TWA 800 Missile Theory Back In The News

July 16, 2013
Reconstructed wreckage of TWA 800

Reconstructed wreckage of TWA 800

Sometimes strange and ugly truths take years to be revealed.
In 1996 TWA 800 mysteriously exploded off the coast of Long Island, killing 230 passengers and crew. After a long investigation, the NTSB determined that a static charge ignited an near-empty fuel tank and caused the explosion.

This claim largely ignored the eyewitness accounts of over 700 people who saw a streak of light shoot up from the surface and hit the plane, suggesting a missile strike.

From “Raw Story”:

“A 90-minute documentary, “TWA 800,” which premieres on the Epix cable channel on Wednesday, the 17th anniversary of the disaster, argues that the jumbo jet was downed by missiles and alleges a high-level cover-up.
At a screening Monday in Washington, former NTSB investigator Hank Hughes, a central figure in the film, said the petition he filed on June 19 for the case to be reopened is making headway.

“My understanding is that they are in the process of selecting the individuals” who will review the petition, he told AFP, referring to the NTSB, a federal government agency.
“Hopefully they won’t be people who were involved in the original investigation, so they can take a clean look at it… I think, from what I have been hearing, that they are taking it seriously.”
The NTSB, which spent four years investigating the disaster, must respond to Hughes’ petition within a 90-day period that would end September 17.
Virtually forgotten since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the loss of TWA 800 was first thought to have been an act of terror, before the focus of the investigation veered toward the fuel tank beneath the passenger cabin.”

———-

ABC News lays out the details of the eyewitness reports:

“The most compelling case for the missile theory is made by the 755 FBI records of eyewitness interviews, which were recorded on standardized FBI “FD-302” forms typically used by the bureau in court.
Recently posted on the Internet and given little notice by the press, the FBI records seem to tell a dramatic story of a missile striking the plane.
Ninety-six of the eyewitnesses — from boats, from the Long Island shore, and from a nearby jet and helicopter — described seeing a streak of light or what appeared to be a flare moving up from the Earth and eventually leading to an explosion over the Atlantic, according to the FBI reports.
One eyewitness, for instance, described “what he thought was a shooting star traveling west to east, coming form the south shore, over Fire Island,” an FBI agent wrote. The “object he observed was more like a bottle-rocket with a dull orange glow to it” and he “further stated that the glow moved faster than an aircraft.”
Yet another witness on Long Island’s south shore said she observed “what appeared to be a ‘contrail’ which appeared to be coming from an object which was flying toward the plane which she had been watching,” according to another FBI record. That eyewitness said she thought the object originated from somewhere on the ocean.
Some of the eyewitnesses in the days after the crash, lent weight to the missile theory by describing what they saw to TV news.
“It was a bright, reddish orange color. It appeared to be a flare going up,” witness Lou Desepoli told a news camera.
“If you take the time and read through [the witness reports], you’re gonna be a believer. I mean, a hundred people can’t be seeing this stuff without something being there,” says retired Navy Commander James Donaldson, who was a crash investigator for the service and is currently the most vocal critic of the government’s investigation and a strong advocate of the missile theory.

Donaldson has posted the FBI forms, obtained from the NTSB, on a Web site, http://twa800.com/witnesscd/witnesscd.htm.
——————————————–

Now, if you really want to go down the rabbit hole, consider that there was a seceret U.S. Navy test going on in the area.

From the ultra-conservative “World Net Daily”:

Did Navy sub missile hit TWA 800?
Witness: ‘I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that we shot the plane down’
Published: 06/21/2013 at 9:10 PM Jack Cashill

The impending release of a new documentary has dramatically revived media interest in the destruction of TWA Flight 800, the Paris-bound plane that blew up off the coast of Long Island in July 1996.
Although producers Tom Stalcup and Kristina Borjesson do not name names or point fingers, the video leads the viewer to believe that the U.S. Navy accidentally shot the plane down.
The video features a half-dozen truth tellers from within the investigation, and the news of it has inspired several more to step forward, including one who talked with WND about the disaster Friday.
Mack, not his real name, cautioned that his information was limited, but his insights had merit nonetheless. Mack was a crewmember on the sub, the USS Albuquerque.
This was one of three subs acknowledged by FBI spokesman James Kallstrom as being in the “immediate vicinity” of the crash site. The other two were the USS Trepang and the USS Wyoming.
Several days before the Flight 800 incident, Mack was involved in loading what he was told were “experimental missiles” aboard the sub. “This was not your normal load out,” said Mack.
The sub was heading for the testing area off the coast of New Jersey and south of Long Island. Mack did not go on that cruise.
He was driving with his wife when the news first broke of Flight 800′s demise. Before the government got hold of the narrative, there was considerable reporting about a missile or missiles.
“Do you think it was a terrorist?” his wife asked.
“God, I hope so,” said Mack. He explained that “his boat was out there.” If it wasn’t a terrorist, it was likely a Navy accident.
FAA radar had captured four unidentified tracks “consistent with the speed of a boat” within three to six miles of Flight 800′s course at the time of its midair breakup.
The fact that three of the radar tracks disappeared right after TWA 800 crashed argues strongly that these were the submarines Kallstrom had identified, the Albuquerque among them, and that they submerged almost immediately.
One “surface vessel” less than three miles from the crash scene headed away from the area at 30 knots. In response to questions from a congressional subcommittee, the FBI’s No. 2 man on the investigation, Lewis Schiliro, claimed that the “the FBI first noted the presence” of this ship in January 1997, an astonishing five months after the disaster.
Although the FBI was allegedly unable to identify this ship, Schiliro added the meaningless disclaimer that “based on our investigative efforts, we are confident it was not a military vessel.”
According to the FBI, this surface vessel had a “speed between 25 and 35 knots, is believed to be at least 25-30 feet in length, approximately 2.9 nautical miles from the position of Flight 800 at the time of the initial explosion.”
Radar, however, is unable to judge the length of the ship. That detail was added to suggest a pleasure craft and not a Navy ship whose length might be measured in the hundreds of feet.
In any case, the ship was fleeing the scene. When questioned, Kallstrom identified this vessel as “a helicopter.”
By the time of its final press conference in November 1997, the FBI knew that all of the stories that the Navy had previously offered about the USS Normandy being the closest asset of consequence at 181 miles away were patently false.
At this juncture, all information about any aspect of the case from any source should have been considered suspect.
“We left no stone unturned,” Kallstrom claimed when the FBI withdrew from the case. “In fact, we looked under every rock multiple times.”
But Kallstrom never bothered to explain these numerous discrepancies or shifting stories. The crew of the sub were not in a position to add much clarity.
Even if they had been allowed to talk, as Mack explained, very few of his colleagues, if any, would have known exactly what happened that night. Later, when he inquired, he got no straight answers. He has been troubled by it ever since.
Said Mack, “I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that we shot the plane down.”
——————————-

So which is more likely- Exploding fuel tank? Terrorist missile, or U.S. Navy missile?

Look. If it was an act of terror, usually some group claims responsability, otherwise it’s not “terrorism”.
If it was a fuel tank explosion, every plane of that type would have been taken out of service.
But if the Navy screwed up, well…

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

81 − seventy four =