Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One Secret The Times Has Kept
WorldNetDaily ^ | 6 July 2006 | Jack Cashill

Posted on 07/06/2006 4:55:42 PM PDT by Hal1950

July 17 marks the 10th anniversary of the destruction of TWA Flight 800, the investigation of which represented the most conspicuous and consequential misdirection of justice in American history. This column is part of an in-depth look at the incident, presenting several compelling reasons why the investigation must be re-opened.

"I always start with the premise that the question is, why should we not publish?" said New York Times beleaguered editor Bill Keller. "Publishing information is our job. What you really need is a reason to withhold information."

Keller, of course, was defending his paper's decision to expose the government's classified banking program used to investigate Islamic terrorists. His case for such bold reporting would ring a good deal truer, however, if his paper had not played an indispensable role in the single greatest and most gratuitous act of information withholding in recent American history.

On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 exploded on a beautiful summer night only 12 minutes out of JFK. Had the plane crashed in Kalamazoo or Keokuk or Kansas City, chances are the American people would have known the cause of the crash almost immediately.

But it didn't. It crashed in the New York Times' backyard. The Times' reporters owned the story from day one.

On July 18, the last day of official honesty, Times reporters were all over the place, and they were pressing for the truth. On that day, unnamed "government officials" – most likely the FBI – told the New York Times that air traffic controllers had "picked up a mysterious radar blip that appeared to move rapidly toward the plane just before the explosion."

These officials and the Times unequivocally linked the radar to the multiple eyewitness sightings and the sightings to a missile attack.

According to the Times' sources, "The eyewitnesses had described a bright light, like a flash, moving toward the plane just before the initial explosion, and that the flash had been followed by a huge blast – a chain of events consistent with a missile impact and the blast produced by an aircraft heavily laden with fuel." As one federal official told the Times that first morning, "It doesn't look good," with the clear implication of a missile strike.

This was the last day these officials were open with the media about the possibility of a missile. Once they changed the story, so did an oddly quiescent Times. The words "radar" and "eyewitness" would all but disappear from the Times' reporting after the first day. Nor, inexplicably, would the Times investigate the possible role of the military in the downing of TWA 800 – not one paragraph – and not one word about satellites and what they might have captured.

As it happens, the Atlanta Olympics opened on July 19, the day the above stories were published. Were the White House to acknowledge that an attack from outside the plane had caused its destruction, the FAA might well have been compelled to shut down aviation on the East Coast. Accordingly, all missile talk ceased on that day. The investigation was forced into a false dialectic between bomb and mechanical. And the government, especially the FBI, would make the Times its messenger.

To its credit, the FBI pushed to the terrorist side of the equation and pulled the Times with it. The Times' article on Aug. 14 – "Fuel Tank's Condition Makes Malfunction Seem Less Likely" – was the most provocative yet.

According to the Times, investigators "concluded that the center fuel tank caught fire as many as 24 seconds after the initial blast that split apart the plane, a finding that deals a serious blow to the already remote possibility that a mechanical accident caused the crash." There was more. Investigators told the Times that the pattern of the debris "persuaded them that a mechanical malfunction is highly unlikely."

"Now that investigators say they think the center fuel tank did not explode," read the Times account, "they say the only good explanations remaining are that a bomb or a missile brought down the plane."

In retrospect, one can see that the FBI was indeed steering the Times towards a terrorist scenario but away from any talk of missiles. When "government officials" stopped talking about missile sightings, so did the Times. The paper's first article on the subject, and first serious reference in a month, occurred Aug. 17. The article featured one Michael Russell, an engineer who witnessed the explosion from a boat.

According to the Times, "His sober, understated story was one of only a few that investigators have judged credible." The Times took its story straight from FBI sources and picked up its spin as well. These few "clear accounts" like Russell's have "substantially weakened support for the idea that a missile downed the plane." The Times claimed that Russell's account of a quick flash well before the large fireball has "bolstered the idea that a bomb, and not an exploding fuel tank, triggered the disintegration of the airplane."

In due time, the FBI would acknowledge that 270 eyewitnesses saw not just the white flash, but streaks of light in the sky converging on TWA Flight 800 before the flash. The New York Times would interview not a single one of them.

For all its misdirection, the FBI seemed to have been struggling against the White House throughout August. The Aug. 23 Times headline story – "Prime Evidence Found That Device Exploded in Cabin of Flight 800" – stole the thunder from Clinton's election-driven approval of welfare reform in that same day's paper and threatened to undermine the peace and prosperity message of the next week's Democratic convention.

"Investigators have finally found scientific evidence that an explosive device was detonated inside the passenger cabin of Trans World Airlines Flight 800," reported the Times authoritatively on the 23rd. The paper referred specifically to the traces of PETN, first identified by a bomb-sniffing dog more than two weeks before.

These investigators told the Times that PETN is commonly found in bombs and surface-to-air missiles, "making it impossible, for now, to know for sure which type of explosive device destroyed the Boeing 747." The Times reminded its readers that 10 days prior the FBI had said that ''one positive result'' in the forensic tests would cause them to declare the explosion a crime.

Now, however, senior investigators "were not ready to declare that the crash was the result of a criminal act in part because they did not yet know whether the explosion was caused by a bomb or a missile."

But there was a speed bump ahead. On the 25th, for the first time, the New York Times published a story with a "missile" lead. "The discovery of PETN," claimed the article, "has kept alive the fearsome though remote possibility that the airliner was brought down by a surface-to-air missile."

On Aug. 30, the FBI announced that it had discovered additional traces of explosive residue "on a piece of wreckage from inside the Boeing 747 near where the right wing meets the fuselage." The location is critical. This is exactly where the first explosion seemed to be centered. At the briefing, the FBI did not identify the type of chemical, but "senior investigators" tipped off the Times that the substance was RDX. One agent told the Times that finding the two ingredients together, RDX and PETN, was ''virtually synonymous with Semtex.''

The Times, which prided itself on its sources, was now being steered by the FBI agents exactly where they wanted this investigation to go – away from the "missile" and back towards the bomb, even if it meant revealing more information. If PETN alone allowed for the possibility of a missile, PETN and RDX together argued much more strongly for a bomb.

For the next three weeks, there was almost no news from the investigation. On Sept. 19, the same day that Al Gore was quietly telling the airline industry that it had nothing to fear from his security and safety commission, the Times was summoned to NTSB headquarters in Washington to be brief by longtime Gore family retainer and now NTSB chair, Jim Hall. The lead of the Times' subsequent story reads as follows:

"Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board, saying they are convinced that none of the physical evidence recovered from TWA Flight 800 proves that a bomb brought down the plane, plan tests intended to show that the explosion could have been caused by a mechanical failure alone. Weeks before, the Times had reported that "the only good explanations remaining are that a bomb or a missile brought down the plane off Long Island." In the interim, the evidence for an external strike had grown only stronger as more explosive residue had been found on the plane and more eyewitnesses had been interviewed. Now, however, officials were telling the public through the media that a mechanical failure brought down the airplane."

The New York Times did not say boo. Soon enough, its editors would move from misinformation to disinformation and demand punishment for those who dared to tell the truth.

TOPICS: Government; US: New York
KEYWORDS: jackcashill; newyorktimes; twa800; twaflight800
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
Jack Cashill and most of the rest of the conspiracy theorists seem oblivious (or pretend to be) to the very detailed report of two airborne witnesses which they prepared - because they were dissatisfied by their brief interview by the FBI - and posted on the internet thereafter.

They indicate in their report that they were flying at 8500 feet when they saw the huge fireball explode below their own flight altitude and that they flew to the smoke cloud it left and found the top to be at 7700 feet, the middle at about 7500 feet and the sky clear of anything unusual above that.

Their report also includes the following February 1997 Addendum

Feb 97: Addendum: Time has passed, the mystery of the downing of Flight 800 still eludes us. (probably not all of us). Until all data is evaluated, we’ll have to wait for the official facts. From an idealistic view, there is no reason to think otherwise. (what a perfect world we live in). Since Ken & Sven made this report public, we have heard many opinions on our sighting. We saw what we saw and report it as such. We have nothing to gain or loose. It has apparent that some aviation experience is required in reading this report.

There is one fact that bothers us, however. No mention is ever made of the fact that the explosion was at 7500 feet! We do not dispute the fact that something happened at 13,800 feet, but what happened after that. There is 5000 feet unaccounted for.

We would like to emphasize: - We approached the black-gray smoke cloud on the west side. We were at 7700 feet and were at the top edge of the cloud. The cloud center was at 7500 feet. There were 2 small bumps atop it. There was no smoke or smoke trails above it. It was still lit up a little by the sun, clear above.”

We don’t why this has never been discussed in any scenarios.


None of the conspiracy theorists have ever been able to conjure up a palatable missile(s) shootdown scenario for the public with that 5000 feet accounted for because the personally prepared detailed report of these two witnesses conclusively rules out the possibility that the 747 was shot down.

There was only one huge fireball explosion and it was first reported by radio to ATC at 8:31:50, 39 seconds after the initial event disabled Flight 800 at 13,800 feet.

1 posted on 07/06/2006 4:55:43 PM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

The Activism sidebar is reserved for Activism, protests, news and business of Free Republic Chapters.

Not this.

Please read the following for FR's posting rules for further guidelines.


2 posted on 07/06/2006 5:02:37 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

I believe that if there had been any kind of missile launch at all, it would have illuminated the sky, and would have been especially visible to aircraft flying above. The attention of the pilots in question would have been immediately diverted toward the source of such an event.

I think a more likely scenario is that the aircraft was leaking fuel, which ignited and left a visible trail which eyewitnesses mistook for a missile or other object streaking up toward the airplane.

3 posted on 07/06/2006 5:07:25 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

Read later

4 posted on 07/06/2006 5:09:00 PM PDT by al baby (Dick Trickle is not a medical condition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: al baby
Dick Trickle is not a medical condition

Moby Dick is not a social disease.

5 posted on 07/06/2006 5:09:46 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

A 747 downed by a missle would bear lots and lots of tell tale shrapnel damage.

6 posted on 07/06/2006 5:12:11 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

I believe TWA 800 was brought down by a terrorist bomb, either brought on board by a suicide passenger or planted there at the airport. I also believe it was very deliberately covered up by the Clinton Administration which did not want to alarm the public in an election year or invite scrutiny of its previous coverup, namely the Oklahoma City bombing. And guess who was behind both of these incidents? Saddam Hussein. Now do you want to guess again what Sandy Bergeer stuffed into his pants?

7 posted on 07/06/2006 5:17:33 PM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (Meet the new dictators of America.....Bill Keller, James Risen, Eric Lichtblau, and Dana Priest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham; al baby
The streak was of brief duration from the time it was first seen until it ended at the huge fireball explosion which took place no higher than 7500 feet (and perhaps much lower). It must have been ascending. The other witnesses simply had no reference point like the two quoted (keep in mind that the huge fireball exloded below their own flight altitude of 8500 feet.).

The streak must have been descending and most likely was fire in the falling wreckage.

8 posted on 07/06/2006 5:19:09 PM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers

Still too many conflicting statements for me to 100% believe this was an accident...the fact that it occured along with WTC 1 and OKC during the Clintonista reign has me more inclined to believe this was a terrorist hit.

9 posted on 07/06/2006 5:23:23 PM PDT by FlashBack (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fso301
"A 747 downed by a missle would bear lots and lots of tell tale shrapnel damage."

None was reportedly found and the conspiracy theorists have been unable to publicly present any irrefutable evidence to to the contrary.

10 posted on 07/06/2006 5:23:59 PM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FlashBack
There is just no good reason to believe that 880 was an accident...
11 posted on 07/06/2006 5:25:31 PM PDT by pointsal (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FlashBack; Mr Ramsbotham
Well, we now know that [1] you're both conspiracy theorists and [2] that you have no supporting evidence to present.
12 posted on 07/06/2006 5:29:50 PM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

Unfortunately, the event itself, in the setting in which it occurred (the Clinton presidency...following several poorly explained and understood events-OKC bombing, Waco incineration, World Trade Center bombing, and the deathof the President's attorney, Vince Foster....just to name a few...)lends itself to endless speculation....a very silly scenario trying to lend a comprehensible explanation for the otherwise incomprehensible did'nt help....

13 posted on 07/06/2006 5:32:45 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
I remember some media photos of the "reassembled" wreckage and would like to review all of the photographic evidence released.
14 posted on 07/06/2006 5:35:17 PM PDT by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
"There is just no good reason to believe that 880 (sic) was an accident."

There's no irrefutable evidence of a missile attack or bomb, a cargo door accident, a meteor, lightning strike, etc. Theories have been abundant but after 10 years it's long past time for all the conspiracy theorists to put up or shut up.

15 posted on 07/06/2006 5:38:13 PM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

You did read First Strike didn't you?

16 posted on 07/06/2006 5:40:45 PM PDT by ladyinred (The NYTimes, hang 'em high!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
Cahill always seems, if not exactly to be wearing a tin foil hat, at least to be toying with it, ready to don it.

Somebody more serious than him would have to pick up the torch of Flight 800 in order for me to pay attention.

17 posted on 07/06/2006 5:51:58 PM PDT by beckett (Amor Fati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

Clinton never covered up anything. /sarcasm

18 posted on 07/06/2006 5:54:36 PM PDT by bmwcyle (Only stupid people would vote for McCain, Warner, Hagle, Snowe, Graham, or any RINO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
Well, we now know that [1] you're both conspiracy theorists and [2] that you have no supporting evidence to present.

I don't know why you're calling me a conspiracy theorist. I think it was an accident, pure and simple. Nobody's trying to cover anything up; they're just trying to explain a freak accident as best as the facts of the case will allow.

I take my cue from a certain 747 mechanic who postulated a number of years ago that one of the engine cowlings wasn't properly secured; that it came loose and was forced back onto the wing, where its rivets punctured a fuel tank.

And numerous individuals skilled with missiles of all kinds have stated that any missile launch in the vicinity would have lit up the night sky--something that didn't happen.

19 posted on 07/06/2006 5:55:52 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
There's no irrefutable evidence of anything. That's the problem. Eyewitness accounts may be all manner of inaccurate, but the NTSB's conclusion was based on their inability to prove any specific cause, so it must have been the center tank.

Bad science.

20 posted on 07/06/2006 5:58:16 PM PDT by sig226 (There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who do not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson