

Nor the offshore [Santa Barbara Channel, Channel Islands] Aviation Restricted Zones of which Pt Mugu NAS is the apex. For some of us, it is thought to be beyond irony that Alaska Airlines has retired flight #261, but has replaced it with the #289. The Restricted Zone [for weapons testing] in which AS261 went down is identified on the NOAA Los Angeles aeronatical sectional chart [NEVER displayed in newspapers, nor on television, nor mentioned in radio] as W-289.

Asserting the role of the USN and the downing of TWA800 can be legitimately considered a "stretch", I guess, since those exercises were only in those Long Island waters temporarily [there is some provable deniability to the asserted presence of an Aegis cruiser and wargame exercises]. But, I do recommend that any thorough investigator read the Elaine Scarry articles on TWA800 that have appeared in the New York Review of Books since the catastrophe.

Study her graphics very carefully, because I do not recall any other report illustrating such a "stack" of military aircraft at the time of that "incident".

But Pt Mugu is a "fixed" facility. It has been there a long time. It has been doing what it does [sigint/echelon downloads, weapons testing] for a long time. and some residents of the USA may know of it, but most do not.

Based on what I have witnessed in my lifetime, it is my surmise that AS261 flew into weapons testing airspace offshore Mugu, that a ZLA employee failed to secure clearance for that AS261 excursion, and that, as a consequence, weapons testing was conducted coincidental to the presence of AS261 downrange.

The weapons consisted of heat-seeking surface to air missiles and AS261 was hit by more than two [2] projectiles.

"Friendly" fire, it is called. What an oxymoron. Homicidal fire is what I call it. AND, I think that there is a significant record of commercial airline crews flying through this zone, over the last 20 years, and reporting near misses with USN ordnance.

But this AS261 story should be an outrage. Because it is my appraisal that the enormity of the destruction goes beyond imagining. Two [2] bangs, hah. Those may just have been the first of more than half a dozen projectiles hitting this commercial airliner.

Though no one wants to discuss it, the likelihood is that the last minutes in the life of this aircraft and its passengers and crew was spent "juking" to avoid a salvo of oncoming projectiles.

Though it has yet to be reported [and don't you wonder why?], here should be some salient CVR [cockpit voice recorder] moments. Announcements and epithets [why have you not heard of them from "official" sources, do you wonder?].

1. Fasten Seat Belts. Everyone In Their Seats. All Service Is Being Discontinued Immediately. If You Are In the Bathrooms, Return To Your Seat Immediately.

2. I cannot believe that they are going to make us go back to LAX. Here we are in trouble and I have Mugu in sight. We could be on the ground there in minutes. What kind of bull do you think is going on...

Whoa. What was that?

Dammit, they're shooting at us. Aren't they?

3. You bet, boss. That's incoming. Ever try to "fake 'em out of their jockstraps"? Because that's what we are going to have to do now.

So, it is my guess that one of two things happened. The passengers got into their seats and strapped up. And the crew tried to do the missile[s] avoidance dance, just as if they were still flying F4's, A6's, over NV.

But, you should understand how it is. One or two, you might outjuke them. But more than that, especially if they were heat-seeking and launched in stages, you could only jinx the initial increment: the second wave would wax you, even in a F4, A6. Imagine how it happens with an MD83. A duck in a barrel.

All the strange maneuvers, after a certain point, may have been attempts at missile avoidance.
As you might imagine, even if AS261 had avoided the USN-launched missiles, AS261 would have to be shot down. No one on board that plane could ever be left to tell the tale of being a passenger on a commercial airliner "juking" so as to avoid USN-launched missiles. Offshore Oxnard, California.
And that is probably the reason that AS261 could not land at Pt Mugu NAS. Shoot-downs were being scrambled to take out AS261, is my guess.

If you could ever hear all the radio traffic concerning this matter, even you might become less supportive of the US Government. Though it is sad that so many lost their lives at this catastrophe, it is sadder still that SO MANY WANT TO AVOID THE METHODS OF ITS OCCURRENCE. That only means that it will be happening again.

I sure hope that no one in my family is on board a commercial airliner when the state wants to use it as a weapons testing target.

NEW ISSUES
In summary, as time has passed since the AS261 "incident", I continue to marvel at the data that is being denied our eyes, our minds. And that the "media" is accepting this denial of data. It troubles me that no one is asking about this data in these ways...

1. According to the NTSB, the flight data recorder makes a record on a 24-25 hour cycle. If this is correct, why is it not being shared with us what happened, from all the monitoring points, of that last 24+ hour cycle?

2. I have been advised that the cockpit voice recorder is a 30 minute looping audio tape. By this time, we should have been provided the complete transcript of these last 30 minutes. I don't know about you, but I think it to be terribly important as to what statements the flight crew made to the passengers in those last 30 minutes...and what they said amongst themselves on the flight deck, and to their controllers.

3. I have also been advised that the controllers' audio tapes are supposed to be retained for 14-15 days[2 weeks]...that if there is any inquiry concerning them, that the tapes must be requested within that time frame or the tapes will be recycled [recorded over]: these tapes will not be archived as a matter of standard operating procedure - even though they may be material to an accident investigation. Does this provoke you to ask if the NTSB EVER requested this audio record of the controllers of AS 261 in a timely fashion [if at all]?

4. Even more interestingly, I have been advised that as a rule the NTSB does NOT take possession of the original tapes of the controllers talking to AS261 [or any similar "incident" aircraft].
I have been advised that the NTSB is furnished only "copies" of the tapes and then the originals are returned for recycling & re-use. Who makes the copies, by what methods are the copies made, how they are verified as "legal" copies after the copying process has not yet been revealed to me. Maybe some of you out there could tell us.

5. I have been on the west coast for some period of time. I found it astonishing during my visit that in the capital of "graphics", so close to the accident site, that no comprehensive report of the "incident" was aired.

No three-dimensional rendering of the flight with a timeline, with a voiceover from the CVR and a subtitling with the FDR data, and using the NOAA sectional aeronautical charts for all the appropriate references.

Based on the data that I think to have been acquired, an individual skilled in the use of a computer should be able to show us a film of the last minutes of this flight, say from 15:55 hours onwards...

I think that any graphic/audio depiction of the true record [legal chain of possession and all that jazz] of those last minutes will be highly revealing of the reasons for the maneuvers that were involved in the downing of AS261. In the supposedly competitive digital age in which we are now living, it seems clear to me that since we haven't seen such a depiction of those last 30 minutes, that we must be living in the world where the state continues to have total control over how and what stories get air.

6. Under normal circumstances, no jackscrew problem should force an aircraft to augur in. It is not the critical axis controller. And it is defeatable, disconnectable. A jackscrew's failing to function should not take out an aircraft; probably did not take out this aircraft. The loss of an entire tail assembly will.

7. Ignore the jackscrew wear "chaff". Ask the question, "What caused the entire tail assembly to fall off of AS261?"

From what I have observed so far, there is a distinct possibility that surface-launched missiles from USN craft struck a commercial, noncombatant airliner and downed it. Why isn't this possibility discussed?

Because it seems so obvious. So it goes. Sigh.

- - - - - - - -
5) Newshawk -- I think you are on to something. As a former Transportation expert with the USAR I also find it unusual that the plane would not land at Pt. Mugu. The airfield should have had the normal safety equipment stationed there and would be well equipped to handle the problem, in fact it would be better equipped since the risk of collateral damage would be much reduced from LAX.
Why are we not asking who was on the plane someone might want dead? I heard the leader of the American Indian Movement was on the plane. (We have not heard of this-JQ) Was he or anyone else a potential target of the potential perpetrators of the crash? Your thoughts on this issue? -- From: "Stephen R. Young" Org: Southwester Bell Internet Svcs
(We've previously published our thoughts on this issue-JQ)

Follow-up: RE: Information on Fl. 261 & Pt Mugu Naval Air Warfare Station From: "Stephen R. Young"
Newshawk --- It appears that my recent notes back to you and your subsequent rebroadcast has recently drawn the attention of someone with the uncanny ability to block my sending and receiving e-mails, faxes, etc. I can only leave it to the imagination who that might be. If you get this please acknowledge and rebroadcast as far as possible. --Steve Young

- - - - - - -
6) From: Futrsource- J . This is a piece of knowledge from my past, when I was briefly out in the Marshall Islands. Pacific Missile Test Range/Center was the description used by the Navy and later the Army for the major missile test facility on Kwajalein Island in the mid pacific AND it's mainland linkage to Vandenberg AFB and related coastal facilities in Calif. The "range" referred to the entire inter-linked program of various radar tracking and related sites in the testing of advanced then pre-star war anti-missile research. It was often referred to as PMR for short and there were coordinated alerts during testing between the California facilities and Kwajalein and other atolls. Back then -- in the sixties -- they herded us all into the cement buildings/bunkers at the sound of the siren. They never knew exactly what would happen during these tests! --Ronn

- - - - - - - -
JAQ Reply: In regard to Ronn's statement above: I think we have a pretty good idea what's going to happen during such tests NOW, though. Commercial air traffic is likely to be terminated, resulting in the deaths of scores of completely innocent, helpless people. And presuming such a horrendous tragedy as the destruction of Flight 261 was in fact an accident (a scenario which personally I find ALMOST impossible to believe), does our government even give a *%&$#? Apparently NOT. ---John Quinn/NewsHawk(r) Inc.


2.19.00 See Hilder's Pics Of Pt. Mugu Runways, etc.
Go to -- http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/flashradar/NEWSHAWK.html [link no longer works] and see pictures taken of Pt. Mugu's runways and other facilities by Anthony Hilder during his recent visit to the base, as described in his accompanying article "FL. 261 CRASH--IT DEFIES ALL LOGIC!!"
Photos also available at Kent Steadman's ORBIT website: Anthony Hilder photos, experiences, Point Magu:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/magu.html  ---John Quinn/NewsHawk Inc.


2.20.00 Feds' Latest Failed Attempt To Muddy Flt. 261 Issue
The feds are really losing their grip bigtime on their cover-up of the Flt. 261 crash. Faced with growing public distress and outrage, ESPECIALLY from the airline industry, in regard to obviously ludicrous, utterly non-credible scenarios advanced by the feds about the particulars of the disaster, they're now grasping at a TRULY flimsy straw in an effort to keep their collapsing pile of lies intact; by suddenly making public an EIGHT-YEAR-OLD report claiming production problems at the plant where the Alaska Air MD-83 destroyed by the U.S. Navy on January 31 was manufactured.

Even if certain allegations made in the original report were "true"-the fact is the report itself says that there were NO air-worthiness or performance issues with any of the aircraft released from the McDonnell-Douglas plant. The Alaska Air MD-83 which crashed had passed ALL safety and reliability checks, OF COURSE, before it was EVER put out into service and was 100% certified. The plane had been working JUST FINE, thank you, for EIGHT YEARS, until it got too close to SOMETHING very nasty at Pt Mugu Naval Air Station nearly three weeks ago. And that IS that!

What we have here with the feds re-releasing this old stuff and trying to get public attention focused upon it, is just another pathetic, miserable effort to deceive, mislead, disinform and just plain LIE to everyone in an attempt further obfuscate the truth of what happened to Flt. 261.

I think it's safe to say that virtually NOBODY is even paying any attention to their non-stop dissembling and prevaricating at this juncture, CERTAINLY nobody in the airline and aircraft manufacturing industries, that's for sure. (See comments from Boeing in the article below in response to latest fed bullscat.)

Feds--GET LOST, eh? NOBODY BELIEVES YOU; NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR YOUR LIES ANY MORE! --NewsHawk(r) Inc.


Feds had found problems at facility that made Alaska Airlines jet
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20000220_510.html
[this link no longer works]
WIRE:02/20/2000 04:49:00 ET

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A federal audit of aircraft manufacturer McDonnell Douglas found problems at the facility that built the Alaska Airlines jet which crashed last month off the California coast.
The audit -- performed in the early 1990s -- found employees at the company's Long Beach, Calif. facility performed sloppy work, improperly inspected parts and used out-of-date blueprints, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.

The MD-83 that crashed into the Pacific on Jan. 31 was delivered to the Alaska Airlines in May 1992.
The Federal Aviation Administration said manufacturing procedures at the plant were marred by chronic breakdowns, but the deficiencies did not threaten flight safety.

"We don't deliver an airplane unless it meets all of our quality standards," said John Thom, a spokesman for the Boeing Co., which acquired McDonnell Douglas in 1997. "We have processes in place, and there are checks along the way. It is in our own self-interest to produce quality and safe airplanes."

The crew of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 reported problems with the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer and were trying to correct them when the plane crashed, killing all 88 aboard. No official cause of the crash has been determined.

The Douglas Aircraft Co., where the plane was built, had been struggling financially at the time of the audit. The McDonnell Douglas subsidiary posted a $222 million operating loss for 1989, according to The Times, and was straining to fill orders for its jetliners.

Supervisors urged employees to improve their work in January 1991, shortly before a team of federal auditors arrived. Still, the FAA audit still found problems throughout the production line.

The MD-80 has a strong safety track record, according to FAA data. Mechanical problems with its horizontal stabilizer, however, have prompted the FAA to order mandatory inspections five times since 1988.

After the January crash, the FAA ordered the inspection of the horizontal stabilizer on more than 1,100 MD-80, MD-90, DC-9 and Boeing 717 planes, which use similar control mechanisms as the jet which crashed.


2.20.00 Navy's Pt. Mugu Missile Weapons Systems
This most interesting material, called to our attention by Jeff Rense of Sightings, describes (as per job offers related to same) in some detail current missile systems online at Pt. Mugu Naval Air Station-systems SPECIFICALLY designed for nailing aerial (that's AIRCRAFT) targets. Yes, that's the kind of stuff they do there. HEADS UP, ALL PRIVATE/COMMERCIAL PILOTS FLYING ROUTES IN THIS AREA!! --NewsHawk(r) Inc.
- - - - - - - -
[Commerce Business Daily: Posted in CBDNet on February 14, 2000
Printed Issue Date: February 16, 2000]

From the Commerce Business Daily Online via GPO Access [cbdnet.access.gpo.gov]
PART: U.S. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENTS SUBPART: SERVICES
CLASSCOD: J--Maintenance, Repair, and Rebuilding of Equipment-Potential Sources Sought
OFFADD: Commander, Naval Air Systems Command (Code 2.3), Patuxent Naval Air Station, Bldg 2272, Lexington Park, MD 20670

SUBJECT: J--ENGINEERING SUPPORT DEPOT MAINTENANCE AND LOGISTICS FOR MQM-8G SOL N/A DUE 030600

POC Thomas E. Mason, Fax: (301) 757-5911, Email: masonte@navair.navy.mil
DESC: The Naval Air Systems Command is interested in determining available sources and capabilities to provide engineering, logistics and depot level support for the MQM-8G VANDAL target system. The MQM-8G series is a two stage supersonic missile (TALOS) that has been converted to an aerial target system capable of offering multi-threat presentations in support of Naval weapons development and training. Three target configurations are included in the inventory: the 8G high diver, extended range (ER) sea skimming, and extended extended range (EER) sea skimming missile. The VANDAL system operating sites include POINT MUGU, CA; Wallops Island, VA; Barking Sands, HI; and White Sands, NM.

Desired engineering capabilities include: on-site support for target presentations, flight data or software programming, range driven modifications to the launch system, failure evaluation, flight data performance analysis, planning and conduct of special diagnostic tests, engineering studies and reporting, implementation of trajectory modifications and system modifications implementing user requirements or corrective actions.

Desired logistic capabilities include the establishment of an inventory tracking and control system for program unique items with condition codes including spares, support equipment and targets, storage of support inventory, receipt, processing, packaging and handling of inventory in coordination with field sites and coordination of resources required for operations.

Desired depot capabilities include test, inspection, maintenance and repair of targets, components, containers and unique program support and test equipment.

The Government has limited technical data and a partial drawing package available for review at NAWCWD POINT MUGU, CA.

Questions relating to this technical data only should be directed via email to Mr. Mark Gruettner at gruettnerm@peocu.navy.mil

Sources responding to this Request for Information are to provide a written identification of proposed alternatives on or before 12:00 noon on 6 March via email at address shown below.

Written response requirements include, at a minimum: (1) A description of the proposed engineering, logistics and depot support. Any or all three of the support elements may be proposed. (2) A schedule which details implementation of the support concept and phase-in. (3) A physical and functional description of supporting facilities and capabilities. (4) Rough Order of Magnitude cost statement which identifies anticipated costs associated with engineering, logistics and depot support for 12 to 20 annual target presentations. (5) Identification of company size, financial status and past performance (with references) for similar tasking.

This Sources Sought Announcement is issued in an effort to conduct market research in a timely manner to assist in the strategic planning of the Aerial Targets Program Office of the Program Executive Office for Cruise Missiles, UAVs and Targets.

The Naval Air System Command's interest is identification of capabilities and products that are capable of providing support for the VANDAL program. This information will be used to assist the Government in defining its acquisition strategy related for the VANDAL program.

This is not a request for proposal nor does the Government intend to pay for requested information.

All written responses and requests for review of the technical data and drawings shall be directed to the Contracting Officer, Naval Air Systems Command, Attn: Tom Mason, Unit IPT, Suite 256, 47123 Buse Road, Patuxent River, MD 20670. Requests for review, questions and responses may be sent via email to masonte@navair.navy.mil
CITE: (W-045 SN424981)


2.19.00 Intentional Termination
Agencies of the U. S. Government, in particular those agencies which administer, operate and staff the Navy's China Lake Weapons Testing Center and Pt. Mugu Naval Air Station/Pacific Missile Test Center, are directly responsible for murdering all 88 people who perished in the crash of Alaska Airlines Fl. 261. (The locations, though separated by over a hundred miles, function literally as one single operational unit, as HARD documentation proves incontestably--an operations link facilitated by massive underground tunnels linking the subterranean portions of these two Navy bases.)

There can be NO doubt of the responsibility of the China Lake/Pt. Mugu operators for the crash and the 88 murders.

Why do we state this?
Well first, the most PLAUSIBLE scenario about the crash is that the plane was struck by either a more conventional explosive/ballistic missile device or an electromagnetic weapon of some kind from Pt. Mugu. This could have been either an INTENTIONAL or an "accidental" strike; though given the highly advanced state of technology an "accidental" strike seems virtually impossible. However, there is also a SMALL chance that onboard sabotage of some kind initiated the craft's handling and maneuverability problems.

Now, to continue: Anthony Hilder of the Free World Alliance and myself have been in contact with a representative of Alaska Air. As a result we have now CONFIRMED that not only were there NO potentially catastrophic mechanical problems with the aircraft prior to the crash, the actions being attributed to pilots Ted Thompson and Bill Tansky-- you know, the OUTRAGEOUSLY ABSURD contentions made by people like Jim Hall and the rest of the federal government's legions of front-men and apologists, to the effect that the pilots were going to turn their barely controllable plane "around" and fly it back to L.A. when they could have landed at Pt. Mugu within about TWO MINUTES-are simply, totally and absolutely INCONCEIVABLE and cannot POSSIBLY be correct.

Of course, this entire matter has NOW become the subject of lawsuits filed on behalf of victims' families--who, understandably, WANT TO KNOW THE SAME THING: WHY did the pilots--"SUPPOSEDLY", according to those KNOWN purveyors of pure truth in the federal government--bypass a number of possible landing sites, in PARTICULAR Pt. Mugu Naval Air station only 2-3 MINUTES away to their right, and instead supposedly turn the plane around and head back to LAX, roughly 45 or more miles away? WHY, WHY and WHY again!?

Well, people at Alaska Air want to know, too.

During our conversations with the airline representative it was conveyed to us that MANY people in this company are extremely troubled and distressed by what the federal government is trying to pretend happened to the plane, and realize that the wretched, miserable tapestry of lies and disinformation cannot POSSIBLY be the truth.

(Shades of the web of PROVEN lies spewed by NTSB garbage-mouths about supposedly "suicidal" copilot Gameel Batouty of EgyptAir's Fl. 990. Remember THAT ONE?!)

However, top-level officials at Alaska Air have suddenly become notably un-forthcoming about the entire matter towards other company personnel who've realized that actions being attributed to Fl. 261's pilots are literally impossible to rationally comprehend and accept.

In fact, information provided to Hilder and NewsHawk indicates STRONGLY that severe pressure is being brought to bear upon upper-level officials at Alaska Air by various and sundry fed spooks, goons, shadow-men and spin-doctors.

There are clear indications that company higher-ups are being threatened with "corporate death"--with having their business completely sabotaged, devastated, decimated and annihilated through implementation of any of a number of different tactics if they don't shut up and play along with the fed cover-up.

Indeed, this must explain all those additional stabilizer / jackscrew "problems" which so mysteriously and CONVENIENTLY began plaguing Alaska Air and OTHER airlines within a DAY of the Fl. 261 crash. It's a "message" from the feds that Alaska Air or any other airline can be quite quickly put out of business if need be.

In fact, whatever "message" has been relayed to Alaska Air higher-ups has undoubtedly been sent to corresponding parties at other major airlines too.

(Alaska Air may have further upset feds by sending their own "message" in replacing #261 as a designation for their Seattle-San Francisco-Puerto Vallarta flight with #289--the SAME NUMBER used on navigational / aeronautical charts to designate Pt. Mugu's "Warning Area W-289".)

We've also been informed that Alaska Air's mechanics are literally UNANIMOUS in their opinion that any possible problems with the horizontal stabilizer mechanism and/or associated jackscrew / gimbal nut malfunctions COULD NOT POSSIBLY have caused this crash. That is; *N*O*T*.

Yet the mechanics, who are basically dealing with the same pile of lies and disinformation handed out by feds as the rest of the world is, could therefore only conclude that for some incomprehensible reason the pilots just completely blew it and committed tremendous and fatal errors of judgment and handling.

The tragedy has thus caused serious dissention, turmoil and disunity within the corporation; a most unfortunate situation, as Alaska Airlines is one of the finest, SAFEST, and most reliable airline companies in the world, bar none.

However, people at Alaska Air at ALL levels may have been missing a couple of puzzle pieces. Now that the material from NewsHawk and Hilder has been disseminated within the company at many levels, such is no longer the case.

During one conversation, the airline representative told us that a large percentage of the company's personnel realize that there is no WAY the pilots would NOT have attempted to land at Mugu. As federal and military regulations REQUIRE any military base with necessary facilities to allow emergency landings without any "permission" or other "authorization" being needed, the pilots obviously MUST have been in some way actually PREVENTED from landing.

So, even IF the initial problematical "events" of whatever kind that befell the aircraft were "accidental" (or perhaps even due to some kind of onboard sabotage), the craft subsequently HAD to have been somehow PREVENTED from making an emergency landing at Pt. Mugu.

Either the plane MUST have been PHYSICALLY PREVENTED from landing there, almost certainly by means of intentional, catastrophic targeting of the aircraft with (additional) weapons strikes of some kind; or more improbably, the pilots were targeted by some form of EM/RF mind control or EM/RF psychological warfare weapon, mentally incapacitating them. No other explanations that fit all known facts are really possible.
THAT'S what MUST have been going on during those mysteriously "SILENT" seven and a half minutes on the cockpit voice recorder.

THIS IS WHY, no matter HOW you want to slice it, elements of the federal government/military are RESPONSIBLE for the MURDER OF 88 PEOPLE. Alaska Air Fl. 261 was prevented from making an emergency landing at Pt. Mugu. 

Any other questions?
Well I have one. How brain-dead would the people of this country be if they were to allow this monstrous mass murder and subsequent cover-up to go unchallenged?

We have some pertinent radar data at: http://www.cbjd.net/orbit/project/md-80.html[this link no longer works] Also; in case there are other questions about Pt. Mugu: Welcome To The Naval Air Station Point Mugu Website (but don't "fly" there!) http://www.naspm.navy.mil/ [link no longer operational] --NewsHawk(r) Inc.


2.21.00 Alaska Air--Gov't, Media Accounts of Crash Are Disinformation & Lies
Alaska Air has made public a statement which clearly and DEFINITIVELY responds to massively DISINFORMATIONAL bullscat being disseminated by the federal government, with the unfailing assistance of their well-trained, dog-on-a-leash mass media outlets--to the effect that the plane which crashed on January 31, Fl. 261, had mechanical problems; such supposedly being a result of excessive wear of the "jackscrew/gimbal nut apparatus controlling the horizontal stabilizer; in addition to thinly-veiled fed insinuations that the company has been lax and irresponsible in its aircraft maintenance procedures as well as other related distortions, prevarications and OUTRIGHT LIES issuing from profession fed/media liars.

To whit: as quoted directly from the end of this public statement made by the airline:
"Alaska strongly believes these allegations lack substance and that these investigations are unwarranted."

AS we've been saying now for THREE WEEKS--THE FEDS ARE LYING SACKS OF TRASH! --NewsHawk(r) Inc.


ALASKA AIR SPECIAL REPORT PAGE (on their website www.alaskaair.com  http://64.14.130.248/E_latest.asp [this link no longer works]
Flight 261 Special Report Latest Information

RELEASED February 17, 2000
LETTER TO THE EDITOR, USA TODAY
Brian Gallagher, Editorial Page Editor, USA TODAY
1000 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209-3901,

Dear Mr. Gallagher:
I can't comprehend what could motivate someone to draw, let alone publish, the cartoon you ran about Alaska Airlines on February 17. It shows tremendous insensitivity and displays incredibly poor taste. Moreover, it's just plain inaccurate. Safety and integrity are at the core of every action we take at Alaska. Not profit. Not schedule reliability. Not now. Not ever. What's the economic incentive of any airline to operate in an unsafe manner? There isn't one. Sadly, the old maxim is true. Your pen is mightier than the sword; it has wounded all 10,040 Alaska Airlines employees, as well as the families and friends of those who perished on Flight 261.

Your cartoon discounts our sterling reputation within the airline industry -- a reputation which has been frequently chronicled on your pages. Our pioneering efforts to develop pinpoint accuracy in navigation using the Global Positioning System is just one example.

Moreover, the cartoon mocks others who have recognized our commitment to flight safety. Our maintenance program has received high marks during white glove audits by the FAA and the Department of Defense.

Your editorial page proclaims "USA TODAY hopes to serve as a forum for better understanding." Yet you have betrayed that standard by deciding to run this cold, cruel and callously unfair cartoon.

Sincerely, Bill Ayer President


RELEASED AT 2:15P.M. February 14, 2000
STABILIZER CHECK ON ALASKA AIRLINES PLANE FOUND EQUIPMENT WELL WITHIN REQUIRED WEAR LIMITS
Contrary to misleading reports in the media, the horizontal stabilizer mechanism of the Alaska Airlines MD-83 involved in the Flight 261 accident was found to be well within wear limit tolerances in a 1997 heavy maintenance check.

A C-5 check was performed on the aircraft (tail number N963AS) on September 29, 1997 at the Alaska Airlines maintenance facility in Oakland. The initial examination of the jackscrew and gimbal nut assembly of the horizontal stabilizer indicated that the endplay of the jackscrew was .040 inch, within allowable limits prescribed by Boeing, the plane's manufacturer who sets those limits.

Boeing's instructions for mechanics performing this check state: "Check that endplay limits are between .003 and .040 inch. Readings in excess of above are cause for replacement of acme jackscrew and nut."

The instructions also state that the measurements should be repeated "several times to ensure consistent results."

The assembly was re-examined on September 30, 1997, indicating that the endplay was .033 -- well within standards. This test was rechecked five additional times to ensure consistency of results and each time the results indicated the endplay was well within standards.

Under the maintenance schedule approved by the FAA and recommended by Boeing, the endplay of the aircraft's jackscrew and gimbal nut assembly is conducted every other C-check and was scheduled to be reexamined on this aircraft in June 2000. The tolerances provided by the manufacturer are designed so that the aircraft can fly safely until its next scheduled inspection.

The instructions for this check are included in Boeing's maintenance manual, and their step-by-step instructions for mechanics. Alaska Airlines used those instructions in its maintenance task card.

This test is one that is routinely signed off on by both a mechanic and an inspector to provide an extra level of scrutiny.

Since the multiple rechecks of the jackscrew and gimbal nut assembly found it to be within specifications, no action was necessary under Boeing's maintenance manual which is approved by the FAA.


RELEASED AT 12:45 P.M. February 14, 2000
FACTS REGARDING OAKLAND MAINTENANCE INVESTIGATIONS
In recent days, a number of questions have been asked regarding the FAA and U.S. Attorney's Office investigations into maintenance practices in Oakland, Calif.

The following information is meant to clarify Alaska's position on these investigations and reiterate that they have not involved the Alaska Airlines' aircraft involved with Flight 261 on Jan. 31, 2000.

OVERVIEW: The Oakland Maintenance Base is the primary location where Alaska performs heavy checks on its Boeing MD-80 fleet. Heavy checks on its Boeing 737 fleet are primarily performed in Seattle.

There are two parallel investigations into maintenance practices at Oakland. One was conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration and another is continuing by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Alaska has fully cooperated with both the FAA and the U.S. Attorney's Office in their investigations and has provided all maintenance records either agency has requested during their investigations.

When these investigations began, Alaska asked the FAA specifically if any of its aircraft should be grounded and was told by the FAA that it was not necessary.

THE SOURCE OF THE ALLEGATIONS: The source of the allegations leveled at the airline is John Liotine, a lead A&P mechanic (Airframe and Powerplant) for Alaska in Oakland. Mr. Liotine is currently on administrative leave, receiving full pay and benefits. He was placed on leave because his presence in the workplace has been disruptive to operations.

Mr. Liotine served briefly as president of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association local in Oakland until he was removed from office by mechanics. Mr. Liotine was passed over for promotion by two of the supervisors he has accused, one of whom started work for Alaska on the same day Mr. Liotine began his employment with the company.

Mr. Liotine's allegations generally focus on a final check known as the Post Maintenance Final Run Checklist (PMFRC). This check was developed specifically by Alaska and is above and beyond the manufacturer's required maintenance program. Mr. Liotine did complain to Alaska that the PMRFC should be performed later in the heavy check process. Alaska Airlines was investigating his complaint when the government investigations began.

Contrary to Mr. Liotine's assertions, he did not report alleged falsification of documents to the company before going to the FAA. Mr. Liotine contends that Alaska employs too few mechanics and that they are under-compensated. Those claims are untrue.

THE FAA INVESTIGATION: Based on Mr. Liotine's allegations, the FAA in Los Angeles has conducted an administrative investigation and proposed a $44,000 fine, alleging that Alaska operated two of its aircraft in an "unairworthy" manner.

Alaska learned later from the media that the fine proposed by the FAA investigator contacted by Mr. Liotine was $8.72 million, but was overridden by FAA supervisors and ultimately reduced. Alaska has challenged the proposed fine. The FAA has taken no subsequent action since hearing Alaska's side of the story.

THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INVESTIGATION: Based on Mr. Liotine's allegations, the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco is conducting a grand jury investigation related to the allegations reviewed by the FAA. Assisting with the investigation are the FBI and the DOT Office of Inspector General.

Two subpoena's have been issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office to date. The first subpoena was issued Dec. 22, 1998 requesting records pertaining to three specific MD-80 aircraft. The second subpoena was issued Nov. 23, 1999 requesting records pertaining to eight additional MD-80 aircraft.

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS: Oakland Lead Mechanic John Liotine alleges that during a C-check in November 1998 he discovered a throttle split on an aircraft that was greater than allowed. (A throttle split is the difference between the position of the throttle knobs for the No. 1 and No. 2 engines. A split of up to 1/2 knob is permitted by the manufacturer.)

Records, however, indicate that the throttles were checked twice before Mr. Liotine claimed to find a split and were twice found to be within limits, as reflected on two separate work cards. Mr. Liotine still insisted the throttle split was out of tolerance, but was overruled based on the previous two work cards. Later records confirm that there was no excess throttle split when the aircraft was released into service.

Mr. Liotine alleges that the Post Maintenance Final Run Checklist (PMFRC) was falsified during a C-check for an aircraft in October 1998. However, shortly after the check was performed, the PMFRC work card disappeared. A replacement card was prepared. Later, the U.S. Attorney's Office provided Alaska with a copy of the original card, thereby proving that the original card existed and supporting Alaska's belief that the card was illegally removed from the hangar by Mr. Liotine. Almost all information on the replacement card is identical to the original except for a few minor discrepancies.

John Gustafson, formerly an Alaska mechanic, alleges that several years ago he was pressured to release an aircraft after it experienced mechanical problems in Spokane, Wash. Mr. Gustafson waited six months to make his allegations, which he asserted for the first time in a letter announcing his departure from the company. An internal investigation conducted in 1997 at the time of his complaint failed to corroborate his allegations.

Aside from these instances, Alaska has carefully reviewed the records subpoenaed for the other eight aircraft and has not been able to ascertain from the U.S. Attorney's office why these records were requested.

ALASKA'S SAFETY RECORD: Alaska underwent its last National Aviation Safety Inspection Program (NASIP) review by the FAA in 1995. The white glove audit reviewed maintenance, airworthiness, flight operations, security, and hazardous material handling by the airline. The program has since been replaced for the 10 major carriers by the Aviation Transportation Oversight System (ATOS), a program that provides continual assessment of compliance as well as risk assessment.

In the fall of 1998, the Department of Defense conducted its biennial safety survey of Alaska's maintenance, engineering, and flight operations divisions and found them to be performing an "exceptional" job. (Alaska is a contract carrier for the U.S. military.)

Alaska has received high marks from the FAA Aircraft Certification Office for its level of compliance with the Aircraft Certification Systems Evaluation Program (ACSEP), which reviews major repair data. The last two reviews were conducted in 1997 and 1999.

In the February 6 edition of The Los Angeles Times, the newspaper conducted an independent analysis of FAA enforcement actions against the 10 major carriers during the past two decades. According to The Times analysis, Alaska - the 10th largest carrier - had the fewest number of fines for maintenance violations. The carrier also ranked ninth in the total amount of fines paid and sixth in the average amount of fine, according to The Times findings.

Alaska has invested heavily in new technology to make flying even safer over the past two decades, and continues to do so today. For instance, in 1989, Alaska became the first airline to use head-up guidance systems during a passenger-carrying flight to improve safety during takeoffs and landings in fog. The central component of the system is the head-up display, which superimposes a holographic image of the approaching runway on a transparent screen positioned between the pilot and the cockpit windshield. And in 1996, Alaska became the first airline in the world to integrate the Global Positioning System (GPS) with the latest in Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGWPS) technology. Together, these two technologies improve navigation approaching pinpoint accuracy and allow pilots to be continuously updated on their location relative to any nearby land mass.

A HIGHLY SKILLED WORKFORCE: Aircraft Maintenance Technicians at Alaska Airlines are represented by the Aircraft Mechanics' Fraternal Association (AMFA). Despite Mr. Liotine's allegations that mechanics are not appropriately compensated, Alaska and AMFA officials signed a collective bargaining agreement in June 1999 that assures that their wages and benefits are competitive with those of mechanics at other major U.S. airlines. Although Alaska is the smallest of the 10 major carriers, its mechanics rank fifth overall in starting pay. This agreement also assures that Alaska can continue to afford and retain the highest caliber employees in the industry.

Mr. Liotine also alleges that Alaska has been unable to attract and hire additional mechanics in recent years. However, the number of mechanics per aircraft has actually increased. In 1995, Alaska operated 74 aircraft and employed 626 mechanics, or 8.46 mechanics per aircraft. Today, Alaska operates 88 aircraft and employs 775 mechanics, or 8.81 mechanics per aircraft.

Additionally, Mr. Liotine alleges that some Alaska mechanics are under qualified. The fact is, Alaska mechanics must hold specific licenses as per the FAA, as well as a requisite level of experience determined by the airline. For example, an A&P mechanic must have an A&P license and at least three years of commercial aircraft experience, while an avionics technician must have an FCC license and three years commercial aircraft experience.

CONCLUSION: Alaska strongly believes these allegations lack substance and that these investigations are unwarranted. While it's absolutely true that Alaska asks all its employees to do their jobs effectively and efficiently, no amount of time saved is worth compromising safety.

--> WEBSITE REPORTS GO BACK TO THE INITIAL 'AIRCRAFT DOWN' REPORT


2.23.00 Spook Effort to Squash Our Fl. 261 Info

NSA and CIA cyber-goon squads were really working overtime recently -- trying their damnedest to cut off the flow of information being disseminated by NewsHawk, Anthony Hilder / Free World Alliance, FlashRadar, Sightings and Kent Steadman's CyberspaceOrbit about the Alaska Air Fl. 261 shoot-down.

NewsHawk has INCONTROVERTIBLE proof of this malicious and TOTALLY illegal activity--evidence which our attorney will be presenting to, among others, both Alaska Airlines and attorneys representing crash victims' families.

As we've said before, perhaps the only way to squeeze some truth out of the miserable lying gullets of the federal "Fourth Reich" government is through legal means. Worth a try at least!

The easiest way to portray how the NSA's "Echelon"-type crews went about their dirty work in this particular instance--among many such recently-is to reprint below a series of emails sent between Jeff Rense at Sightings and NewsHawk, beginning last Saturday, February 19.

This is a typical example of the kind of tactics these punk-XXX fed cyber-slimers have been implementing--a scenario which was repeated at LEAST 6 times during the course of us publishing information on Fl. 261 via our email newsletter in the weeks since the crash.

The first email I've included is OUR response to Jeff's initial email to NewsHawk, which asked that Hilder's article "It Defies All Logic" be edited and shortened before Jeff posted it to Sightings. Notice ALSO that Jeff makes reference to an item he had previously sent to NewsHawk and John Prukop, about a Navy job offer for their missile systems operations online at Pt. Mugu and several other locations.

NewsHawk NEVER received THAT material from Jeff Rense either.


Re: Intentional Termination Sat, 19 Feb 2000
To: sightings

sightings wrote: << Ask Anthony to edit his article (It Defies All Logic) down by about a third, tighten it up, reduce some of the 'rant', ...and it will read a hell of a lot better. He knows this, I'm sure. This is a time for measured, logical, and pointed questioning. Legitimate speculation is fine... if done with careful listing of facts to build suppositions upon. ... >>

If he will do the above, resend this entire email with his revised article and I'll post it. As far as I know, the below came only from me to you. credit is always appreciated.

> [Commerce Business Daily: Posted in CBDNet on February 14, 2000]...
> From the Commerce Business Daily Online via GPO Access...cbdnet.access.gpo.gov]
> PART: U.S. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENTS
> SUBPART: SERVICES
> CLASSCOD: J--Maintenance, Repair, and Rebuilding of Equipment-Potential Sources Sought
> OFFADD: Commander, Naval Air Systems Command (Code 2.3), Patuxent Naval Air Station, Bldg 2272, Lexington Park, MD 20670
> SUBJECT: J--ENGINEERING SUPPORT DEPOT MAINTENANCE AND LOGISTICS FOR MQM-8G SOL N/A DUE 030600
> POC Thomas E. Mason, Fax: (301) 757-5911, Email: masonte@navair.navy.mil ... Best...>>

- - - - - - - -
Hi Jeff-
Will relay as you suggested. Did you want it back with my "Intentional Termination" AND my into to his "Logic" piece?
As for that item on the Navy job listing, it NEVER reached me from you (HMMM...), but rather from John Prukop. I guess I didn't catch that you had sent it to him. As I said, it never reached me directly from you, and there was certainly no intent to not indicate that it came through Prukop from YOU. I DO wonder why your email of the material to ME never came through however... as if I don't know. Will re-send soon.
Take care, John Q

- - - - - - - -
The package of material, with an edited version of Hilder's "It Defies All Logic," was emailed out to Jeff Rense's personal email address and to the Sightings email address at 8:39 that same evening, return receipts requested.

As these receipts are generated when the email hits the recipient's servers, they usually show up in SECONDS. After TWO HOURS, no return receipts had yet been received. Thus, I emailed Jeff as follows.

- - - - - - - -
Subject: MIA Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:47:50 +0000
From: "NewsHawk Inc." To: sightings etc.
Jeff--
I sent out the edited version of Hilder's article over two hours ago (also edited my stuff a bit). Subject heading was "Intentional Termination of Flt. 261." Never got a return receipt from either email address. Missing in action? So, I RE-sent material several minutes ago, with a slightly different subject heading: namely just "Intentional Termination;" with "of Flt. 261" removed from the subject heading. Received return receipts within SECONDS. Interesting, no?
- - - - - - - -
Here's Jeff's terse, on-target reply-
Subject: Re: MIA Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:06:10 -0800
From: sightings To: "NewsHawk Inc."
glitching Echelon/etc. filters. got it...sent for posting.
- - - - - - - -
Well, Jeff Rense finally got the material, but THEN he had to send it on to his postmaster at the Sightings website. Guess what? It didn't get through! Here are the details on THIS stage of the Echelon shenanigans.
- - - - - - - -
Subject: still MIA? Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:52:20 +0000
From: "NewsHawk Inc." To: sightings
Jeff--
I guess revised articles still haven't made it through. Can't find 'em anywhere on your site. This must be keeping them very busy at NSA/Echelon. Shall I try another re-send? Advise.
Take care, John Q
- - - - - - - -
Subject: Re: still MIA? Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:40:31 -0800
From: sightings To: "NewsHawk Inc."
It was sent last night. will check with him now. yes...about 3-5% of my mail vanishes, or shows up quite late.--Jeff

- - - - - - - -
Eventually however, by later that afternoon the email package of articles "made it through" all the NSA roadblocks and information dams and WAS posted at Sightings; apparently, much to the displeasure and dismay of SOMEBODY OUT THERE.

And that's just ONE example of the extraordinary degree of interference and harassment implemented to impede the information we've brought to light on the Alaska Air Fl. 261 crash.

Isn't this just the most fun ever, or WHAT!

Yes, that's what's going on these days in the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave."

THIS is what our "democratic Republic" has been reduced to. A mega-version of some goddamn cheap-trash banana military dictatorship. --- NewsHawk Inc.


2.23.00 NSA Tips Hand On Truth of NewsHawk Fl. 261 Articles

The clear and obvious corollary to the PROVEN cases of jamming and interference by fed cyber-goons related to our Fl. 261 articles, one specific instance of which was detailed in our previous article today "Spook Effort to Squash Our Fl. 261 Info", is that the information contained in the articles and those of Free World Alliance's Anthony Hilder are WAY too close to the truth for the comfort and pleasure of the cyber-goons AND their masters, the MASS-MURDERERS in the federal government directly responsible for the vicious, criminal actions which caused Alaska Air Fl. 261 to crash seven miles from Pt. Mugu Naval Air Station January 31.

Now think about THIS:
How much WORSE is the situation going to become in this nation, regarding not only such state-initiated terrorism as the downing of Fl. 261 but ALSO regarding such utterly illegal criminal activity as the interception and destruction of information by the cyber-goon cyborgs of the NSA and other alphabet-soup agencies as occurred with our articles about the crash, when EMPEROR-DESIGNATE and global arch-criminal George Dubya BUSH becomes the dictator of the U.S.?

Answer:
It will get SO much worse it defies rational description. G.W. BUSH will UNDOUBTEDLY be the one to usher in the final stages of the establishment of the FOURTH REICH--in the once-proud, once-free united STATES of America.

So, to the people--make that SHEEPLE--of America: just keep up your brain-dead, pathetic actions--such as actually VOTING for this arrogant, [xxx remarks deleted]--AND your INACTIONS in regard to the drastically deteriorating condition of your / our INALIENABLE RIGHTS, and watch the Fourth Reich rise to its full flowering right before your near-blind eyes.

Sieg Heil, Emperor Dubya. Your crown is waiting. Of course much of the above could apply, to PERHAPS a somewhat lesser degree, to Trenchcoat Mafia godfather Al Gore.  ----NewsHawk(r) Inc.


2.23.00 More CRUCIAL Questions On Fl. 261 Crash

Our respondent AC has some undeniably MAJOR--and we DO mean MAJOR, as in CRUCIAL--questions about the Alaska Air Fl. 261 crash and the MOUNTAIN of DISinformation which fed lackeys and minions have HEAPED onto the public, the airline industry and the aircraft industry in the wake of what we have PUBLICLY called the INTENTIONAL downing of Fl. 261 at Pt. Mugu Naval Base.

WHERE ARE THE PROFESSIONAL PILOTS on this issue?

We've ALREADY reported that conversations we've had with Alaska Air personnel have revealed that their mechanics are virtually UNANIMOUS in concluding that any purported horizontal stabilizer and/or related jackscrew/gimbal nut malfunctions on Fl. 261 COULD NOT POSSIBLY have caused a terminal disaster to occur. ---NewsHawk(r) Inc.


STILL MORE QUESTIONS CONCERNING AS261
From: AC

1. Where are all the current-ALPA and ex-ALPA pilots of DC9 and its variant aircraft[MD83] and their comments?
It is my understanding that the range of movement for this trim stabilizer is limited and that it is actuated only minimally during a normal flight: that it is virtually never [if ever] run through its full range of travel in normal flight. If my understanding is correct, why is it that none of these pilots are putting up postings revealing this reality [on yours or any other site]?

2. It is my best guess that similar control mechanisms are used routinely for cnc machine tools. Furthermore, it would be my guess that this machine tool application is far more stressful, more extreme, than any trim stabilizer application. I could be wrong about this, but that is my appraisal.

If this appraisal is mostly accurate, why is it that no one reveals this fact? And that includes Boeing, Alaska Airlines, and all knowledgeable ALPA members.
Have all professionals been coerced into maintaining silence? (Wouldn't totally surprise us--JQ)

3. In an earlier message to you, from me, which I think you may have aired, the issue of the recordings of the air traffic controllers was mentioned. I NEVER hear this subject discussed. But it may become the issue most subject to damage control.

If my information is correct, by 17 February 2000, the NTSB should have requested the recordings of ALL FAA/USN personnel that were in radio communication with AS261. Did that happen? If it did not happen, then is it true that all those controller tapes have already been overwritten?
Will someone be asking this question of the NTSB? (HELLO, Alaska Air!!-JQ)

As of my most recent readings of the NTSB cant, I can find no mention of the tape recordings of the  controllers. Nor did I notice anyone responding to my query.

I think the disposition of this material bit of evidence concerning the incident would be the most revealing of the NTSB intentions. Can anyone tell us what the true scoop is concerning these controller tapes?

4. Years ago, when I used to fly a lightplane in Southern Ca, I could have flown into a position to have photographed all the salient features of that facility. Can that not still be done? (Might get SHOT DOWN!-JQ)

5. I am not equipped to scan the Los Angeles sectional chart, but some of your more sophisticated readers must be able to do that. And I think that it SHOULD be done: overlaying some of this sectional with AS261 positions and waypoints. Candidly, I am surprised that it has not been done as of yet. Please encourage those who can put that image on the net to do so.

6. Someone, without a full-time job, should start interviewing DC9 and variants crews. I wonder how many of these flight deck crews will talk. And I wonder what they would say, if they would talk.

And then, there is always Bob Donaldson and ARAP. Why have those pilots failed to comment about the realities of trim stabilizers on these T-Tail aircraft?!

Also, where are the airpacks on this fuselage?

7. How many and what kind of surface ships, if any, were in the vicinity of AS261?

Furthermore, what occurs to civilian surface ships when the Pacific Missile Test Center schedules testing in these restricted zones? And how are USN ships deployed? And better still, WHAT was the situation re: surface ships in this area on the afternoon of 31 January 2000?

8. I drove up to Oxnard since the incident. The most interesting thing that I learned is that there has been virtually NO INTRUSIVE PRESS PRESENCE since the incident.

Does that inform you, as it does me, that all journals, all media, all journalists have been waved off? (Anthony Hilder, of course, "intruded onto Pt. Mugu Naval Base, and was SURE "waved off!" [See Hilder's "It Defies All Logic" -- http://www.sightings.com/politics6/261spec.htm ]-JQ)

My ears are open, my eyes also. Any answers?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Well?????? WE'RE WAITING!!! ---NewsHawk(r) Inc.


2.23.00 Alaska Air Pilots, Crews--NO WAY IT HAPPENED THAT WAY!

During contacts which NewsHawk and Anthony Hilder have had with representatives of Alaska Air, it was REPEATEDLY and STRENUOUSLY conveyed to us that literally across the boards, pilots and flight crews who work for the airline find the actions which federal agencies insinuate, suggest or state were taken by Fl. 261's pilots Ted Thompson and Bill Tansky, directly prior to the flight's termination, to be inconceivable in the EXTREME.

Many of the other pilots at Alaska, as well as many of the airline's flight crew personnel, knew Ted Thompson and Bill Tansky personally and know that their piloting skills were absolutely top-notch and impeccable. In other words they DON'T BELIEVE the scenario which feds are trying to advance AT ALL. They say: NO WAY IT HAPPENED THAT WAY! ---NewsHawk(r) Inc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2.27.00 Alaska Air Pilots and Crew Say NTSB "Spin Story" is 'BS'
Notes from John Quinn & Anthony J. Hilder's Newspad

Alaska Airlines pilots and crews aren't buying into the National Transport Safety Board bureaucrats' "cover-up story" on how AK Air's Flight 261 went down for the final count killing all 88 aboard. Scuttlebutt has it that employees are deeply disturbed by the fact that the airline isn't furnishing any information to their staff people. An inordinate amount of personnel have been absent the first three weeks after the crash due to "emotional trauma."

"We're not buying the NTSB's Bull S.." says one source. "The Feds have "tossed a foul ball & we are not hitting it."

The airline's mechanics are near-unanimous in the belief that the "air holocaust" wasn't because of any "faulty" stabilizer screw. In the words of one mechanic with Alaska Air: "that's so much hokum."

Moreover, in talking to one employee who knew Fl. 261's pilots Bill Tansky and Ted Thompson, they said: "They were two of our most experienced pilots." But when asked why they headed out to sea; turning away from the airfield at Point Mugu with its open and immediately accessible runway, they didn't have an answer. "I just don't know why they bypassed the runway, no one here can explain it," our source divulged with tears in their eyes. "I was crying for a week and I haven't been able to sleep ever since. I knew eight of the people on board personally. They were my friends."

We know for certain that a number of the Hilder/Quinn articles were circulating in various Alaska Airline offices around the country. Apparently some of Alaska Air's flight attendants made copies. They have been seen from Puerto Vallarta to Anchorage and all spots in-between.

The articles, including, "It Defies All Logic," have been picked up by other major websites; including Robert Sterling's Konformist.com., Jeff Rense's Sightings , Kent Steadman's Cyberspaceorbit.com and Doug Pooley's FlashRadar. The articles have been seen by millions at this point.

Attorneys across the country representing those who died needlessly in the crash have also been availed of the information and are taking a CLOSE LOOK at what was going on at the U.S. Navy's Pt. Mugu Weapons Testing Center on February 1st.

One of our sources at Alaska Air says: "When I came into the employee room their were five people reading it at the same time. I was busy and didn't have time to read it until the next day." The source said: " One girl (a flight attendant) was concerned that we are not being given the truth."

Our contact went on to say: "Everybody is asking why we (the flight) didn't land at Point Mugu. They had plenty of opportunity. But who knows what happened? They're not telling us anything."

Three weeks later, it's still "mum's the word." As to the NTSB's "SPIN STORY," the widely-prevailing view within Alaska Air is-- "NO WAY! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY." -- c 2000 NewsHawk Inc./A.J. Hilder


2.27.00 Unlikely Fl. 261 Screwed by China

All of a sudden lots of people, including writers with the Washington Post (ALWAYS a wellspring of pure truth) and Readers' Digest, have figured out "what really happened" to Fl. 261. What really happened, the story goes, was that the aircraft's jackscrew was made in China.

Okay. And?... And that is basically THAT, as far as this explanation goes, if one really analyzes it.

Those writers, along with other amateur sleuths AND/OR witting and unwitting spin-doctors such as NTSB personnel, are implying, hinting and insinuating that these jackscrew assemblies on a number of MD-80 and related series aircraft were made in China, and were possibly "defective."

Now, let's lay some groundwork here. NewsHawk has taken a fairly uncongenial stance towards Communist China lately, for a number of reasons. First of all, they're a Communist country with appalling, nauseating standards of human rights. This, naturally, goes over quite well with the global gangsters running the U.S. and THEIR bosses in the New World Order--for lack of a better descriptive name for that bunch. Nevertheless, we think this latest "explanation" for something as truly UNEXPLAINABLE in any conventional terms as the Fl. 261 disaster just doesn't hold up.

Here's why. Some crucial factors need to be kept in mind.

First--has anybody noticed any of CHINA'S planes falling mysteriously right out of the sky while at cruising altitude (considered the safest portion of any flight) recently: especially JUST in the vicinity of military facilities engaged in ultra-top-secret advanced electromagnetic weapons research, development and testing? No? Didn't think so. Neither have we. China's planes seem to be doing quite fine.

Well, say the hawkers of this theory--of course, the Chinese DELIBERATELY made and sold faulty parts for OUR (McDonnell

Douglas/Boeing) jets, because they don't like Whitey and are trying to cause jet crashes. AND, China thought this up eight years ago, when the plane destroyed in the Fl. 261 crash was built. Their technology and manufacturing standards AND their control/knowledge of downline product distribution, routing and handling is so precise the Chinese can in-build just the right amount of "defect" so these parts wipe out several years down the line; and specifically ONLY in those parts which end up in those planes which end up bought and operated by airline companies in the UNITED STATES!

Wow. Pretty awesome. In fact, if this scenario were true China's top power brokers, and/or their advisors, must literally be incredibly PSYCHIC for this newly-materializing, second-stage FL. 261 cover story to be correct. As we said, awesome. And we don't buy it.

Let's ALSO keep in mind now that it's been conveyed directly to NewsHawk, Anthony Hilder and other journalists that aircraft mechanics with MANY airline companies find theories a stripped jackscrew/gimbal nut assembly caused the crash to be EXTREMELY UNLIKELY; and in fact, literally almost impossible. That is: no matter WHERE the durn thing was made, a failure of this mechanism and resultant difficulties in operating the horizontal stabilizer would NOT have caused the crash!

Whether the cited mechanism was made in China or Chattanooga makes no difference. Failure of this part--an unheard-of and highly unlikely phenomenon in the first place--would not have led to a terminally out-of-control aircraft.

What we clearly have here is deployment of the second-level cover story of "OFFICIAL" disinformation on the Fl. 261 crash, in our well-considered and well-respected opinion.

This is just what occurred a couple of weeks after the EgyptAir Fl. 990 crash: when malicious, slanderous innuendoes and lies dropped like rat excrement by NTSB and other fed front men suggested co-pilot Gameel El-Batouty most likely committed mass murder and suicide since he was SUPPOSEDLY heard praying on the cockpit voice recorder; baseless, defamatory hogwash that went over VERY POORLY with folks like NewsHawk and of course with the Egyptian Government, EgyptAir, Batouty's family and so on.

Interestingly, just then, ANOTHER version of the events surrounding THAT inexplicable crash began rather quietly and unobtrusively making the rounds in mass media accounts. It was said to be the "inside scoop" on THAT crash, and supposedly explained why feds lied and disinformed everyone about THAT crash (as it's PROVED they did), just as they've done about Fl. 261.

THAT second-stage fall-back story, the additional, insulating layer of distractive disinformation ALWAYS present whenever a major covert operation or the like is staged/implemented by the fed hounds of hell, was geared up when loud outcries of "FOUL" greeted feds' Batouty insinuations several weeks after THAT crash; concurrent with reports of SIGNIFICANT indications of material evidence tampering, cover-up/withholding of crucial relevant information and just plain flat-out LYING by the feds ABOUT Fl. 990.

In the EgyptAir case, this next level of distractive noise, the next red-herring, claimed that -- "well yes, darn it, feds WERE less than forthcoming about the EXACT details of the Fl. 990 crash because... well, you see, they were actually covering for BOEING and for the fact Boeing had been making shoddy, non-spec aircraft: and at first, feds kind of unthinkingly reacting by trying to cover up the information to protect major U.S. manufacturer and defense contractor Boeing. Sort of like doing the wrong thing (covering up facts), but doing it for a somewhat understandable reason.

But that's NOT what caused the crash of Fl. 990. NOBODY believes that, least of all the Egyptian government, which just LAST WEEK hired some more investigators and experts here in the U.S. to pursue amassing evidence the plane was in fact most likely destroyed by some kind of hostile action. And, after the second level of disinformation, there's a third, a fourth, probably a fifth, and maybe even a sixth level; depending on how well the previous cover stories have held.

And NOW we have the SAME tactics being used by feds in the AlaskaAir crash.

NOW, many professional flight personnel have OVERWHELMINGLY indicated fed claims that Fl. 261's pilots--when experiencing a serious airborne emergency --ignored Pt. Mugu's ample, handy and TOTALLY capable airport and instead turned around to fly 45 miles and land their troublesome craft over the heads of millions of Los Angeles residents are unthinkable, inconceivable, illogical and cannot possibly be correct

And at the same time, aircraft/airline mechanics and maintenance personnel from many quarters have by a wide majority come down hard to the effect that such supposed jackscrew/gimbal nut malfunctions and supposed resultant horizontal stabilizer control problems are, again, simply unthinkable, inconceivable, illogical and cannot possibly be correct.

In other words--the feds actually HAD NO STORY. They need a NEW story, and now we've heard it.

Once again, this second-stage red-herring cover story SEEMS to have some plausibility; explaining that feds WERE "sort of" covering up about the Fl. 261 crash initially--because if they'd made the information public it would blow the cover on how inferior the manufacturing quality of these aircraft components made by our wonderful trade partner actually is; it would have resulted in some substantial uproar in China and of course for inverse reasons in this country as well, and also turmoil in our relationship with China.

Hence, we now get the second level of disinformation hitting the airwaves--"the jackscrew was made in China--China 'screwed' us; but we couldn't say it; or were afraid to, or were pressured not to."

This particular tale, indeed, serves some additional domestic political purposes. For one, it's designed to effectively "split" the "conspiracy crowd": the feds' thinking on this being that more traditionally ultra-right wing elements, already mad as a hatter at Red China, at her shenanigans AND at the treasonous wholesale sellout to China on a VAST number of issues by the inter-linked Reagan / Bush / Clinton global crime syndicate over the past 20 years, will jump at the chance to pin this one--the Fl. 261 crash--on an enemy they really love to hate; Red China. (NOT that WE like Red China much!)

This "new view" on the Fl. 261 crash making the rounds is also implementing a sub-agenda of putting some heat on China, whose bellicosity and aggressive hostility has undeniably and understandably become quite irritating to a wide range of people and elements--including us.

Very clever: because this spin-story DOES tie into LEGITIMATE, disturbing issues which NewsHawk ourselves just recently brought up--such as: New World Order operators in upper levels of the U.S. government have pushed through trade agreements extremely favorable to China for years now, despite China's constant, extreme human rights violations on a massive scale, and despite the fact China has consistently gotten the better end of the bargain, including some very fancy, high-tech goods and military hardware while WE'VE mostly gotten cheap-trash junks goods which often only last about till you're done looking at them for the first time. The Trilateralist Reagan / Bush / Clinton whores have continued to push these trade agreements despite clear, numerous and growing indications China is not by any stretch of the imagination "FRIENDLY" to the U.S., our interests, our principles or to our people. (Of course, NEITHER is OUR government, so that's why THEY want to keep greasing the chute for China.)

Additionally, globalist elements of the federal government have engaged in specifically treasonous behavior with regard to interactions with Red China. Nevertheless, that's NOT THE ISSUE with the Fl. 261 crash.

What's more; not everything made in China is cheap junk and, as we said, THEIR planes certainly aren't falling inexplicably out of the sky at a steadily-increasing rate lately, and China sure makes their OWN jackscrews and gimbal nuts.

As best as we can determine at this point, the emerging "INSIDE SCOOP" on the Fl. 261 crash, claiming "defective," Chinese-made parts were directly responsible for the tragic disaster, is HOT AIR, CHATTER and LIES.

No matter WHERE those parts were originally made, they had to subsequently pass rigorous, STRINGENT inspections and testing procedures by McDonnell Douglas and later by Boeing before and after being incorporated into the aircraft. If the parts met spec, that's that. And they did.

So TOUGH LUCK, feds. Time to dust off your THIRD-stage disinfo cover-story and try THAT one. ---NewsHawk(r) Inc.

REPORTS INDEX    ALASKA P1

 
 

Copyright 2006 IRAAP.org.  All rights reserved.
HOME  NEWS   MESSENGER   SITE  INDEX   LINKS   CONTACT
to top