8 years later, TWA 800 case just heating up!

Last July 17, the major media made no comment that seven years prior, on July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 exploded off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people on board.

If the media took note of the date "July 17" at all last year, it was only to observe that American soldiers had found it scrawled on walls throughout Iraq. July 17, after all, was Iraq's national liberation day, the day Saddam helped lead the Baath Party to power in 1968, the day he seized the presidency in 1979, and not impossibly, the day he took his revenge on the United States in 1996.

This year, as every year, thousands of TWA Flight 800 family members and other interested parties will honor the date. Among them is Capt. Ray Lahr. Just last week, the retired United Airline pilot learned that his case against the National Transportation Safety Board and the Central Intelligence Agency is still on track. On Monday, Aug. 2, Lahr and his attorney, John Clarke of Washington, will square off against the NTSB and the CIA at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Lahr is hoping to force the NTSB and CIA to disclose the data upon which they based what Lahr calls "the impossible zoom-climb." As the agencies and Lahr both understand, the zoom-climb is the Achilles heel of the TWA Flight 800 investigation.

The FBI first publicly advanced the zoom-climb scenario when it bowed out of the case in November 1997. Its agents did so to negate the stubborn testimony of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who had sworn they saw a flaming, smoke-trailing, zigzagging object destroy TWA Flight 800.

To make its case, the FBI presented a video prepared by the CIA. A key animation sequence in that video showed an internal fuel tank explosion blowing the nose off the aircraft, which then "pitched up abruptly and climbed several thousand feet from its last recorded altitude of about 13,800 feet to a maximum altitude of about 17,000 feet." This rocketing aircraft, claimed the video, looked like a missile and confused the eyewitnesses.

This animation was essential to close the investigation. Without it, there was no way to explain what these hundreds of eyewitnesses – many of them highly credible – had actually seen. A veteran safety investigator and a serious researcher in the field of gravity, Ray Lahr watched this animation in utter disbelief. He knew this scenario to be impossible, and he set out to prove it. When he learned that not a single eyewitness had seen the plane ascend, including airline pilots who had watched it from above, he redoubled his efforts to discover the basic physics behind the alleged zoom-climb. For the last several years, however, despite numerous FOIA requests, the NTSB has refused to cooperate. The impressively stubborn Lahr finally took the agency to court.

Lahr has done an excellent job pulling the sometimes-fractious TWA 800 community together to assist him. Many key people have filed sworn affidavits with Lahr, including retired Rear Adm. Clarence Hill, and their collective commentary has to impress even the most skeptical of observers. All of this evidence, including the court papers, can be found at RayLahr.com, as well as in past articles on WorldNetDaily.

One question that has never been resolved is just how the CIA animation project came to pass. Two recent books, however, do shed light on the dynamics of the video's creation. One is the much-discussed "Against All Enemies," by Richard Clarke, then chairman of the Clinton administration's Coordinating Security Group on terrorism. The second is Murray Weiss's recent and highly readable book, "The Man Who Warned America," on the subject of John O'Neill, a terrorist expert with the FBI who died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.

Within 30 minutes of TWA Flight 800's destruction, Clarke relates in his book, he had convened a meeting of the CSG in the White House situation room. "The FAA," Clarke reports, "was at a total loss for an explanation. The flight path and the cockpit communications were normal. The aircraft had climbed to 17,000 feet, then there was no aircraft."

Clarke here serves up two significant untruths in a book replete with them. The first is that the Federal Aviation Administration was at "a total loss" for an explanation. In fact, it was the FAA that prompted the meeting and did so for a very specific and frightening reason: Its personnel believed the aircraft had been attacked. As NTSB Chairman Jim Hall would report in a confidential November 1996 report, "Top intelligence and security officials were told in a video conference from the White House Situation Room that radar tapes showed an object headed at the plane before it exploded."

Clarke also deceives the reader about altitude. The FAA never reported an altitude of 17.000 feet – nothing close. The FAA knew that the last recorded altitude of TWA Flight 800 was "about 13,800 feet" as even the CIA animation later admits. In the retelling, Clarke pads in the zoom-climb differential on the night of the crash and attributes it falsely to the FAA.

Weiss, who had excellent access to O'Neill's FBI colleagues, gets much closer to the truth as to the motive behind the emergency White House meeting. "The FAA," he writes, "initially reported spotting a radar blip on their tapes that indicated there was another plane or projectile near TWA Flight 800 when it exploded." This much is true. Weiss, however, is misled on his next point, namely that the FAA told the FBI one day later that "there was no blip. There were no missiles picked up on the JFK scanners." The sighting was an "anomaly."

In truth, to its credit, the FAA refused to change its story despite the pressure to do so. When in November 1996, the NTSB leaned on the FAA to "agree that there is no evidence that would suggest a high speed target merged with TWA 800," the FAA refused.

"We cannot comply with your request," the FAA's David Thomas responded. "By alerting law-enforcement agencies, air-traffic control personnel simply did what was prudent at the time and reported what appeared to them to be a suspicious event. To do less would have been irresponsible."

To set the record straight on this issue, Ray Lahr persuaded one key witness, James Holtsclaw, to go public for the first time. In 1996, Holtsclaw was serving as the deputy assistant for the Western Region of the Air Transport Association. Within a week of the crash, Holtsclaw received the radar tape directly from an NTSB investigator frustrated by its suppression. "The tape shows a primary target at 1200 knots converging with TWA 800, during the climb out phase of TWA 800," swears Holtsclaw on the Lahr affidavit.

In fact, before the investigation was through, authorities would introduce five different explanations to rationalize away that "blip." This obvious dissembling may explain why investigators felt the need to smuggle out evidence. Holtsclaw's informant would be the first of several – at least four of whom would be either suspended from the investigation or arrested.

Within weeks of the crash, the FBI would interview more than 700 eyewitnesses. By its own count, 270 of them saw lights streaking upward toward the plane. Defense Department analysts also debriefed some of these witnesses, 34 of whom, according to the FBI, described events "consistent with the characteristics of the flight of [anti-aircraft] missiles." There were also scores of witness drawings, some so accurate and vivid they could chill the blood.

About four weeks after the crash, Clarke reports in "Against All Enemies," he met with O'Neill, who told him that the eyewitness interviews "were pointing to a missile attack, a Stinger." Given what the FBI knew at the time, this much seems credible.

"[TWA 800] was at 15,000 feet," Clarke allegedly responds. "No Stinger or any other missile like it can go that high." One would think that on so sensitive and contentious a point, Clarke would have made an effort to get the altitude of TWA 800 right or even consistently wrong. He does neither. In his scarily sloppy book, the boastful Clarke finesses credit for the zoom-climb and, in a stunning revelation, seizes full credit for deducing the exploding fuel tank part of that scenario even before the NTSB did.

Clarke, however, has had a hard time keeping his story straight. In an earlier New Yorker article on O'Neill soon after Sept. 11, Clarke tells reporter Lawrence Wright that it was O'Neill who insisted that TWA Flight 800 was out of the range of the Stinger, and O'Neill who believed that the "ascending flare" that the witnesses saw must have been something else, like "the ignition of leaking fuel from the aircraft."

Weiss likewise gives all credit to O'Neill for the zoom-climb scenario, thinking that it is indeed "credit" O'Neill deserves. Weiss contends that O'Neill not only conceived the zoom-climb scenario, but that he also "persuaded the CIA to do a video simulation of his scenario." Under an eight-panel recreation of the zoom-climb in the photo section of his book, Weiss writes that O'Neill used the CIA video simulation "to quash any fears that the disaster was a terrorist event." This last point is tellingly true.

Clarke and O'Neill have not been the only two agents angling for credit. The best-documented claim, in fact, comes from "CIA Analyst 1" during his April 1999 grilling by a few honest, rank-and-file NTSB investigators. As the CIA analyst relates, the zoom-climb insight came to him like an epiphany. He traced the moment of awareness to the precise hour of 10 p.m. on Dec. 30, 1996.

Said the analyst, "There was a realization, having all the data laid out in front of me, that you can explain what the eyewitnesses are seeing with only the burning aircraft." The analyst came to his startling conclusion after reviewing only about 12 percent of the interview statements. The CIA did no interviews of its own.

What puzzled the NTSB guys was just how many eyewitnesses actually saw a plane with a ruptured center fuel tank rocketing upward with burning fuel spewing behind it (especially with the center fuel tank being essentially empty at take-off). The CIA cited only 21 witnesses. But as the questioning of CIA Analyst 1 wore on, it became clear there were fewer still. An NTSB investigator finally sighed in frustration, "If it's only one or two of [the eyewitnesses], it's not representative of all of them."

Analyst 1 then pulled out his trump card, his key witness, the man who had seen everything: "That [zoom-climb] is something that a few eyewitnesses saw. The guy on the bridge saw that." As we have documented on these pages before, the man on the bridge saw no such thing. The CIA or the FBI (or both or Richard Clarke) manufactured an interview with this man, Mike Wire of Philadelphia, out of whole cloth. Wire's "second interview" is the most crucial bit of evidence in the entire investigation, the evidence around which the zoom-climb scenario was created, and it's fully and provably counterfeit.

Whether Clarke or O'Neill or the CIA analyst were responsible for the zoom-climb scenario individually or together is not relevant to technicians like Ray Lahr. Nor has he focused on how an FBI middle manager like O'Neill could have breached the historic wall between the two agencies and enlisted the CIA in a project that would take at least 11 months from conception to execution. No, what most troubles Lahr is how three men with no discernible aviation or engineering experience could possibly have used any science whatsoever to arrive at such critical conclusions.

The truth of the matter proves elusive. The CIA analyst lied shamelessly in his testimony. Richard Clarke lies shamelessly throughout his book. The jury is still out on O'Neill, but the evidence is not encouraging. As Weiss well documents, O'Neill maintained a wife and two children in New Jersey and simultaneously cajoled at least three women in three different cities into thinking that he was going to marry them. What is more, despite maintaining two households, O'Neill somehow managed to live extravagantly on a government salary. In an otherwise flattering profile, Weiss concedes of O'Neill, "He always seemed to be lying about some aspect of his life."

Whether O'Neill helped conceal the demise of TWA Flight 800 remains unclear. Although Weiss attributes both the zoom-climb scenario and the final TWA 800 report to O'Neill, no reporter made this connection while he was alive. In her book on the crash investigation, "Deadly Departure," CNN reporter Christine Negroni does not even mention O'Neill. In her FBI-friendly book, "In The Blink of an Eye," AP reporter Pat Milton pays O'Neill little heed, but she does reveal that upon hearing the news of the crash, John O'Neill's first call went to none other than Richard Clarke, and it is O'Neill, Clarke's best friend in the FBI, who plays the role of tragic hero in "Against All Enemies."

Ray Lahr will leave it to other courts to establish who was the architect of the greatest peacetime deception in American history. His interest is the zoom-climb scenario itself, according to Weiss, "the most significant part" of the final case-closing FBI presentation.

"A little basic physics," adds Weiss naively, "helped explain what witnesses saw and heard in the summer skies off Long Island." Lahr is hoping that the federal courts will finally force the NTSB and CIA to explain finally what those "little basic physics" are.

You can stand on the south shore of LI on any given night and watch Europe bound flights with clarity hampered only by cloud cover, we've done it hundreds of times.

I can't speak to the "hundreds" of witnesses but we do know a couple ourselves. Both are life-long friends of ours (thirty-forty years). Both are sober, mature folks. Both saw the same thing. And, at the time they were nowhere near each other. You know what, I'll take their word for it.

'"They all said some missile-like object struck the plane."

Actually, exactly none of them said that. Perhaps TWA 800 conspiracy theorists would be more successful if they didn't insist on making things up to support their theories.'

Actually, Maj Frederick Meyer saw "two bright explosions, which he identified as ordnance".

"So there are a LOT of co-incidences which must have happened--besides the fact that there was NO OTHER Boeing plane on which this EVER happened."

One coincidence is the Navy being in the neighborhood that evening.

There was a study a few years back mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. They were considering changing fuel tank design, but when they found there would be one explosion in twenty years, on average, they decided it wasn't cost effective.

"Always follow the money. "

Under the Death on the High Seas Act, the passengers' families weren't going to get a lot of money for the event. The President enacted something that enabled them to receive a lot of money, which appears to have kept them quiet. That would be President Clinton, for those keeping score at home.

That's the part that proves to me that there is some major cover-up. I always thought though, that the truth would come out sometime after the upcoming election. I didn't think the Clinton administration could squash the truth so thoroughly.

My guess is that the Navy took out 800. It's the only logical explanation for their behavior (not sailing to the scene)and the fact that the truth hasn't been allowed to see the light of day. I think the cover-up was ordered by the white-house, and that anyone with knowledge has been threatened with imprisonment or worse.

If it were a terrorist act, it would have been politically expedient to let the truth come out eventually, even if it had to be done by the subsequent Bush administration.

I remember news interviews with several people the night of the crash saying they had seen something climbing toward the aircraft and then an explosion when the object reached it. This was in that time period when the news people were desperate for anything to fill the air time and no one would have had an opportunity to change their stories a lot.
34 jwpjr

_____________________________________

If you do remember the interviews, then remember the person that had a video of the eastern sky from a patio dinning area. The FBI has the video and it is gone for now. It never saw the light of day.
80

_____________________________________

I remember seeing that 'cocktail party' video late on the night of the crash, broadcast by one of the major news networks.

It showed a fixed shot, looking across a deck, out to sea. People were milling around talking, a typical party scene, when there was a streak of light going up far out to sea.
It went up and out of the cameras view, and was followed by a flash from above. People at the party immediately ran to the decks rail, and the tape ended.

The west coast feed I was watching showed the loop several times in about half an hour or so, but I've never seen it since.

This video was discussed several times on FR 4 to 5 years ago, and few other FReepers remembered seeing it at that time..
--- Anybody now?

>>There are no radar guided SAM's that can fire on the move. There is no boat at sea that isn't "on the move". To enable a radar guided SAM to be fired at sea you need a ship the size of at least a frigate.<<

Well, I did say, "a relatively small ship", not a boat. Technically, why couldn't a missile such as a SA-6, not be fired from the deck of a small freighter that is cruising just fast enough to steady itself? Are you thinking that the targeting radar couldn't 'paint' the (rather large) target long enough for the missile(s) to reach it? What is different about the ship borne versions of these small SAM's? I not challenging your statement, just asking. Rememember, these guys have a way of using conventional things in unconventional ways.

Actually, exactly none of them said that. Perhaps TWA 800 conspiracy theorists would be more successful if they didn't insist on making things up to support their theories.

I WILL REPEAT MY QUESTION ONE MORE TIME: GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF A SPONTANEOUSLY EXPLODING JET FUEL TANK IN AVIATION HISTORY BESIDES TWA FLIGHT 800.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

I believe the USG covered it up to avoid panicing the public and causing great financial harm to the airline industry. 9/11 proved that the public and financial impact is far-reaching. This is not to excuse what happened but just a rationale for the cover-up. I would also add that Clinton was wont to attribute anything to international terrorism hence Oklahoma City was also covered up for domestic political reasons.

You have to wade through a lot of hysteria and bs, but the interviews and the info that comes out right after a crash can be pretty enlightening! Even when a turbine aircraft goes down there's always a report or two of the engine "sputtering" before impact, and of course the obligatory "it was on fire" eyewitness account. But sandwiched in among all that is occasionally a valid report. That was what impressed me about the reports of a missile trail, the witnesses were miles apart but yet all had the same general account. Would a shoulder fired SAM be big enough to provide a primary return on ATC radar, especially the kind used by enroute centers as opposed to systems used by tower personnel to monitor traffic in the airport traffic area? I doubt that the terrorists would be kind enough to provide a SAM complete with altitude encoding transponder, and if so, what would you have it squawk?

The Navy doesn't conduct live fire exercises anywhere near that area...

Of course not, for obvious reasons. Some have speculated that perhaps a US missile 'got away' completely by accident, and the gub'mint cannot admit it. I myself tend to think it was deliberately fired by unknown (Islamic) terrorists, from an unknown location, possibly a boat.

"Technically, why couldn't a missile such as a SA-6, not be fired from the deck of a small freighter that is cruising just fast enough to steady itself?"

A missile system like the SA-6 is not composed of a single, autonomous vehicle. A full system requires target acquisition radars, target tracking radars, a launching vehicle and a crew of qualified operators to make everything work. Unlike an IR SAM, succussfully employing a radar guided SAM is an incredibly complex operation. The systems involved are fully integrated and not easily converted for employment in ways other than their original design. In other words, you can't just take parts from a system and create a "mini-launcher." The Navalized versions of SAMs are similar to their land based counterparts, but since they don't have to be air transportable, or autonomously mobile, they tend to be even larger and more complex.

With all that said, if a SAM had been responsible for the downing of TWA 800, the evidence would have been obvious and undeniable. Even the smallest SAM warheads are designed to direct thousands of fragments into the targeted aircraft with the hope of puncturing some vital system. And the missiles either hit their target, or they don't. Picture a target hit by a shotgun at close range. When the target is the size of a 747, if the missile functioned at all, the aircraft would have been peppered. Not punctured by one or two rogue fragments whose impacts left no evidence.

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.