cj#641> TWA – Report #2 – Friendly Fire Theory


Richard Moore

Cc: Joe Shea

Dear cj readers,

        In Report #1 we saw a published (in Ojai) letter from a "county
office worker" who claimed to have witnessed the TWA incident, and insisted
that he saw "A very bright fiery light heading upward toward the jet. Then
an explosion."  In previous cyberjournal issues, such as cj#621 (9 Dec),
we've seen similar reports, which in many cases identified the witnesses

        Although the Ojai letter is unattributed, it is consistent with the
other reports, has, if you will, the ring of truth -- and the reasons for
omitting signature make perfect sense.  I, for one, am willing to take that
letter at face value for the time being.

        The letter goes beyond other reports I've seen, in that it is not
only an eyewitness report of the original incident, but is also a
first-hand account of the coverup process as it proceeded "on the ground"
from day one.

        What was to be covered up, in this case, was the legion of
eyewitnesses who saw what could only have been a missile.  The cover-up was
accomplished in two ways.  First, the missile accounts were systematically
left out of the official FBI reports, or perhaps showed up under a
"confused witness" category -- thus the FBI chief can claim, with deceitful
truth, that no eyewitness accounts of a missile showed up in his
investigation.  Second, the witnesses were intimidated/bribed into hiding
their stories, thus accomplishing "damage control" in the media, which was
already rife with missile-sighting reports.

        Can there really be any doubt about a missile having caused the
explosion?  Have there been any eyewitnesses who saw the plane explode and
who didn't see a missile?  Besides all the pro-missile accounts we've seen,
perhaps one of the most telling pieces of evidence is what we haven't seen.
I refer to the radar and satellite records which must surely be in the
government's possession.

        The following agencies, at least, must have been tracking events
during the incident: Air Traffic Control, air defenses for the Manhattan
area, the missile training facility itself, and myriad satellite tracking
systems.  It would, I imagine, be easy for the government to release a few
satellite photos or radar-tracking tapes which show the lack of a missile
-- if any such records exist.  If some terrorist-launched missile had been
at fault, I'm sure CNN would have shown satellite images of the hit at
their next news broadcast, along with a full measure of outrage.

        The silence by the government in such factual details, which could
so easily clear up the issue, is a bit puzzling -- unless their records do
show a missile.  The probable fact is that the government knows full well a
missile downed the plane, and knew it within moments of the event.  They
also know the truth might "come out" at some point, and they don't want to
be caught in a bald-face lie if they can help it.  Meanwhile, they keep a
low profile and simply deny credibility to the missile "rumour".


        Let's assume for the time being that the missile sightings were
correct.  The next issue that arises, is whose missile was it?  Here the
evidence is rather less contested.  Everyone seems to agree that "terrorist
style" hand-held missiles cannot reach the altitude at which the explosion
occurred.  The missile would have to be a military model.  No one has
denied that a U.S. missile-testing facility exists near the site of the
explosion, nor that the plane was flying at an lower-than-normal altitude.

        Here's the original posting from Parveez that reported on this
situation (cj #553):

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996
Sender: Parveez Syed <•••@••.•••>
Subject: TWA flight 800 crash

Monday 22 July 1996, London-UK

TWA Flight 800 crash

Let us see if credible investigative journalists on the list can
explore the alternative possibilities without demonising and
criminalising one billion Muslims after every bombing.

French sources reported on Sunday 21-07-1996 that French Defense
Ministry experts say it is possible that the TWA Boeing 747
which exploded last week was "accidentally" [deadly friendly
fire] hit by a missile fired by a US Army unit in the region.

According to sources, the French experts believe that if reports
about a surface-to-air missile hitting the plane are confirmed,
the infrastructure needed to fire a missile powerful enough to hit
a plane at that altitude is only possessed by army units.  The
possibility that a Stinger missile could hit the plane is being
rolled out by the French.

The French experts say human or technical error could have led to
the TWA crash. The experts say that if the TWA plan was shot down
by mistake by a U.S. military unit, it is unlikely that the U.S.
army will admit it. Years ago, a US Navy plane shot down an
Iranian civilian plane over the Persian Gulf killing more than
180 passengers.

Parveez Syed
Shanti RTV news agency


        Was this a "first mention" of the friendly fire theory?  I'm not
sure, but it is the first posting I received from Parveez on the TWA story.
By my reading, the above is a reasonable news report.  It reports on
newsworthy statements by French "officials" (which is no less attribution
than given by most of our mainstream news reports).  It suggests that
friendly fire would be the most likely scenario if missile sightings "are
confirmed", and it gives the reasons for that view.

        The above is not, in my view, a "rumour" being started by a
"propagandist".  It does not, for example, scream out "Trigger-happy yanks
shoot down helpless plane", nor does it claim that "friendly fire" is a
fact.  It simply calls for relevant facts to be considered in exploring the
causes of the crash.

        By contrast, in those early days, some mainstream media venues were
openly claiming a "muslim terrorist bomb" was to blame, with no factual
basis whatsoever.

To be continued...

Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26 - Wexford, Ireland
  Cyberlib:  ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib        (USA Citizen)