Posted on 07/09/2025 4:16:16 AM PDT by MtnClimber
A Pair of Lawsuits Promise to Expose the Truth Behind the July 1996 Disaster.
On July 17, 1996, TWA 800, a Paris-bound 747, blew up ten miles off Long Island’s south shore, killing all 230 souls on board. In the days leading up to the anniversary, I will share some fresh insights on this tragedy and the much too successful cover-up that followed.
After 25 years investigating the destruction of TWA Flight 800, I have learned to temper my enthusiasms. That said, I continue to take heart when I see signs of life. Perhaps the most promising development in the case is the progression through the courts of Krick v. Raytheon.
Ronald Krick is the father of Oliver Krick, a 25-year-old student flight engineer killed in the crash. Krick has been joined in the suit by relatives of other deceased passengers and crew. The defendants are the Raytheon Company, the Lockheed Martin Corporation, and the United States government.
The Krick suit gained momentum when it absorbed information gleaned from a FOIA suit brought by Tom Stalcup, a no-nonsense physicist who has been pursuing this case since he was a grad student in 1996. To establish his claims Stalcup was granted subpoena power and was able to depose several key witnesses from within the investigation.
Stalcup appeared in the 2001 documentary, Silenced, produced by me and my late partner James Sanders. In 2013 Stalcup and the late Kristina Borjesson, formerly of CBS News, produced the excellent documentary, TWA Flight 800. What follows are extended passages from Krick v. Raytheon.
—On July 17, 1996, a Boeing 747 headed for Paris took off from New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport at around 8:20 p.m. Within twelve minutes of takeoff, the plane exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Long Island, New York. All 230 passengers and crew members perished.
—After the incident, the federal government released a false report contending that the explosion was the result of an electrical fire in the airplane’s center fuel tank.
—Only recently, thanks to the work of physicist, Dr. Thomas Stalcup, through his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) litigation in Massachusetts federal court, has evidence emerged proving that TWA 800’s explosion was not caused by any defect in the airplane, but instead by an errant United States missile fired at aerial target drones flying nearby.
—The evidence unearthed by Dr. Stalcup establishes that the United States, including its agencies, such as the United States Missile Defense Agency (formerly known as the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization), the United States Department of Defense, and the United States Navy (the “Government Defendants”), acting in concert and working side-by-side with Raytheon Company and Lockheed Martin Corporation (the “Contractor Defendants”) and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive (collectively the “Defendants”) were testing the Aegis Weapons System and firing SM-2 missiles with live warheads from warship(s) at aerial missile targets off the coast of New York in close proximity to commercial airline flight paths. One such missile struck TWA flight 800, causing it to break apart and crash into the Atlantic Ocean, killing everyone aboard.
—Newly discovered evidence also shows that these Defendants engaged in a top-down cover-up to prevent the public from learning the truth about TWA 800. Proof of this cover-up, and of Defendants’ underlying culpability for the crash, was only recently unearthed by Dr. Stalcup after more than a decade of FOIA litigation against the Government Defendants.....SNIP
NTSB investigation concluded the over heating of the A/C mounted over the fuel tank and shorted wire caused it.
Not rockets or UFO ...........................hype
It wasn't a stinger. Stingers didn't have the range. I had read at one time what the probable missile was, but it wasn't a stinger.
GingisK wrote: “There is nobody on deck when they are launching missiles. The only ones who know what is going on work in the fire control center. The number of sailors who would actually anything would be limited to a few men with elevated security clearances.”
Everyone on the ship would know when SM-2 missile is launched. If you doubt that, review a few videos of such a launch. It’s not like shooting a bottle rocket.
It was another Clinton coverup.
I remember seeing a video of the missile trailing and hitting the aircraft, but that video quickly disappeared. Just like the videos of Muslims dancing with joy as the twin towers collapsed.
Everyone working in government intelligence right now is privy to the fact the government is committing illegal and unconstitutional surveillance acts against us and they are also bound in mass to be silent because of authoritative intimidation. Being legal or illegal makes absolutely no difference when it comes to government suppression of information. And government has so much power and influence with state, county, LE, and municipality inter-agency cooperation they can even have your local planning and zoning and code enforcement up your rear within just a few days. They have unlimited inter-agency resources to use against you if they choose to. Been there...
No it wasn't. You can't even light jet fuel with a blow torch. No amount of sparks or electricity would ignite a pool of jet fuel in a tank.
The stuff just won't burn unless it is atomized. There is a very good video on Youtube where the guy proves this. He actually tries to light Kerosene, Diesel, Jet Fuel, and Fuel oil with a torch.
It will not light.
The Fuel tank claim is absolutely a lie.
What kind of missile, from what platform, and how was it employed is easy to speculate.
Are you saying it is impossible to shoot down an airplane with a missile on a boat? That there is no known missile which can do such a thing?
That is just silly. That's not even a good argument.
The USN does missile tests away from civilian air traffic, and their missiles have self destruct features if they lose their intended target. The idea the USN would for the hell of it, us an Aegis cruiser in range of civilian traffic to fire off SM-2s is nonsense.
This part is correct. The US Navy would not have tested a missile so near commercial flights, and if it had accidentally shot down a civilian airliner (like it did in 1988 when it shot down Iran Air 655.) It would have admitted it.
I believed the government line about JFK for too long.
I knew that in 1996. If the center fuel tank was the culprit, more of these would have happened. My pilot friend knew it was a dummy shot that went through the aircraft . Witness and radar will also show a missile streaking up. Bill Clinton and all the heads of the FBI and NTSB should be in prison.
“It will not light.”
If it won’t light, how does it work?
p
“Everyone on the ship would know when SM-2 missile is launched. If you doubt that, review a few videos of such a launch. It’s not like shooting a bottle rocket.”
Of course, especially if it was a planned exercise. But only a handful would know what the missile hit or didn’t hit from radar data. And this could be immediately “compartmentalized” and locked down with “need to know” classification.
He is deliberately lying to you. You cannot ignite jet fuel with electric sparks. There is a very good youtube video showing that it is impossible to catch jet fuel on fire by an open blowtorched stuck right into the fuel. Jet fuel won't burn unless it is atomized, which the guy also demonstrates by squirting it through a spray nozzle. Once atomized, it will burn, but the "vapor" won't ignite it, and it definitely won't explode. You can see the proof of this with your own eyes. Just go watch that youtube video. I would give you a link, but my old XP browser no longer works on Youtube.
Does your guy work for the military or government? My source on this has informed me that everyone in the Military was ordered to cover this up. If your guy is military, he is following orders.
Oh, they’ll know it was launched, for sure. They won’t know the target or circumstances following target destruction.
At 12 minutes of flight time, TWA would at been too high for a manpad. Only a SAM could brought it down. Hello US Navy.
You can't be serious. When a missile is fired off of a Navy ship, *EVERYONE* can hear it and feel it as it launches off the ship. You can't hide the fact that a missile was launched from anyone aboard the ship who launched it.
No missile was fired from a Navy ship. Iranian mercenaries fired the missile off of a boat, and the Navy had nothing to do with it.
It has to be atomized and then compressed until with kinetic energy it reaches a temperature that makes it finally ignite.
Absolute lie. You *CANNOT* ignite jet fuel with a spark. You cannot ignite jet fuel "fumes" with a spark. You can literally shove a blowtorch into jet fuel, and it will not catch on fire.
Jet fuel is nearly inflammable. The only way to get it to burn at all is to atomize it.
There is video on youtube where a guy proves you can't light either Diesel, Kerosene, Fuel Oil or Jet Fuel with an open flame.
He also proves you can light it by atomizing it. (as a Jet engine does)
He squirts it through a nozzle, and the fine mist will burn, but the "vapor" won't burn, and the liquid fuel won't burn either.
It is literally impossible to catch jet fuel on fire with sparks in a fuel tank.
Why are they lying? To cover up the fact the plane was shot down by Iranian mercenaries.
I remember Rush believing Kalstrom...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.