Replies

Interesting how you've edited your witness statement excerpts. Here's what else Lisa Perry had to say...

"The object came over the dunes of Fire Island. It was shiny, like a new dime; it looked like a plane without wings. It had no windows. It was as if there was a flame at the back of it, like a Bunsen burner. It was like a silver bullet. It was moving much faster than the plane. The silver object took a left turn, and went up to the plane."

There isn't a SAM in existance that follows that flightpath. And the "missile" was close enough for her to tell it had "no windows", yet her description of its most obvious feature (if it had been a missile) is..."It was as if there was a flame at the back of it, like a Bunsen burner." Are you kidding me? And no mention of smoke. I have no idea what this lady is describing, but it isn't a SAM missile.

Now take a look at Paul Angelides. He observes a descending (started 50-60 degrees above the horizon and descended to 10 degrees above the horizon) red light that resolves into a series of explosions. Sounds a lot what TWA 800 did as it came apart in midair. He goes on to mention he immediately called the Coast Guard and was told "oh, thats the Air National Guard they are firing flares tonight". Interesting that little tidbit never makes it onto TWA 800 conspiracy sites. Do you suppose there is any chance that might explain what people were seeing before TWA 800 blew up, or was the Coast Guard operator already immersed in a massive government cover-up.

Vincent and Mcbride saw a red flare, but didn't report seeing any smoke. That, despite it being light enough to determine the color of an aircraft flying by just 15 minutes earlier.

Your final point is legitimate. People do describe things based on what they are familiar with. But then again, these people living on Long Island were all very familiar with flares, and a SAM launch is significantly different than a flare launch. You would think many of them would have said something along the lines of "it was like a flare, but different in that....". And this statement of yours..."a few hundred people from the region coincidentally say they saw a 'flare' launch to blow up an airplane" is an outright lie. You can't possibly provide evidence to back that up, because the evidence does not exist. If you want to talk Clintonesque, why don't you start by examining your need to at best exaggerate, and at worst lie, to try to support your point.

Your contention was that the eyewitnesses did not say it was a missile. Lisa Perry said she thought it was a missile, my nefarious editing merely was to counter your suggestion that the eyewitnesses didn't think they saw a missile. Your editing of her statement is quite another matter. She also went on to say that she got the impression from the FBI agents who interviewed her, they thought it was a missile, too. And speaking of cover-ups, after the NTSB hearings, she was told that she was too far away to have seen what she believed she had seen.

Here’s what Accuracy in Media's courageous Reed Irvine wrote last week:
"The recently released FBI reports of their interviews of eyewitnesses to the downing of TWA Flight 800 contain enough dynamite to blow the lid off the FBI-NTSB-CIA-DOD cover-up of the cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996. The FBI wouldn't even let the NTSB investigators see these reports for a long time. When they finally sent copies of 756 eyewitness reports to the NTSB, they were in great disarray, causing a further delay in their release to the public. The NTSB recently made them available, together with related documents, on a CD-ROM. These can now be found on Cmdr. William S. Donaldson's web site, www.TWA800.com. This is a treasure trove for anyone interested in getting the truth about the TWA 800 crash.
"Hundreds of eyewitnesses saw TWA Flight 800 crash off the southern coast of Long Island, and what they saw was widely reported by the print and electronic media at the time. The FBI took control of the investigation and refused to let the NTSB interview eyewitnesses. No eyewitnesses were permitted to testify at the NTSB public hearing on the TWA crash in Dec. 1997, and the FBI would not permit any discussion of the 244 eyewitness reports it had shared with the CIA. The CIA used them to produce a video simulation of the crash. James Kallstrom, who headed the FBI investigation, said the questioning of eyewitnesses "would have the unintentional effect of undermining the CIA's work." [In other words, don't let the facts interfere with their conclusions.]

If it is a lie that hundreds of eyewitnesses saw something like a missile rise up and strike TWA800, it is not my lie or exaggeration.