TWA 800's 'Deep Throat' - (FBI, liberal media conspired in TWA 800 cover-up; Clinton wanted closure)

One has to marvel at how fully and conspicuously situational is the media's affection for whistleblowing. To blow the whistle on a Republican makes one a hero. Witness the legendary "Deep Throat" or Richard Clarke or the Enron whistleblowers.

To blow the whistle on a Democrat – particularly, a Clinton – makes one a pariah. Witness the treatment of Linda Tripp or Kathleen Willey or Paula Jones or the Arkansas State Troopers or the pathologists who pointed out the inconvenient hole in Ron Brown's head and paid for it with their careers.

Witness, too, the treatment of two lesser-known whistleblowers of that era, Capt. Terrell Stacey and Elizabeth Sanders.

A senior manager at TWA in 1996, Stacey had flown the 747 that would become TWA Flight 800 from Paris to New York the night before it exploded. In fact, he was in charge of all TWA 747 pilot activity within the airline. So it was logical that he would be among the first TWA employees assigned to the National Transportation Safety Board investigation.

Elizabeth Sanders had come to know Stacey through her years as a flight attendant and trainer for TWA. She thought of him as "a straight arrow, go-by-the-rules kind of guy" and respected him for it. Flight 800 would bind their fates in ways neither could have anticipated.

Fifty-three TWA crew members were killed in the explosion, and Sanders had trained several of them. Sanders, Stacey and the other TWA employees found themselves at one memorial service after another. The feeling among the TWA family then – as now – was that a missile had brought down the plane. As the official investigation sputtered, the frustration among them grew.

Elizabeth's reporter husband, James Sanders, could not help but to pick up the vibes. Aware of the dissatisfaction within the TWA community, Sanders sought out a few good sources within the investigation on Long Island. The best of them proved to be Terrell Stacey. For discretion's sake, Sanders would refer to him only as "hangar man."

After a phone introduction arranged by Elizabeth, James Sanders and Terrell Stacey agreed to meet. "What he told me over those first hours," relates Sanders, "was one thing: 'I know there's a cover-up in progress.'"

A few weeks after this first meeting, Sanders and Stacey met a second time. On this occasion, Stacey turned over an NTSB computer printout of the debris field. Sanders computerized what appeared to be key pieces and soon noticed a pattern. The very first damage to the plane centered on rows 17-19 with a general right-to-left bias.

At the next meeting, Stacey revealed for the first time the existence of a reddish-orange trail across the cabin interior of the plane in the same area of the passenger cabin, rows 17-19. The residue was on the foam-rubber seat-cushion backing attached to the metal frame. He claimed the FBI had taken several samples in late August, but refused to share the test results and ignored requests by his NTSB team for the same. In September 1996, the residue had become a hot topic among the investigators.

At a face-to-face meeting in November 1996, Sanders and Stacey agreed that without forensic testing there was no way to know the source of the residue. As Stacey observed, however, the residue appeared to have flakes on the surface. These could probably be coaxed into a plastic bag with very little help.

Unable to scrape off the flakes, Stacey cut out two small samples of foam rubber and sent them to Sanders in January 1997. Sanders made arrangements with West Coast Analytical Services, a commercial laboratory in the Los Angeles area, to determine what elements were found in the reddish-orange residue. They proved to be consistent with those found in the exhaust residue of a solid-fuel missile.

By early March 1997, a decision was made to publish a series of newspaper articles describing Sanders' findings. "New Data Show Missile May Have Nailed TWA 800," screamed the one-inch, front-page headline across the top of the Riverside Press-Enterprise on March 10, 1997.

The Press-Enterprise reporters had interviewed the FBI three days prior. Until the article appeared, however, they could not respond. They did not know the extent of the damage they would have to control. Evidence suggests, however, that they had a plan of action prepared in case the information about the residue trail escaped from the hangar.

On the same morning as the article appeared, March 10, Clinton operatives started gradually and anonymously leaking word that the residue was nothing more than glue. They offered no back up, but the major media had long since ceased to ask for any. The media began to report that the missile theory had once again been shot down.

One network, however, held promise for Sanders. It was CBS. Sanders had granted an exclusive interview to Emmy Award-winning producer Kristina Borjesson. After the interview had been videotaped, however, Borjesson grew alarmed when she realized no one on the Evening News was editing the piece. Frustrated, she walked into a morning meeting of news executives and asked why the network wasn't doing the story on Sanders and his documents.

"You think it's a missile, don't you?" queried an executive she didn't recognize.

"I don't know what the hell it is," Borjesson shot back, "but don't you think we should be doing a story that asks a few questions about this guy and his documents?" The silence that followed was, as Borjesson admits, "deafening." When she had walked in to the room, she honestly believed she was about to correct an oversight at a level where it could be corrected quickly. "I walked out of there," said Borjesson, "feeling like I'd cooked my own goose."

Although CBS News had no interest in the sample, "60 Minutes" did. Borjesson warned Senior Producer Josh Howard that a federal grand jury had been convened to deal with legal issues around the TWA 800 investigation, but Howard wasn't put off. "We've dealt with grand juries before," he told her. Borjesson was elated. In the world of news, she told him, "60 Minutes" was the "last broadcast with balls." Borjesson put a sample that Sanders had sent so CBS could do its own independent testing in Howard's desk for safekeeping until she could locate a lab.

A few days later Borjesson got a call from her executive producer. The FBI wanted to talk to her "about some stolen evidence." As she learned, management had meekly handed over the untested sample to the FBI "where it disappeared forever."

Despite the CBS rollover, the government suspected that investigative reporter James Sanders had additional residue scraped from the seatbacks of TWA Flight 800. As soon as its agents fixed onto an alternate explanation, he could produce a second or third sample for testing, possibly publicly.

Almost immediately, Justice Department officials zeroed in on what they sensed was Sanders' Achilles heel, his wife Elizabeth. The Justice Department found its rationale on page A-12 of the Press-Enterprise story where Elizabeth Sanders was mentioned by name. In fact, James Sanders had had no real choice but to mention her. Elizabeth was a TWA employee and the wife of the journalist. Disclosure was mandatory.

In April 1997, James Sanders and his attorney met with the Justice Department, represented by Valerie Caproni, chief of the New York Justice Department Criminal Division. Caproni – now chief counsel for the FBI – was the same attorney who muscled the NTSB out of the witness interviews in its first few days. Arguably, she was a participant in the subversion of the investigation, and here she was prosecuting those who would expose that subversion. At the meeting, Caproni laid down her nuclear option: Unless he gave up "Hangar Man," his own "Deep Throat," the government would indict Elizabeth Sanders as well.

The Justice Department underestimated Elizabeth Sanders. Although confused and disheartened by the FBI's harassment of her, she advised the government though counsel that she declined to cooperate in its investigation of her husband's journalistic pursuits. Regardless of the cost, she cold not even conceive of betraying his source and her friend, Terrell Stacey – "Hangar Man."

To escape her pursuers, Elizabeth Sanders had to take leave from TWA and avoid her home or anywhere else the FBI agents might find her. For eight unnerving months in 1997, she found refuge with a friend in a lonely house trailer in the Northwest semi-wilderness. She was cut off from her career, her co-workers, her mother and sisters, her husband and her adolescent son. The experience threw her into a profound depression.

Despite the Sanders' silence, the FBI seized Sanders' phone records and found their way to Stacey. The agents' job was to intimidate, to create a feeling of terror and helplessness, to get Stacey to roll over before he regained his composure, before he developed the presence of mind to request an attorney.

Stacey knew that if he, too, chose not to cooperate, it would cost him significant legal fees and quite likely his job. He instantly faced a weighty decision. How long could he keep his daughter in college? How long could he make the monthly payments on his beautiful home? How long could he continue the lease payments on his three cars? How long could he pay for a defense team capable of opposing the awesome power of the Justice Department? The only alternative was to cooperate. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of stealing airplane parts from a crash scene.

The Sanders were not charged with theft. They were charged with conspiracy, aiding and abetting a source to obtain parts of an airplane, namely "residue." Their motive was transparently not to steal these parts, but to test evidence – evidence of potential federal lawlessness.

The major media, however, found it comfortable to report the Sanders' transgression as theft. The New York Times would later note without a hint of irony or outrage that "the Sanderses were charged under a federal law enacted in 1996 after a truck driver in Florida was accused of taking a piece of the wreckage of the May 1996 Valujet crash as a souvenir." In fact, the law had been enacted in the 1960s to discourage souvenir hunters from carting away wreckage at a crash scene before authorities arrived. But the motive behind the act was, as described, to discourage scavengers. The Times also noted that the Sanders' attorney "tried yesterday to portray the matter as a free press issue," but the very word "tried" suggests the Times' lack of sympathy.

Newsday's online headline cut right to the chase: "Missile theorist, wife and pilot accused of stealing." Through this selective misinformation, the FBI was turning the potential Long Island jury pool against the Sanders.

It stunned the Sanders that none among the media managed to frame even one First Amendment question. When the Sanders' attorney attempted to bring this issue into focus, Newsday's Bob Kessler, began to argue the government's case. Another reporter asked the attorney why his client did not immediately return the residue and turn Stacey in to the FBI. James Sanders shook his head in disbelief.

Was it only a generation ago that the New York Times made Daniel Ellsberg a hero by publishing the purloined and fully classified "Pentagon Papers"? Or that the Washington Post had celebrated the daring-do of its own FBI source, the legendary "Deep Throat"?

"The day I was arrested was surreal," recalls Elizabeth Sanders. "It was something I would never thought could happen to an innocent, normal person in the United States." What made it all the worse was that the major media were celebrating her arrest. How times had changed, and how they would change again.

Editor's note: In his extraordinary new DVD documentary, "Mega Fix," Emmy-award-winning filmmaker Jack Cashill traces the roots of Sept. 11 to the political exploitation of terror investigations by the Clinton White House in the desperate 1995-1996 election cycle. To arrange a showing in your city, contact Jack Cashill: jcashill@aol.com

"Having risked my own life and freedom, with the constant threat of being arrested for safeguarding scientific evidence about TWA 800, this is rather personal to me."

You risked your life? And why would anyone arrest you for safeguarding scientific evidence? When will you reveal what you uncovered? This sounds very exciting.

"From the radar images, it looks like it was an attempt to test shooting down a designated target amid civilian traffic.

But the missile lost track of the drone and locked in on 800..."

Rconawa, as a fellow military pilot, you can read the above and appreciate why I asked you what your experience in this topic is. When some people believe ATC radars can pick up targets as small as a SAM missile, that the military conducts weapons systems tests amid civilian traffic, and that semi-active radar guided missiles can lock on to targets other than what their fire control radars are guiding them to explains in part how conspiracy theories like this one continue to exist.

"Are we talking about a contrail of smoke?"

No, because again, almost none of the 755 witnesses described any smoke trail at all, nevermind one resembling a SAM in flight. The closest description given to a missile was a "streak of light". But only 40 described a streak of light ascending from the ocean. And many of those statements were taken over a week after the event, and after much media speculation about a terrorist missile strike.

With respect to the lack of witnesses to anything resembling a surface fired missile, an air to air missile would actually be a more plausible explanation. But then you would have to imagine a scenario in which an aircraft was airborne with live ordinance, and fired that ordinance at a large, civilian airliner flying in a very well used air corridor just a few miles off the coast of Long Island. It just wouldn't happen without the incident receiving instant and very public scrutiny.

live ordinance

Why would the destruction of TWA 800 require "live ordinance" to create a massive failure of the structural integrity of the aircraft?

We all know that the central fuel tank exploded, but we also know that aviation fuel is not explosive unless it has the proper fuel-air mixture. Something atomized the fuel in the aircraft's tank, mixed it with the air, and created the correct mixture.

That is what a carburetor in a car does. Without the proper fuel-air mixture, your engine simply does not go bang.

You have placed logical blinders upon yourself, that may or may not be supported.

If I recall correctly, one of the key men in either Chinagate or Lippogate was on TWA 800 and met an untimely demise (although that may have been pure coincidence.)

There were some witnesses who reported seeing a missile-like object looking like "cheap fireworks" rising from near the shore of Long Island up towards TWA 800. There's no way the fuel tank exploded spontaneously. Military labs made numerous attempts to get commercial jet fuel to explode at operating temperatures using sparking devices and other means, but they were unable to make the fuel explode. This is because the fuel is carefully manufactured so that it cannot explode in fight. If there was even the slightest chance that a 747 could exploded spontaneously, do you think the Air Force would still be using a 747 as Air Force One ?

This disaster was most likely a missile shootdown and the next most likely scenario is an on-board bombing. The successful cover-up of TWA 800 is sad testimony to the continuing refusal of the MSM to investigate and report on the scandals of Democrat politicians.

B I N G O

This is because the fuel is carefully manufactured so that it cannot explode in fight. If there was even the slightest chance that a 747 could exploded spontaneously, do you think the Air Force would still be using a 747 as Air Force One?

Of course, one person that I know pointed out that Air Force One and TWA 800 were both of the same 747-200 series. He was questioned by the Secret Service because of this factual comment.

"also know that aviation fuel is not explosive unless it has the proper fuel-air mixture."

Pressurization also has a lot to do with it. Just about anything is explosive in the right conditions. Especially in dust or vapor form. Anyone who lives in the Midwest has no doubt heard of grain elevator explosions. And you only have to stick your head in an aircraft fuel tank to know fuel vapor exists inside that tank. It is almost always completely safe. So safe, in fact, that the 747 (and many other aircraft) are designed to use their fuel tanks as heat sinks for cooling electrical equipment. The jet I fly is actually one giant fuel tank full of wiring and other plumbing. Part of that design includes insuring there isn't a source that could introduce a spark into that space. But like anything designed by people, mistakes (including design errors) are made. Just because it doesn't happen often, does not mean the problem doesn't exist. It only has to happen once at just the wrong time. Recently, I blew out a hydraulic actuator on a speedbrake that had never failed in the history of F-16 operations. It drained one of my hydraulic systems in a matter of seconds. After I landed, the factory sent out representatives to take pictures and analyze the part that failed. It had never happened before...until that day. But on that day, all the right conditions occurred to cause the failure. No conspiracy, no cover up, no trend item, and at least in this case no disaster. Just a failure of a system that up until that point had never failed.

"Military labs made numerous attempts to get commercial jet fuel to explode at operating temperatures using sparking devices and other means, but they were unable to make the fuel explode."

That is not true. In fact, one of the findings of the TWA 800 investigation was that the military had already identified there was a problem regarding high temperatures in the fuel tanks of its E-4B (747) aircraft. The military adjusted its procedures to minimize the potential hazard. Boeing did not pass that info to the civilian world. It may have made a difference.

"Of course, one person that I know pointed out that Air Force One and TWA 800 were both of the same 747-200 series. He was questioned by the Secret Service because of this factual comment."

Maybe they just wanted to give him more accurate information. To start with, TWA 800 was a 747-100. Not a 200. And it was built almost 20 years before the 747's used to transport the President. Air Force one is such a highly modified 747-200 it is essentially a unique airframe.

"If I recall correctly, one of the key men in either Chinagate or Lippogate was on TWA 800 and met an untimely demise"

I didn't know the passenger list was ever released. I always thought that some investigative reporter should follow up on the passenger list for clues. Is the list available?

"That is not true. In fact, one of the findings of the TWA 800 investigation was that the military had already identified there was a problem regarding high temperatures in the fuel tanks of its E-4B (747) aircraft."

Can you present the thermodynamic data showing the explosive limits -- air / fuel/temperature/pressure ?

The scariest point about her is that she seems to have put her finger to the wind and felt the massive breeze of those who feel there is something that must be done about illegal immigration. She seems to be joining in on some tough discussions about the invasion and by 2008, as it becomes a boiling point issue in our political spectrum, the Republican candidate may avoid the issue or be on the other side of it to counter Hitlary and she may win with it. She won't do anything, but she'll campaign on it and then blame "obstructionist Republicans" for blocking any efforts to do something about it. To try to get Democrap control of Congress by 2010.

Don't think so? Look at the last few days since Hitlary found out that 80-85% of the American people want something done and decided to join up on the right side of the issue. The NYT has been writing articles slamming Illegal Immigration. Before Her Lowness decided to take it on as an issue, they had never met an Illegal they didn't love.

Paul

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.