Posted on 02/15/2005 1:19:18 AM PST by JohnHuang2
On April 20, 2001, a Peruvian military jet pilot confused a small plane carrying missionaries for one carrying drug runners and shot it down. In the last two weeks, MSNBC has been leading the charge to bring this case to closure.
Its on-air personnel – Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough in particular – have been asking hard questions about why no charges have been brought against CIA agents who may have lied about the nature of this crash. The MSNBC website invites citizens to communicate their concerns about this presumed cover-up through MSNBC to the U.S. government.
This would be all well and good were it not for the likely role that MSNBC played in the cover-up of TWA Flight 800. On July 18, 1996, about 12 hours after TWA Flight 800 exploded off the coast of Long Island, a military officer – off the record – told a very tired Fox News senior reporter that "a major screw-up" had occurred and that the "White House" had ordered the military to "stand down" for 48 hours until policy decisions were reached.
This did not surprise the Fox journalist. For hours the previous evening, Fox News had reportedly been involved in a bidding war for an amateur video tape of the 747 being destroyed by what appeared to be missile fire. When the electronic bidding war reached $50,000, Fox was eliminated from the process.
The high bidder seems to have been NBC and/or its new sister network, MSNBC. This makes market sense in that MSNBC had been launched just two days prior, and the publicity would have been well worth the cost. Still, I say "seems" because my sources here will not speak on record, nor will MSNBC follow up on queries. Here is exactly what I know, no more, no less.
In the summer of 2001, my partner James Sanders, and I were negotiating with Broadcast Network News (BNN) – the world's largest independent news producer – to distribute our documentary on the subject of TWA Flight 800, "Silenced." These were serious negotiations. The person with whom we were communicating was BNN's chief executive officer, Steve Rosenbaum.
One day that summer, Rosenbaum called me in a state of high excitement. "Jack," he said, "you will not believe the conversation I just had." Although Rosenbaum thought our video had market potential, he was not at all convinced of our thesis, namely that missiles had been fired at TWA Flight 800. The conversation in question eliminated just about all doubt.
As Rosenbaum explained, he had been interviewing a candidate for a position as BNN's technical director at a rooftop cafe when an airplane passed overhead. The conversation moved naturally to airplanes and then, with Rosenbaum taking the lead, to TWA Flight 800.
"I've seen the video," said the candidate, who had until recently been working at MSNBC.
"You mean 'Silenced'?" said Rosenbaum, a little surprised.
"No," the candidate answered, "the video, the actual video of the plane being shot down."
As the candidate told Rosenbaum, late on the night of the crash, editors at MSNBC had the tape on their monitors when "three men in suits" came to their editing suites, removed the tape, and threatened the editors with serious consequences if they ever revealed its contents.
The threats worked all too well. Despite my repeated requests, Rosenbaum could not get the technical director, whom he hired, to go on record. Over the years, I have asked various producers at MSNBC to follow up, but if they did, they kept what they learned to themselves.
Earlier in his research, Sanders had been approached by a technician at another station who had monitoring the competition's feeds from Long Island and made a bootleg copy of that same amateur video. What is more, he withheld a copy from the FBI when its agents came to confiscate whatever relevant tapes his station might have. Despite a series of phone calls, Sanders could not persuade the technician to hand over the tape. His fear was palpable enough, however, to convince Sanders that he was telling the truth.
Although I have not seen the video myself, I have heard from scores, if not hundreds, of credible people who swear they saw it on television in the first hours after the crash. That at least one among the hundreds of eyewitnesses would have had a video camera handy during a beautiful summer sunset evening makes perfect sense. The FBI admits to having confiscated two still photos and predictably writes off the images to dirt or scratches on the lens. A video would have been much harder to dismiss.
Nelson DeMille has obviously heard these stories as well – and perhaps more. In his best-selling novel, "Night Falls," a confiscated amateur video drives the plot. Although he spices the video up a bit in the retelling, DeMille is not just spinning fantasy. His insider details have the ring of authenticity about them.
What makes the MSNBC involvement all the more ironic is that the CIA was responsible for producing the 15-minute animated video used successfully to discredit the eyewitness testimony. If the MSNBC producers are interested in exposing not just a routine CIA cover-up, but the most consequential cover-up in American history, my fellow investigators and I will be happy to lead them right to the source.
There is admittedly much we still do not know about the explosion of TWA Flight 800, but we know enough about the CIA cover-up to bring indictments. Before turning on the CIA, however, MSNBC might want to look inward. The CIA at least had the excuse of national security. If MSNBC had reasons for betraying its journalistic ethics, I am not sure I know what they are. Indeed, had its new executives stuck to their guns that night, they might very well have prevented Sept. 11.
For every question raised, there has been an "official" answer.
So, where the Boeing models involved 'grounded' when TWA800 happened?
Why did it take FOUR years for them to issue this DIRECTIVE?
Notice it says they issued 'similar recommendations' four years ago. A recommendation is not the same as an FAA DIRECTIVE.
Was the outer skin of the TWA800 ripped OUTWARD or INWARD?
Did all of the EXPERIENCED PILOTS and WAR EXPERIENCED PILOTS have hallucinations, when they claimed they saw a missile trail?
What kind of testing was being done by the NAVY? Were they testing a missile? What method of destruction was this missile(if it existed) designed to effect?
If the CWT caused the explosion, why was the FAA,NTSB not allowed to do the investigating? Why was the investigation and recovery done by the NAVY?
What did autopsies of the passengers on TWA800 show...
Nothing. No bomb parts, no foreign matter that was not attributable to the aircraft. Every body that was recovered was autopsied. Mind you, a body is the best place to find evidence of an explosive.
Did all of the EXPERIENCED PILOTS and WAR EXPERIENCED PILOTS have hallucinations
Who can say what they saw, exept them?
What kind of testing was being done by the NAVY? Were they testing a missile?
The area that TWA 800 went doen is a VERY busy place, aircraft wise. I cannot imagine that the Navy was testing any missile in the area. They have places that they test this stuff, and it is nowhere near Long Island.
If the CWT caused the explosion, why was the FAA,NTSB not allowed to do the investigating? Why was the investigation and recovery done by the NAVY?
The NTSB does ALL investigations of aircraft crashes. They have the experience and knowledge that no other agency has. The FBI were brought in because there was suspicion of a bomb/missile. Basically, they checked the work of the NTSB, and looked over their shoulder during the investigation. The Navy has the finset underwater recovery ships in the world, the Grasp and the Grapple.
The questions can go on and on (They do), but at the end of the day, there is no "smoking gun", only opinions.
I have trouble believing the CWT story, but I also have trouble believing the Navy would be firing missiles into a known traffic pattern of a large airport like JFK. They have plenty of off-limits airspace to do that kind of thing. The terrorist missile story is also weak since they are not normally any use up to the altitudes in question. I'm not sure what to think.
OK. Where did you find the autopsy reports? What doctor(s) did the autopsies?
The area that TWA 800 went doen is a VERY busy place, aircraft wise. I cannot imagine that the Navy was testing any missile in the area. They have places that they test this stuff, and it is nowhere near Long Island.
So, you are saying the NAVY was nowhere near Long Island? That they were not there conducting naval exercises and tests?
Ping for later
If you follow all the reports, in order, you get a strange picture. One of coverups and deceptions. One of lying to pacify the public.
Seems like there are as many theories on why that accident occurred as there are on TWA800.
One thing I know is that you do not run a pump 'dry'. There is a thing called a FUEL GAUGE that can tell you (and your equipment) that the fuel is low or gone, and shut the pumps off.
For what conceivable reason would you have pumps running, if your tank is empty?
In the Thai accident, if you put all the pieces together, you have this.
The AC units were left on all day, heating up the AC units which are mounted under the CWT. This heated and expanded the Fuel/air mixture. The pumps were left running, even though the CWT was empty, causing overheating and spark ignition in the tank.
This ignited the fuel/air mixture causing an explosion which also ignited the C-4 that assassins had attached to the plane.
The explosion in the CWT caused a fire in the cabin of the plane. This burned for almost 20 minutes before causing the collapse of the shell/framework of the airliner.
It would appear that the purpose of the CWT on boeing 737's is not to hold fuel, but to hold flammable vapours that will explode upon ignition by fuel pumps which run dry until overheating. I know boeing engineers must have designed it this way on purpose.
Go to a General Aviation airport shop and buy yourself a copy of the "New York Sectional." Look at the map, and then get back to the group.
ML/NJ
Got one right here. Its not current, but I am assuming that you have a point?
Good lawyering, but no thanks.
So, you are saying the NAVY was nowhere near Long Island? That they were not there conducting naval exercises and tests?
Didn't say that. I just said that the Navy was not likely testing missiles.
The point is that there are a million questions, and every answer leads to new questions. Produce something real, and then we got something to talk about.
The missile flew right over a lady in a tacky cocktail gown
That was no lady that was my wife
I have to admit that I'm not current either, but we're talking about 1996 here.
I don't think these things change much. Look just south of the Hamptons about five inches to the area the bottom of the chart just east of 72-30. Read the little legend there. (I'll give you a clue. You can see what it says at my "It wasn't Terrorists" post that was previously linked on this thread.)
ML/NJ
Although I do not know for sure, I assume that the flight was to intercept the 236 radial at the East Hampton VOR. From everything that I have looked at, the flight never strayed into the warning area W-106.
Given the shear amount of traffic that make that same track out of JFK, not to mention La Guardia and Newark, I cannot see how the Navy could fire any missile in the area without hitting SOMETHING.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you or UCANSEE. I just point out that that I need more than uninformed speculation to convince me. And I don't see much informed speculation.
There is no evidence for a walked on bomb... there are tons of evidence for a missile.
Bump for later.
If it were me,and I had access to a hot tape, first order of business is to make a copy.
So why are you playing games. Quote it, and then tell everyone what you think it means.
I assume that the flight was to intercept the 236 radial at the East Hampton VOR.
You assume a lot. He was probably direct Nantucket. (I'm IFR rated and been direct Nantucket more than a few times myself, albeit lower the the Europe bound jets!)
From everything that I have looked at, the flight never strayed into the warning area W-106.
I think the suggestion is that W-106 (or 105) strayed into the flightpath.
uninformed speculation
You may be uninformed. I do not believe that I that I am; or that I am necessarily speculating.
ML/NJ
Subsequently, in the span of a week, Sen. John F. Kerry made the same reference -- the TWA 800 bombing. Not once, but twice.
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.