re: TWA 800 & commonplace nature of minor consipiracies.
-rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sender: •••@••.••• (ACTIV-L)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 96 11:02:40 CST
From: •••@••.••• (Ian Goddard)
Subject: TWA 800: THE FACTS (11/25/96)
Article: 1385
To: •••@••.•••
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
(free 2 copy (*)-------------------(free 2 forward)
T W A 8 0 0 C R A S H :
J U S T T H E F A C T S
By Ian Williams Goddard
Contents:
I. MILITARY CULPABILITY
II. WITNESS REPORTS
III. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
I. MILITARY CULPABILITY
FACT 1: July 17th breaking news reports, rarely to
resurface, stated that naval maneuvers were being
conducted off-shore near the explosion of TWA flight
800, which killed 230 people around 8:48 PM, EDT.
FACT 2: Confirming early reports, TWA 800 exploded
near the naval warning zones W-105 and W-107, both
of which were activated for military maneuvers on
the night of the explosion. The professional avia-
tion publication Aerospace Daily (08/28/96) reports:
[ Area W-105 ] is designed to keep
aircraft departing New York safely
north of any military activity...
FAA sources and the Navy acknowledged
yesterday...that the area known as
Whiskey 105, or W-105, was activated
at the time of the TWA accident...
The New American (10/14/96) reports that the FAAs
"Warning and Restricted Areas Information Log" shows
that nearby W-107 was also activated at the same time,
reserving airspace for military use up to 10,000 feet.
TWA 800 is reported to have exploded at 13,000 feet.
FACT 3: The Airman's Information Manual (Section 3:43)
defines a warning zone as follows:
[Warning zones] denote the existence
of unusual, often invisible, hazards
to aircraft, such as artillery firing,
aerial gunnery, or guided missiles.
FACT 4: Some residents were not surprised by the
massive explosion of TWA 800 because military oper-
ations in the area are not unusual. As the East
Hampton, New York paper The Independent (07/24/96)
learned from a South Beach resident, John Bauman,
"people continued fishing" after the blast think-
ing it was probably "the Westhampton Air Force
Base doing some kind of testing offshore."
FACT 5: Only hours after the crash, investigative
sources stated that "The leading theory is that the
airliner was destroyed by a...anti-aircraft missile"
(Reuters, 07/18/96). Yet White House spokesman Mike
McCurry attacked those in-the-know, saying, "There's
no American official with half a brain that ought
to be speculating on anything of that nature."
FACT 6: Radar detected an object merging into TWA
flight 800 before the explosion. As the Associated
Press (07/19/96) reported:
Radar detected a blip merging with
the jet shortly before the explo-
sion, something that could indi-
cate a missile hit.
However, Pentagon officials, asking the AP not to re-
veal their names, condemned the blip as "spurious."
Radar and satellite-image evidence remains concealed.
FACT 7: The Jerusalem Post (07/21/96) says French
Defense Ministry agents believe that flight 800 was
shot-down by a Navy missile. While many victims were
from France, French investigators have been, in vio-
lation of routine international protocol, prohibited
from assisting the FBI-NAVY-NTSB secret investigation.
FACT 8: The St. Louis Post Dispatch (11/09/96) inter-
viewed TWA pilots who, based on inside knowledge, say
that TWA 800 was hit by a U.S. Navy missile. Consistent
with the AP (09/23/96), one TWA pilot of 20 years said
investigators found a hole going in the plane believed
to be caused by a Navy missile. They said "high level
sources in the Pentagon" and crash investigators told
them TWA 800 was hit by a Navy missile (UPI, 11/9/96).
One pilot told the St. Louis Post Dsipatch:
"At least nine out of 10 pilots will
tell you they believe this was a
missile. We know of military prac-
tices where they will lock [missile
systems] onto commercial aircraft
for testing, but then do not deto-
nate the missile."
The Workers World News Service (09/19/96) reported
that many TWA and airport workers blame the Navy.
FACT 9: Former United Airlines pilot and crash invest-
igator Richard Russell learned via inside connections
that TWA 800 was hit by a Navy missile in the course
of test firings. His report was widely condemned and
anyone who even considers it, such as former reporter
Pierre Salinger, has been viciously smeared and labl-
ed as mentally imbalanced, even as key information
in his report is consistent with known facts and with
events reported by dozens of witnesses. The only case
against the report is: the Navy denies the charges.
FACT 10: Exactly as Captain Russell's report stated,
a P-3 Orion near TWA 800 and a guided-missile ship
were working together. The Discovery Channel's pro-
gram on the TWA 800 investigation (11/17/96) said:
The Navy had a P-3 and a guided
missile carrier in the area on
some kind of exercise.
It's hard to imagine how else a guided-missile ship
would be relating to a far point in the sky--the P-3
near TWA 800--apart from some exercise involving the
firing of missiles at or near that point, which is
exactly what Captain Russell reported (08/22/96).
FACT 11: WCBS-TV of New York reported (09/05/96) that
information leaked from the top-secret crash invest-
igation indicates that TWA 800 was shot-down by a
Navy missile. Top officials condemned the idea as
totally absurd and a sign of mental imbalance.
FACT 12: When asked if the area TWA 800 exploded is
used as a missile testing area, at a news conference
(11/08/96), Navy Admiral Edward Kristensen said the
area is "not typicality used for missile training."
While also saying he is not aware of tests ever oc-
curing in the area, he did not deny that they do.
FACT 13: While the region was activated for maneuvers,
a Navy spokesmen claimed Navy ships were too far away
to have hit TWA 800 with a missile, but then in his
next breath he makes a claim proven to be false re-
garding naval weapons capabilities in the area. The
Associated Press (11/08/96) reported this:
Lt. Cmdr. Rob Newell, a Navy spokes-
man...said...an Aegis-type missile
cruiser, was 185 miles to the south...
[and that] the only aircraft in the
area was a P-3 Orion anti-submarma-
rine plane, which he said does not
carry missiles. But the military
reference, Janes All The World's
Aircraft, states the P-3 is cap-
able of carrying missiles.
While witness accounts do not suggest the P-3 is
a likely suspect, it would seem that the Navy is
being less than forthright when a full accounting
of missile capabilities in the area is necessary
because in fact a missile was widely observed.
II. WITNESS REPORTS
FACT 14: Witnesses saw a missile-like object shoot
up from the ocean, apparently from a boat, initi-
ating the TWA explosion. According to eyewitness
Lou Desyron (ABC World News Sunday, 07/21/96):
We saw what appeared to be a flare
going straight up. As a matter of
fact, we thought it was from a boat.
It was a bright reddish-orange color.
...once it went into flames, I knew
that wasn't a flare.
Another witness said (N.Y. Daily News, 11/09/96):
It looked like a big skyrocket go-
ing up, and it kept going up and
up, and the next thing I knew
there was an orange ball of fire.
FACT 15: Over 100 eyewitness reported seeing this
rocket streaking toward TWA 800 just before it ex-
ploded. As The Washington Times (07/24/96) states:
Several witnesses...saw a bright,
flare-like object streaking toward
the jumbo jet seconds before it
blew up. ABC News said yesterday
that the investigators had more
then 100 eyewitness accounts sup-
porting the [ missile ] theory.
FACT 16: Missile witnesses were highly credible and
gave uniform accounts. The New York Post (09/22/96):
Law-enforcement sources said the
hardest evidence gathered so far
overwhelmingly suggests a surface
-to-air missile...
The FBI interviewed 154 "credible"
witnesses -- including scientists,
schoolteachers, Army personnel and
business executives -- who described
seeing a missile heading through the
sky just before TWA 800 exploded.
"Some of these people are extremely,
extremely credible," a top federal
official said.
FBI technicians mapped the various
paths -- points in the sky where the
witnesses said they saw the rising
"flare-like" object -- and determined
that the "triangulated" convergence
point was virtually where the jumbo
jet initially exploded.
FACT 17: The witnesses said the "streak of light"
hit the plane. The New York Times (07/19/96):
[ Witnesses reported ] a "streak
of light" hitting the plane just
before it blew up.
FACT 18: Two National Guard pilots in the area also
saw the streak. CNN News Interactive (11/08/96):
...the 106th Rescue Wing based at
Gabfbreski Air National Guard Sta-
tion at Westhampton, New York, said:
"The two helicopter pilots...Major
Frederick Meyer, the pilot, and Cap-
tain Cristian Baur, the co-pilot,
both saw a streak of light, moving
from east to west prior to the ini-
tial explosion."
At a press conference a few days after the event,
Major Meyer said he did not think it was a missile
but suggested that it could have been a meteor.
FACT 19: Not unlike a guided heat-seeking missile,
witnesses reported that the missile curved across
space prior to the hit, leaving a trail of smoke
along its path. The New York Times (07/19/96):
Paul Angelides, who lives in West
Hampton Beach...saw what he describ-
ed as a "red meteor with a smoke
tail" that followed the course like
the outline of "a parabola" [curve].
[ Major ] Meyer...told reporters
that he saw an arch of light mov-
ing moving toward the plane.
He said, "Almost immediately there-
after I saw in rapid succession a
small explosion and then a larger
explosion."
Such curving should rule-out the meteor theory, for
such curving, in the case of a meteor, would violate
Newton's first law. The fact that some witnesses re-
ported seeing the missile fly straight up and some
saw it curve, is a logical consequence of viewing
the event from different angles.
It's impossible to fathom why it is that the missile
theory is said publicly by the FBI to be on an equal
footing with the bomb and mechanical-failure theories,
both of which, unlike the missile theory, are said to
have "no supporting evidence." How is the witness of
over 100 people and radar equal to no evidence ??!!
III. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
FACT 20: While investigators claim that there is no
evidence that a missile or bomb exploded inside the
plane, information was leaked to the AP that a prac-
tice guided missile with no warhead that locks onto
the center-of-mass may have passed through the plane
without exploding. Such a missile would leave two big
clues: (a) the missile would strike "the center fuel
tank, touching off the explosion," and it (b) "would
only leave a small hole." Associated Press(09/22/96).
FACT 21: (a) "The explosion that brought down TWA
Flight 800 occurred in the center fuel tank area,
the lead investigator [said]." Reuter (08/22/96).
FACT 22: (b) Investigators reconstructing the debris
say there is a hole going into the plane and a hole
going out of the plane. Associated Press (09/23/96):
...a source...said on condition of
anonymity.... ``There's metal bent
in, metal bent out. Metal you can't
tell. I see a hole going in and a
hole going out...''
Or the missile could have even exploded outside
the plane, thereby requiring no in-out holes:
FACT 23: An aviation disaster expert speaking live
on CNN (07/17/96) shortly after the TWA explosion,
said he believed that it was a missile-hit and that
the eyewitness reports of two explosions, one small
then one large, was consistent with a heat-seeking
missile exploding near the plane's heat-radiating
exhaust. Armed with a "proximity fuse," such a mis-
sile would first explode outside the plane, leading
to the subsequent eruption of the fuel tanks, caus-
ing precisely the sequence of explosions observed.
FACT 24: While the official story is that there was
no significant damage to any of the jet's engines-
exhausts, The New American (10/14/96) quotes a re-
liable private investigator who said:
"I watched the television coverage
when they brought up the fourth en-
gine and half of the engine was gone,
as if it had been hit by a missile,
even as they were announcing that
it was entirely intact."
A federal air crash investigator who
also observed the engine recovery told
The New American that the fourth en-
gine did indeed look as if it could
have been hit by a missile.
MY CONCLUSION, based upon the current knowledge, is
expressed in the statements of reporter Hillel Cohen:
FACT 25: At a press conference (11/08/96), moments
before the FBI's Assistant Director James Kallstrom
ordered him removed from the room, reporter Hillel
Cohen asked, "Why is the Navy not a suspect?" In
response, Kallstrom said, "Remove that man." As
about 10 security guards surrounded him, swiftly
removing him from the room, he could be heard to
say: "We want an independent investigation."
Recommended TWA 800 web site:
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/twa.html
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD (•••@••.•••) Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________________
(c) 1996 Ian Williams Goddard - (*) free to copy nonprofit w/ attribute.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - Wexford, Ireland
Cyberlib: www | ftp --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Share: