Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice, Part 1 [10th Anniv. Warm-up]

WND ^ | June 4, 2001 | Jack Cashill

[Rokke]

"Big difference between part of side coming off and drag resulting from nose section being removed."

True. And that's why TWA 800 broke up, while the other aircraft were able to land.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

In my former local community (Fort Ord), Clintong administration cheat of staff Leon Puñetta rolled out Pierre Salinger (flaming liberal extraordinaire icon and son of J.D. Salinger) to hype of the conspiracy angle...

I knew the whole thing was a leftist lick-fest to somehow blame Newt Gingrich and smartly departed for a glass of bourbon on ice with a cute little honey-pie I met there...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

W-5 (retired)

[GarySpFc]

Not only is it NOT normal. It is completely unbelieveable.

And that is the point.

[U S Army EOD]

Very good, but I wish the Army would go with the LDO program in some fields.

[GarySpFc]

Not by the NTSB, who conducted the investigation. They estimated the aircraft climbed 1200-2200ft.

Let me suggest you look at the FBI's Quicktime versions at: The Simulation Of Flight 800.

[GarySpFc]

They all pretty much fly the same.

No they do not.

[Rokke]

That was a video produced for the FBI using CIA video production facilities to help explain a small part of the bigger picture about why the FBI had concluded there was no foul play in the TWA 800 incident. The video was not produced by the NTSB, who was still 3 years away from issuing its accident investigation report. The NTSB report is the investigative report produced in conjunction with Boeing, TWA, ALPA and NASA that includes a more careful and correct analysis on what exactly happened to TWA 800. That was not the job of the FBI, whose role was to determine if any criminal action had played a role. The video is constantly used by disingenuous TWA 800 conspiracy folks because it isn't an accurate depiction of what happened to the aircraft that night. But then, its purpose wasn't to replicate exactly what happened. Its purpose was to show what might have happened. And the NTSB investigation showed the FBI was off on some of its assumptions.

[GarySpFc]

TWA 800 Controversy Heats Up

On a warm June evening in Kansas City, the historic home of TWA and the current site of its huge overhaul base, a group of 75 or so airline pilots watched the documentary Silenced : Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice in stunned horror.

Afterwards, not a one among them, either publicly or privately, challenged the video's thesis that TWA Flight 800 had indeed been shot down. Offered instead were corroborating details, particularly from angry TWA pilots, about the money trail and the inexplicable Pentagon visits of then TWA CEO, Jeff Erickson. Said one TWA pilot. "90% of us believe there was a government cover-up."

From the Boeing community in Seattle the response has been much the same. Writes one Boeing engineer, a man who had spent countless hours helping analyze TWA 800 on Boeing's Cray Supercomputers, "I brought it (Silenced) to work today and showed it during lunch to eight of my fellow Boeing workers. The room was deathly quiet the entire time . . . . My impression then was a missile strike and it is even more so today."

Even more troubling is the response of Mike Wire, the Philadelphia millwright on whose presumed testimony, the CIA based its notorious animation of TWA 800 rocketing upwards like a missile.

"The video "Silenced" presents a factual reenactment of what I saw that night. My part of the video also is what I told the FBI a few days after the incident at an in-depth interview at my residence. As you can see what I saw originated from behind the houses on the beach that is why I at first thought it to be a firework. It most definitely didn't start up in the sky like the FBI/CIA story says. I don't know how they could (come) up with that scenario because it doesn't match what I saw and told the FBI or what other witnesses I have talk to since May of 2000 had reported."

Writes Dwight Brumley, a 20-year Navy vet who watched the tragedy unfold from above, after watching Silenced.

"The CIA animation in no way represents what I saw that night. Based on the time line, as I understand it, the "flare" that I reported seeing off the right side of and below USAir 217 COULD NOT, I repeat, COULD NOT have been TWA 800 in crippled flight just before and after it exploded. There are two reasons why. First, TWA 800 would have been moving in my field of view from left to right, not from right to left as I clearly observed; and Second, my understanding of the basic laws of aerodynamics leads me to conclude there is no way that TWA 800, with the nose section gone, could have possibly climbed 3000-4000 feet as the CIA video portrays."

Not all responses to the project, however. Have been supportive. In the May issue of Kansas City business magazine, Ingram's, and comparably in a five part WorldNetDaily series, I wrote of Peter Goelz, the then managing director of the National Transportation Safety:

"Instructive in Goelz's technique was his handling of Kelly O'Meara, a reporter for The Washington Times Insight Magazine. Some time after the crash, O'Meara interviewed Goelz about some radar data newly released by the NTSB itself.

"As soon as O'Meara left his office, Goelz called Howard Kurtz of the rival Washington Post to plant a story. Kurtz would quote Goelz as saying "She really believes that the United States Navy shot this thing down and there was a fleet of warships." As O'Meara's audiotape revealed, It was the mocking and evasive Goelz who raised the issue of missiles, not O'Meara.

"Wrote Insight editor Paul Rodriquez, 'In my experience as a veteran newsman, journalists would never roll over and allow government bureaucrats to use them to slime their colleagues. Yet that precisely is what recently happened.'"

Peter Goelz was quick to respond. In a letter dated, June 5, he wrote:

"Your story, like O'Meara's is a mélange of half-truths, outright falsehoods and sheer stupidity. The sad thing about your piece and Ms. O'Meara's is the hurt that they can cause to the 100's of Navy personnel who worked 24 hour shifts to recover all 230 victims and for the family members of flight 800 who may read your groundless charges.

In the end there were no missiles, no bombs, no mystery fleet, no fleeing ships, no terrorists, no U.S. Navy involvement. It was just a tired old 747 with an empty, explosive center wing tank.

For all those involved it was a tragedy of incalculable pain. For "pundits" like you, a topic for sport and financial gain. Shame on you. Shame on Ingram's."

When Goelz saw the WorldNetDaily series he responded once more, this time by email under the subject heading, "GARBAGE."

"Just finished you (sic) five part WND series-it's really garbage-and to think you're trying to make a buck off it as well-I fear it's a new low. By the way, I just checked on Amazon.com and (James) Sander's book (Altered Evidence) is currently rated as the 92,000th most purchased book. Don't start the new pool just yet."

For the record, under President Clinton, Peter Goelz ascended from the ranks of the Missouri River gambling lobbyists to become chief administrator of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in just a brief few years. Ironically, he uses the same tactics against me that he denies having used against Kelly O'Meara: ridicule, intimidation, blind charges of profiteering, and the pious exploitation of the US Navy and victim families.

In truth, neither in the article nor in the video, Silenced, do I even infer that the Navy shot down Flight 800. In fact, three of the most compelling witnesses in the video are Navy people; a fourth is a family member. For the record, Goelz's NTSB refused to let any of the 736 official eyewitnesses-several of them experienced military observers--testify at either hearing, and it disallowed all discussion of explosive residue (found all over the plane) lest the FBI one day reopen the criminal case. And yes, as he knows and the FBI acknowledges, there was a fleeing ship.

As to the plane, it was not particularly old and certainly no more explosive than the average 747. If the NTSB had believed what Goelz has said, they would have recalled those planes quicker than you could say "Firestone." Ask the machinist's union. Ask any TWA pilot. Ask a Boeing engineer. After spending $40 million, the NTSB was unable to identify a scenario that would allow the plane to blow up

In the video, my partner James Sanders and I did something the NTSB refused to do-talk to the eyewitnesses, position them on site, review the drawings they made for the FBI, and much more.

The fifth anniversary on July 17 presents the last great opportunity to share this story with a mainstream media that definitely does not want to hear it. If the overwhelming public response in the last two weeks is any indication, this is one story that may well from the bottom up.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.html

[Rokke]

As a devout Christian, you have probably followed the controversy behind The Divinci Code. You and I both know it is fiction. A very loose compilation of half truths, truths and untruths used to create a compelling, but nonetheless fictional account of real events from history. A large number of Christians have stated that reading the book has made them second guess their faith in what the Bible says, and about the life of Jesus. That doesn't make the Divinci Code true. It makes them gullible fools. The problem is, the author opens his book by saying that they key elements of his story are indeed fact. He's wrong, but that is the first thing the reader reads when he opens the book. And a reader that doesn't know any better believes him.

Now show "Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice" to a group of pilots. Present the story you want to be told. Not all the truth. Just some of it. Add a lot of assumptions, guesses and some things that just aren't true. And what you end up with is a very compelling and believable work of fiction not unlike The Divinci Code. Micheal Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" is another similar example. It has a specific objective in mind, and it does what it takes to try to accomplish that objective.

I currently fly with several former TWA pilots. I've asked them what they think about TWA 800. In all honesty, most of them don't really have an opinion one way or the other. Certainly 90% don't believe it was a government cover-up. Boeing representatives are named, referenced and quoted in the Boeing addendum to the NTSB report. They fully concur that foul play was not involved in the incident. Why doesn't Cashill quote them? Cashill has a fundamental and financial interest in generating credibility for his movie. So did Michael Moore and so does Dan Brown. That doesn't make their garbage any more true.

You can post as many articles as you want from Jack Cashill, but you still can't deny he is making money off of stirring up his disproven conspiracy theories. And the fact that you copied this article from the website you did is the equivalent of pulling a used piece of toilet paper from a pile of feces and holding it up as something still useful. It's garbage. Old, disproven, recycled, garbage.

[GarySpFc]

Jack doesn't live an opulent lifestyle by any means. Indeed, he lives a very frugal existence, and takes on Christian and conservative projects which seldom if ever make money. I can say he would have lost considerable money on The Triumph of Design and the Demise of Darwin if I personally had not sold over 500 copies. This video was the first of several in the ID Movement,

I live in the Kansas City area, which at one time was the home of TWA, and know a few retired TWA pilots and many maintenance workers from the center. In all honesty I have not talked to all that many since the one meeting we had in Kansas City. The few I have discussed it with were NOT satisfied with the final reports. I examined the evidence available to laymen, and I did seek the opinion of 3 or 4 aeronautical engineers. They were not satisfied.

Finally, I don't buy equating the DiVinci Code with a TWA-800 cover up conspiracy. I am CERTAIN regarding the veracity of the Gospel, and after spending 35 years studying the subject consider myself more than a layman. I cannot say the same regarding TWA-800, nor am I going to spend 35 years on an investigation. Someday we will know the certainty of both.

[tpaine]

e Editor's note:

On the evening of July 17, 1996, at 8:19 p.m., TWA Flight 800, a Boeing 747, took off from Kennedy Airport, bound for Paris. At 8:31 p.m., over 730 people watched Flight 800 explode, killing all 230 of the people aboard. ~~~~ [some of those people were at a cocktail party overlooking the area where the explosion occurred. A video camera was taping on the deck, pointed out to sea.]

Not long afterwards, millions of Americans watched their televisions in fascinated horror as search and rescue crews looked for survivors among the flaming debris. Only dead bodies were recovered. ~~~~ [Later that same night, the 'cocktail party' tape loop was played on network tv. -- the short loop showed a streak of light climbing from the horizon out at sea, and a bright flash from above, out of the cameras field of view. -- People at the party were seen rushing to the rail, pointing. ~~~~end tape~~~ ] ...

The network showed this tape at least several times over a half hour period around midnight eastern of July 17, 1996. --- I saw it, as did at least tens of thousands of other late nite TV viewers.

-- The next morning, the loop had disappeared from network news, never to be seen again.

Rokke
This is one of my favorite subplots in this conspiracy.

I saw the tape. -- It was shown late that night July 17, 1996 , or early morning of the 18th, on NBC feeds.

Does anyone really believe for one second that the media would clam up about THE most significant news story to hit this country in the decade prior to 9/11?

I saw the tape played. I have no idea why or how anyone would clam up about it. -- I won't.

And nobody in the viewing audience taped any part of this fabled video when it was shown? Millions of viewers watching one of the biggest stories of the year, yet only a lucky few remember watching what would obviously be clear cut evidence of a missile in flight, and nobody has a copy.

Amazing, isn't it? Hundreds of eyewitnesses , and at least thousands of tv viewers saw what appeared to be a streak of light climbing from the horizon out at sea, just before an airliner exploded & crashed, and we are all dismissed as "subplots in this conspiracy". -- Someone has 'conspiracy' on there brain, and it ain't us.

And to this day, nobody in the printed media has ever discussed the video shown to millions.

Simply not true. I posted an FR thread that proves you wrong.

I remember watching the news reports on that evening very clearly. I remember the fire on the water, and watching boats moving among the debris. But despite being a military pilot with a lot of interest in the topic, I don't remember anything remotely like a video showing a missile launch.

Too bad. Your personal story does not contradict mine. - I know what I saw. -- And I am a private pilot "with a lot of interest in the topic". -- Big deal.

Nor were we given any intelligence briefings that mentioned anything like that, despite getting briefings on all the possible terrorist considerations involving the incident.

Which means nothing, unless you are claiming to be in the upper echelons of military intelligence.

Yet, I am supposed to believe the media had in its possession a video showing a missile in flight, which it showed to the viewing public only once before all traces of the video were removed from public access forever.

I'm not asking you to 'believe' anything. I stated the facts of what I saw that night.

Someone has seen "Men in Black" a few too many times.

Never saw it. I don't watch crappy movies.

[peggybac]

My dad was also with TWA in KC and insisted to his dying day that this was no accident. A private pilot and author on aviation, one of his books was used in the hearings in DC regarding #800.

[BikerJoe]

Then I stand corrected. However, I still find it curious that so many people reported a light RISING to the aircraft.

[hershey]

Clinton was terrified of bad press from the truth coming out. He didn't want to deal with attacks on the US, attacks of any sort. So the feds did as they were told.

[GarySpFc]

No, it has happened several times. And what TWA 800 conspiracy folks won't tell you is that TWA 800's sister aircraft also exploded in midair due to a suspected fuel tank explosion. Both aircraft were bought and built for the Iranian Air Force. Both aircraft were built to the same specifications. And both ended up exploding in flight. The USAF E-4B is a similar derivative of the 747-100 and the USAF identified the exact fuel tank heating problem attributed to the TWA 800 incident before TWA 800 went down. Coincidence? Hardly. The problem with all man made equipment is that it is inherently imperfect. That results in failures. Fortunately, most aren't as serious as the TWA 800 incident.

That's not quite correct. Yes, there was a sister 747, which crashed, but if you check you will find the Iranian 747 crashed while descending through a thunderstorm on an approach to the Madrid, Spain airport.

NTSB Report on a 1976 Wing Failure and Crash of a 747-131 Near Madrid, Spain

On 9 May 1976, an Imperial Iranian Air Force Boeing 747-131 crashed as it approached Madrid, Spain. Witnesses observed lightning strike the aircraft followed by a fire, explosion, and separation of the left wing. This event is notable because it is the only accident involving a 747 that has been both thoroughly investigated and in which an explosion was determined to have led to a catastrophic failure of a wing in flight. In National Transportation Report number NTSB-AAR-78-12 dated 6 October 1978, the Board developed two hypotheses as to what caused the explosion and subsequent wing failure.

The aircraft was purchased from Trans World Airlines, converted to a freighter, and delivered to the Imperial Iranian Air Force on 1 March 1976. Coincidentally, the 747 involved in the TWA event was leased to the Iranian Air Force, but was involved in no unusual incidents prior to its return to the TWA fleet. The flight in question was a military logistic flight from Iran to the U.S. with an en route stop in Spain. The aircraft had been maneuvering around thunderstorm activity in the area and was in contact with approach control. When the aircraft was about 6,000 feet above the ground, witnesses reported that the aircraft was struck by lightning between the left wing tip and engine one, an observed fire and an explosion. This was followed by the in flight breakup of the aircraft. The 10 crew members and 7 passengers were all killed.

Because the accident involved a non-U.S. aircraft outside of U.S. airspace, the National Transportation Safety Board did not have statutory authority to investigate this accident. However, because of the nature of the accident and because the aircraft was a type used extensively in commercial airline operations, they requested and were granted permission to assist in the investigation. Because they did not have any statutory authority, the Board did not determine a probable cause or identify causal and contributing factors in this accident.

After an extensive investigation involving the NTSB and 48 industry and government aviation specialists, the NTSB concluded that there were two possible explanations:

The most probable sequence of events was an ignition of fuel vapors in the number one fuel tank followed by oscillations of the outer wing, multiple structural failures, and a subsequent separation of the left wing. Damage in the area of the tank provided positive indications of an explosion.
The evidence of a lightning strike an instant before the explosion made the lighting strike a plausible source of ignition. Further analysis pointed to a spark at the motor operated fuel valve in the number one fuel tank as an ignition source that would support the hypothesis that ignition of fuel vapor in the number one fuel tank as the first destructive event.

The next most likely sequence of events was determined to be a structural failure caused by a high velocity gusts and turbulence followed by an explosion in the number one fuel tank. However, the available evidence and the probabilities of an aircraft encountering these unique environmental conditions made this hypothesis less supportable. An exhaustive examination of the cockpit voice recorder tape did not reveal evidence of any turbulence prior to the lightning strike. Also, evidence from inside the fuel tank did not show any evidence of sloshing fuel at the time of ignition - another sign that there was no turbulence at the time of the explosion. Also an examination of the engine mount fuses and wreckage trail also supported the idea that there were no gusting winds in the vicinity of the aircraft at the time of the breakup. An analysis by NASA did conclude however, that turbulence alone could impose loads that exceed the ultimate design loads of the airplane structure.

Note: This aircraft was fueled using a combination of Jet A and JP-4 fuels. JP-4 is more easily ignited than Jet A and is not commonly used by commercial airliners. The TWA Flight 800 aircraft was fueled only with Jet A.

From the time of this 1976 event until June of 1996, there was no other known case of a 747 or any other large commercial jet airliner that sustained an explosion in or near a wing followed by a separation of the wing from the aircraft. As of 27 July 1996, the NTSB reports that a wing separated in flight during the 17 July 1996 accident involving a TWA 747. However, the NTSB has not made any official comment about the relevance of the 1976 event to the 1996 event.

[DJ MacWoW]

Clinton was too busy blaming TWA for "mishandling" the families and deflecting attention off the circumstances.

[DJ MacWoW]

I saw that tape too. And watched eyewitnesses give accounts of what happened. 9/11 hadn't happened yet and what we saw unfolding was horrifying. My adult son and I stayed up till 3 or 4 am watching local news. There were newsies on the beach and people looking for survivors. And there was the film of something arcing into the air. It was beyond imagining.

And the next day, all Clinton could say was that TWA was mishandling the families and the tape had disappeared and witnesses were being discredited. 270 eyewitnesses but they all imagined it. A tape that thousands saw but it disappears. Clinton isn't known for having the most corrupt government for nothing.

[Rokke]

"I saw the tape. -- It was shown late that night July 17, 1996 , or early morning of the 18th, on NBC feeds."

First time in television history that a tape played to millions of viewers just disappeared without a trace. A tape with shocking visual evidence of a terrifying crime. A tape in possession of the mainstream media, whose primary objective in life is to broadcast compelling news stories. Yet NBC decided, after publicly broadcasting it, to stuff it. And no other media source reported that fact. They all joined as one to participate in this great cover up of shocking evidence that was already in their possession.

Sorry, but I know what you think you remember seeing, but what you imply here defies not only logic but all belief. In the very late 20th Century, blockbuster news stories broadcast to the public don't just disappear without a trace. At least not in the real world.

"Hundreds of eyewitnesses , and at least thousands of tv viewers saw what appeared to be a streak of light climbing from the horizon out at sea, just before an airliner exploded & crashed, and we are all dismissed as "subplots in this conspiracy"."

What is your source for "hundreds of eyewitnesses" who saw a streak of light climbing from the horizon out at sea? I've seen that claim made repeatedly, but there is no evidence to back it up. Kind of like the mythical video. Maybe you can finally provide a source. I'm all ears.

"Too bad. Your personal story does not contradict mine."

Yes. It does. And with as much evidence.

"I stated the facts of what I saw that night."

You stated something you believe and offer no supporting evidence. Some people believe martians inhabit the planet. That doesn't make that a fact either.

[Rokke]

"Jack doesn't live an opulent lifestyle by any means."

That certainly isn't for a lack of self-promotion.

"I examined the evidence available to laymen, and I did seek the opinion of 3 or 4 aeronautical engineers. They were not satisfied."

That is pretty common in an accident investigation. In the accidents I have personal connections to, no one was really "satisfied" with the results. The problem with aircraft accidents is that much of the available evidence is reduced to being essentially unusable for the purposes of determining certain cause. That was definitely true with TWA 800.