I already told you my friend was the pilot on that flight and it was an accident. I knew his family when he flew with me and I worked with him for years. I know why it happen and how it happen, and it was an accident. Drop your political bias and use your brain, you are right about 9/11, and I can tell you Rob Brown's flight had an accident.
Well good for you, but I'm not, and it has nothing to do with a political bias. At this point, I think Bush and company are just culpable if there was a mass murder as Clinton and company. And you'll not convince me it was an accident until you explain the following items (to list just a few of the questions I have):
1) Why have all the forensic pathologists, both military and civilian, (except for one ... that being the head of AFIP, and who it can be proven lied about both the facts in the case and the opinions of his staff) who have made public statements said the wound in his head looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied? Note that some of these declarations were made DURING the examination of the body at Dover AFB. Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, looked at the wound and remembers saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." By law, if there is suspicion of foul play in the death of a Cabinet member , the FBI is to be called in and an autopsy done. Yet, that didn't happen. And we aren't talking about run of the mill forensic pathologists voicing their concern, but the ones the Air Force itself considered the best of the best, especially when it came to gunshot.
2) Why, for only the second time in Air Force history (the first being a clearcut case of a shootdown due to friendly fire), was the first stage of the normal Air Force post crash investigation ... the one where the cause is determined ... skipped? Why did they immediately move to the Accident Investigation phase? Why did top administration and military officers declare weather was the cause before the investigation had even begun? That is NOT normal procedure either. And ironically, the government paid out millions to the families of the victims (presumably preventing lawsuits in the matter) while declaring weather was the cause. Yet this report states that weather was NOT a significant factor in the crash.
3) Why did this accident report not contain an image of the hole in Brown's head or the xray of the head or mention the opinion of some of the staff, including a forensic pathologist who was present at the examination, that his body should be autopsied? Why doesn't the accident report mention that the AFIP pathologist (Colonel Cogswell) who was at the crash site and specifically charged with looking for something that might have caused such a wound said he found nothing that might cause it and that the description sounds like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied?
4) Do you know that Colonel Cogswell gave talks at pathology conferences and training classes on "mistakes in forensic pathology" and told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both contrary to the official report claims? You think he could get away with that at a conference of professionals if he was wrong?
5) Why does a confidential (discovered by Judicial Watch) chronology of events that was in the possession of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher include the following item "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash" when the government has always claimed that only one person was found alive at the crash site? And why was the body of that person (Sergeant Kelly) ordered cremated at Dover before her family was even contacted? That's a violation of regulations, by the way. Was anyone ever punished?
6) Why did the Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash that the black boxes had been found? The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. Several foreign news stations reported it. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above even states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claims the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. Tell me sir, what boxes on this plane looked exactly like recorders? Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that it carried the Secretary of Defense. Regulations required that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes. Was anyone ever punished for this "violation" of regulations?
7) Why did the pathologist (Colonel Gormley) who conducted the examination of Brown's body and who declared it a case of blunt force trauma in the accident report go on TV and lie about the facts in the case? This occurred during the time when a gag order was in place preventing any of officers who were raising concerns about what happened from speaking. But the black community was asking more and more pointed questions so Gormley was ordered to go on Black Entertainment Television and defuse those questions. Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists (who were saying there should have been an autopsy). He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound and that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He denied that two sets of x-rays existed. Then, he was confronted with a photograph taken during the examination (by Captain Janowski, who also said the wound looked like a bullet wound) that showed brain matter visible in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry. Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's x-ray slides. He immediately changed his story and claimed that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janowski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute. Do you care to explain this behavior by Gormley? Note that a few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Whitehouse. Care to explain what happened at those highest levels?
8) In January of 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP had convened a review panel of all its pathologists. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. But Cogswell refused to attend, following the advice of his lawyer. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons corroborated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... a clear lie. Care to explain why AFIP lied about the opinions of its staff?
9) Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, in addition to Cogswell who carried out the search, Gormley has acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Why did Junger lie about this?
10) Now here's a good question. Where are the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head? Isn't it a fact that they disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few top people had access? Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer, confirmed this. Yet Gormley and the AFIP did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley simply referred calls to Chris Kelly, who simply said Gormley would not grant additional interviews. Aren't you at all interested why they showed so little interest in this?
11) Why did the AFIP report that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory when Captain Janoski who was present for the entire examination did not see any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue? Why did Janet Reno tell the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. However, no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists. Isn't this a little strange?
12) Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the Government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. They had their homes searched without a warrant and were given negative job evaluations (for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years). For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," it continues, adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars. The signatures are not even dated. Do you think this is fair treatment of military officers one only raised what appear to be valid questions?
13) Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. The consensus of Col. (Dr.) William Gormley, who personally examined Secretary Brown, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic community is that Secretary Brown, like the others tragically killed in the plane crash of an Air Force CT-43 aircraft in Croatia on April 3, 1996, died of injuries sustained during the mishap." I wonder, have the families been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter? Does your friend's family know?
14) Peters letter said "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown’s injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." Both statements are demonstrable lies. He wrote "The alleged "bullet fragments" mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." This is also a clear lie. The military photographer who took the pictures says that could not be true given that only the one photo of Brown's heads shows the so-called "defect". Why is Peters lying?
15) Peters letter said "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown’s death — or the death of any other person on the aircraft — medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." This too is a lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus. Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Any comment?
16) And finally, let me point out that military pathologists are not the only ones on record here. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." If the metal is from a bullet, he said the array of fragments would indicate a shot fired before the crash. Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable. Tell me, do you think Mr Wecht, a Democrat, is politically biased in this matter?
So, Beachnut, don't scold me about being biased unless you are prepared to answer these and other (yes, I have many other) questions about the matter. You see, unlike the *911Truthers*, I am more than prepared to discuss the FACTS in a case I consider a *real* conspiracy.
) 
