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
i hadn’t heard...were they threatened or just simply mocked and treated with disdain?
Yes...
These copies of the Navy radar tapes were finally released and show an object “heading straight for TWA 800.” This information appears to corroborate previously discredited testimony from eyewitnesses, many of whom maintained that they saw something “arcing” toward TWA 800 before the plane exploded,
Money shot.
So you are saying there was a ship full of sailors who knew this and aren’t talking.
It absolutely will *NOT* "do it."
Jet fuel is freaking *HARD* to get it to ignite. You can't do it with sparks, and you can't even light it with a blowtorch.
Go watch that video on Youtube. The guy literally sticks a blowtorch into a jar full of jet fuel, and it won't light.
He can only get it to light by spraying it out of an atomizer, which he demonstrates.
The NTSB is *LYING* about this particular incident. And they *KNOW* they are *LYING* about this particular incident.
There was a wedding going on at the time and people were taping messages to the bride and groom. One video caught the missile. It was shown right after the event..... exactly once. Mr G and I both saw the missile and wondered why that video was never shown again.
Ditto.
Because the consequences of the truth would be *WAR WITH IRAN*.
Also the destruction of the commercial air industry, because there would be a world wide panic of people wanting to avoid jet air travel.
Also a massive disruption of Europe's fuel supply because of the war with Iran.
And worst of all from the Clinton perspective, this incident might cause him to lose the election.
Yet I believe it was ordered to be done by Clinton or someone he trusted in his command structure with the president’s knowledge.
My source said that Clinton absolutely ordered a coverup and destruction of evidence.
Yeah. I can remember, as a kid, freezing during visits to my grandparents house, as my grandfather tried to light the kerosene heater with a blowtorch, cursing his own folly for buying a heater whose fuel was incombustible.
/sarcasm
The Iranians with a MANPADS missile onboard a fast boat offshore of NYC. The problem with that scenario was the 13,700 ft altitude at which TWA 800 exploded. Far higher than the service ceiling of any U.S. or Russian MANPADS missile at that time.
Some years back I got into an argument with someone over this issue, and they linked me to that report. I read it, analyzed the specific information regarding what sort of power was available to inside the tank, and then cross referenced it to another report they linked which claimed experiments have shown that jet fuel can ignite under certain temperature conditions, blah blah blah.
I looked at the required numbers, and it far exceeded the energy requirements that a sensor system on the aircraft fuel tank could supply.
I am now thinking that person I argued with years ago was you, and for whatever reason you are trying to help cover up the truth.
You cannot light jet fuel with the electricity that can be supplied from a low voltage fuel sensor.
You cannot even light jet fuel with an open flame from a blow torch.
What this proves is that NTSB report is just a lie.
Yeah, you tried that on me several years ago. What happened is that the center fuel tank didn't explode, but your credibility did.
Flight test and evaluation, aircraft weapon systems design engineer with developmental and operational testing and in-flight testing of weapon systems. Using live ordnance during developmental and operation testing in test areas all over the east and west coast and going forward deployed to train operators on the new weapon systems for over 30 years.
What’s yours.
You did read the NTSB report I sent RIGHT?.
Do piss around get real.
“Jet fuel is nearly inflammable until an arc from a wire happens”.
Wrong... Jet fuel is not gasoline. In fact I have arc welded on cracked iron diesel tanks many times back in the day without blowing them up. Only the fuel on the outside would burn and only because the metal temp was high enough and because it was also exposed to oxygen. The arc did not ignite it, the metal temperature did. I have also arc welded on propane tanks by first filling the tank with CO2 to displace the oxygen.
Fuel will not light from an arc without direct mass exposure to an oxidizer of the correct ratio and a “heat source” high enough. Not even gasoline... Vehicle gasoline gauge float assemblies are arcing the whole time a vehicle is being driven yet never catches fire let alone explodes the fuel. Just as GingisK explained.
Read the report you received from NTSB unless you don’t trust you oen eyes.
So it wasn't a MANPADS. Who said it was? People want to claim it was because that's what they are familiar with, but the Iranian military have access to surface to air missiles with much greater range and altitude than a MANPADS.
You cannot light jet fuel with the electricity
Try arc a wire over a can of fuel and let me know what happened after your out of the hospital.
Because under no circumstances could such 'deck logs' be altered or falsified in furtherance of an ordered cover-up.
1996 ...the year the Clinton admin was stonewalling the Khobar Towers bombing investigation because Iran’s IRGC was involved.
(And. that’s the time Eritrean-born Alamoudi and his 16 organizations were funneling lots of money to the Clintons and to certain Republicans )
Also... the newsies were still burying the earlier Iran-backed 1992 and 1994 Hezbollah attacks in Argentina.
And, as it happens, 1996 was the year of a defection:
1996 : (Iranian Intel agent Abolghasem Mesbahi defects) former Iranian intelligence agent known by his alias, Abolghasem Mesbahi, who defected in 1996
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.