Posted on 11/09/2006 9:04:16 AM PST by Hal1950
This week I received a communication from retired United Airline Capt. Ray Lahr. It contained two items of great interest – one dollop of good legal news and one unexpected and truly incredible report.
The legal news concerned Ray's success in Los Angeles District Court after years of "long and lonely and expensive" effort. Judge Howard Matz had succinctly mandated that "Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shall produce to plaintiff the material set forth in Exhibit A and the National Transportation Safety Board shall produce to plaintiff the material set forth in Exhibit B." Significantly, the judge also authorized Lahr attorney John Clarke to file for fees and costs. This is a definite win.
Lahr has been suing for release of the information that the two agencies in question had used to produce their notorious zoom-climb animation subsequent to the 1996 downing of TWA Flight 800 over Long Island – animation that was used to discredit the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses, many of them military and aviation personnel. Lahr sees this animation as the Achilles' heel of a consciously skewed investigation, and in this he is correct.
Lahr also sent me a CD review of the case titled merely "TWA Flight 800 Crash Evidence Review," which I will hereafter refer to as "the Review." Before I finished reading it, I sent Lahr an e-mail, which read in part:
"Brilliant work on your explication. I am only halfway through it, but I am totally impressed. Everything else that has gone before it is the work of amateurs, mine included."
The message I got back from Lahr, however, floored me. He did not write this report. He received it anonymously in the mail. I was stunned. The Review in question is the most sophisticated piece of investigative reporting that I have ever read on this or any other crash. The unknown author likely put years into this work. He surely comes from within the aviation community, which may explain his desire for anonymity. He argues crisply, patiently and comprehensively. He provides ample illustration of his contentions and rarely, if ever, does he exceed his knowledge base.
Most impressive is his knowing synthesis of all the available evidence – radar, eyewitness, physical, audio, GPS, debris field – to recreate in detail the flight taken and damage done by each of the missiles fired at TWA Flight 800. What is more, the author uses only the evidence that was available to the National Transportation Safety Board to reach conclusions that they should have reached with the same data.
The Review author believes that based on the debris field alone, "the administration would have known within the first two weeks after the crash that missiles brought down the aircraft." Although prudent in his accusations, he strongly suspects that the long delay in recovering the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder indicates that the decision to misdirect the investigation "actually occurred the night of the disaster." With this conclusion, I fully concur.
No one who reads this Review can doubt for a moment that the government has engaged in a massive misdirection in the gathering of evidence. Every major media outlet owes it to its audience to assign its best technical writer to read and review this work. The one CD includes the entire NTSB report as well.
To make things simple, I will happily provide a copy of the entire Review to any interested major media party. The author asked that the information be shared. Interested observers, who are willing to identify themselves, can obtain a pdf copy of Part I of the Review by contacting me through my website, .
In the weeks to come, I will break down the information into manageable chunks. For now, allow me to summarize the author's approach. The Review is divided into four parts. Each of the first three parts is dedicated to the destructive path of one given missile.
In the way of example, the author argues that the first of the three was a large surface-to-air missile launched from 16 to 22 miles west of the crash site. The missile approached the aircraft on a descending track from the rear and struck it without exploding. The author is very specific in his detail, to wit, "This impact broke the horizontal stabilizer pitch trim jackscrew in tension and caused the aircraft to pitch upward." Not all the writing is this technical, but where specifics are needed, the author does not shy from providing them.
The fourth part, and the one least supported by existing evidence, is dedicated to other unidentified objects in the sky that night. The author makes the public relations mistake of calling them UFOs. What he means are unidentified aircraft. They do not come from outer space. I will call them UACs.
In the book "First Strike," James Sanders and I argue that a UAC may very well have been in the mix, and that UAC may have been a terrorist plane. The author, too, believes that a UAC was in the mix as well as three missiles, but he does not believe that the UAC was a manned aircraft. He makes a compelling argument that the UAC information that the FBI gathered was so hot that it was simply not allowed in to the official record. Every now and then, however, some information bled in accidentally. The most obvious example of the same was a photo taken by Linda Kabot that seemed to show a slender cylindrical object flying away from the scene of the crash.
Wisely, the author refrains from saying who fired the missiles or launched the aircraft, although the evidence strongly leads away from anything but a highly sophisticated military operation. It is possible that terrorist involvement may have gone no deeper than warnings given and credit claimed. Someone in Washington knows just how deep that involvement was.
The author argues that an independent panel from outside Washington is essential to conduct a new investigation. "Otherwise," he contends, "the same insider influences in both political parties, who have prevented the truth from being revealed previously, would control the investigation's outcome."
In the best of all possible worlds, Ray Lahr's case may just crack open the official door.
Direct hit!
Direct hit!
BTW, have you seen what's left of a SAM after it does its job? TSuchman hasn't, or he wouldn't have believed that story, and that "diver" hadn't, or he wouldn't have told it.
In any group of 230 people flying from NYC to Europe, there is going to be somebody that the conspiracy moonbats can make into a Clinton hit victim. Let's all grow up, shall we?
dubs=subs
Folks who got loose lips around the Clintons seemed to have a habit of waking up dead in the morning...
Pierre Salinger was right!
--What exactly was the motivation? To prevent the need to a military response against militant Islam?--
Yes. It was an election year. The last thing BJ wanted to do was being forced to take military action of any kind, particularly if Saddam was involved in financing the terrorists - the public would have clamored for war.
The reason the "Navy shot it down" theory has no creedence with me, is that the Clintons would have used it, were it true, to decimate the armed forces. No love lost there, either way.
--Just curious. When the IslamoNazi's do a terrorist act they always brag about it. Why have they not done so in this case? I mean I can't remember hearing any claims from them.--
If Saddam was involved, he could not have bragged, without being blown to smithereens. Ditto for the OKC bombing.
It'a BIG IF, but would explain the perpetrators' silence.
Also, there MAY have been claims of responsibility that were simply buried by the Clinton-friendly Enemedia. We just never heard about them.
That said, I haven't read 'First Strike'. However, 'The Third Terrorist' by Jayna Davis raises many questions, indicating how an FBI motivated to cover-up evidence of a terrorist act could have pulled it off.
--We know from other stories that Sandy Berger and Jamie Goerlick met and determined this should be deemed an accident. Why the NTSB went along is strange, but I found it interesting then and still do that Robert Francis and others retired right after the investigation ended.--
If I recall correctly, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald
(the Plamegate B.S. artist /prosecutor) was involved in the TWA case. If misdirection of an investigation was needed, he was the perfect man for the job.
--What if it was a revenge attack by Iran for the accidentally shooting down of one of their passenger planes? Odd how these things seem to happen in balanced pairs...--
But that would have been 8 or 9 years after the fact.
You must really hate the military in order to believe that.
Well I've yet to see a picture of the streaks but you're right, many people saw as streak of light. Depending on who you talked to that streak came from the east heading west, west heading east, north heading south or south heading north. It came from the sea, except for those who saw it rising from the land. It was yellow, green, pink, red, almost any color of the rainbow. Which is one of the reasons why any police officer will tell you that quite often the least reliable piece of evidence is an eyewitness account.
My tinfoil hat suggested that it was a warning to him to remain silent about the findings
See, my tinfoil had would suggest that he was clumsy. If I wanted to warn someone off I don't think I'd so it in such a vague manner. I'd probably take him aside and threaten to blow his head off. But that's just me.
I do remember that when explosive residue was found it was said to be from a dog training session on that plane. That was never confirmed.
Nor was it disproved.
I recall reporters at the site saying that there had been middle east 'chatter' surrounding the downing of the plane.
A lot of reporters are right here on this site reporting any number of things.
It wasn't long before all suggestion of a terror attack was a forbidden topic.
So I see. It hasn't come up around here for, oh, a week or so.
Which is, of course, why William Clinton managed to make it through 8 years of presidency without a whiff of scandal. </sarcasm>
The reason why the "Navy shot it down" theory has no creedence with me is that the Navy would not shoot down a civilian airliner and the participate in a consipiracy to cover it up. The officers and enlisted I served with are far to honorable to do something like that.
While that may have been a struggle for control in the cockpit, it was also mentioned that those would be the actions of a former military pilot trying to evade heat seeking missiles in an aircraft with no countermeasures.
Whatever the case, they ran out of air.
All as I can say is, Thank God Jack Cashill is still working on the truth.
I'm not excluding or discounting that, either, (there are many who would violate orders to the contrary and disclose an accident), just saying the Clintons would have shat upon the Navy in a heartbeat.
TWA 800: the conservative tinfoil hat analogue to the leftie WTC conspiracy/cover-up nuts.
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.