From: "Bob Anderson" 
Subject: SNET: Alaska Air--Gov't, Media Accounts of Crash Are Disinformation & Lies
Date: 21 Feb 2000 11:23:52 -0500
To: opinion@startribune.com, sen@ecnnews.com, sentinel@colbsent.com,
        sentinel@rny.com, sfexaminer@aol.com, sfexaminer@examiner.com,
        snetnews@world.std.com, ss_letters@tribune.com,
        stareditor@starnews.com, sun-news@cornell.edu, talkback@wisctv.com,
        tampas10@aol.com


->  SNETNEWS  Mailing List

2.21.00
Alaska Air--Gov't, Media Accounts of Crash Are Disinformation & Lies//
--ALSO: Fl. 261 Crash-- It Defies All Logic
--And MORE


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® Inc.
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
http://64.14.130.248/E_latest.asp
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 ? 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.





2.19.00
Intentional Termination of Flt. 261


NewsHawk® Inc.

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--a 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 firstly, 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 involved with Pt. Mugu
operations. 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 lying sacks
of filth 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 that 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


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/



NewsHawk® Inc.
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
2.17.00
FL. 261 CRASH--IT DEFIES ALL LOGIC


Several days ago, investigative journalist 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, or were prevented from landing. 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 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.


THIS TRUTH MUST BE HEARD!



NewsHawk® 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 pilots, 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 pilots 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.

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 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.

As I drove up the Coast Highway towards Point Mugu the deep, blue-green
Pacific Ocean lay to my left and to my right were the Santa Monica
Mountains. The pilots of Flt. 261 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 at the
runway behind craggy point that lay ahead. There was no place to land
in "them thar hills" that wouldn't have ended in a fiery Inferno.

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 and would certainly have been greatly preferable to
diving into the waters off the California Coast, whose depths
can approach thousands of feet.

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.

I approached Point Mugu's Naval Weapons Testing Facility and showed
the guard at the gate 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. As I followed Lerma closely another Military Police car pulled up
directly behind me and I drove "sandwiched" between the two vehicles
as we turned left at the Base's Beach Motel, where the road ended
virtually NOWHERE. I realized 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!!

Recalling that Officer Richard Lerma claimed to have been on duty the
afternoon 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, 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.

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.

The very next day after my visit the computer belonging to Rick, the
Free World Alliance's Postmaster General, was hacked into and UTTERLY fried.


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 damned OBVIOUS that the Navy has something to hide in regard
to this matter.

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.

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 a massive error, one
would have to have a motive. Star reporter John Quinn has been looking
into that angle. Obviously, SOMETHING is not right.

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 or did it take a conventional missile hit like TWA's
Flight 800?

Was the aircraft forced to turn out to sea and sudden death because
they were denied access to land? 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."
That what investigative reporting is all about. 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." Why? What's there to hide?

If the Navy had tested any sort of electronic or conventional weaponry
that day it's not likely they would tell me.  I did ask Haeg those
questions. To both she answered, "No." 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
officer 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.


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
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® 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
bu 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 prevented
from landing 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) or was actually PREVENTED from
landing, 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,
NewsHawk® Inc.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
->  Posted by: "Bob Anderson"