Spot-on report describes 3-missile attack (on TWA 800)

WorldNetDaily ^ | 9 November 2006 | Jack Cashill

[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.

[ladyinred]

I think most of it was so the airline industry would not be wiped out, and because Clinton did not want any problems on his watch. He is all about peace and prosperity to to this day. There is a lot of evidence this was a terrorist attack, and on 911 several prominent news media people blurted out the truth of it. It has gone back into the underground now, but the evidence is credible if one cares to look.

[Eva]

I have always considered the motivation for the cover up to be the same as the motivation for the cover up or avoidance of the truth anyway, of all the other incidents that occurred during the Clinton administration, no guts. Clinton would have had to do something if he admitted that attacks were occurring on US interests. He was chicken.

Look, the left hates the military, they hate any show of US strength, for any reason. Clinton is a sixties kind'a guy, he can't bring himself to support anything militarily that would benefit or protect the US.

[ml/nj]

What missiles were there?

Something you and I don't know about. Something that they were testing that night. Something that could produce the the data shown in the original NTSB BlackBox listing. New stuff is being developed all the time. Testing is necessary. No it wasn't a Trident. Are you a disinformationalist too?

According to your newspaper story the closest sub was 70 miles

I guess you start typing before you read everything; or maybe you don't understand; or wish to understand. That story was disinformation. According to Reed's witnesses the distance was closer to zero. And no, I don't think it was a Harpoon either. Like I said, it was something new.

Your prattling about the P-3 is a bit much too. You seem to think it was flying around "70 to 200 miles" away from the subs it was "chasing."

Here we go again. What radar?

Why don't you Google "TWA 800 radar," and have a look around. You'll find stuff like this:

Do you think the people who present this made it up or merely misinterpret it?

ML/NJ

[justshutupandtakeit]

The example you used does not seem to produce the same conditions that were claimed to have destroyed 800. And the lack of any serious followup does not increase by faith in the official story.

[wintertime]

We're looking at hundreds, maybe thousands of people, and none of them are speaking up. Simply not possible.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My opinion as well. It is impossible to get that many people to agree to be silent.

By the way, I am certain you have noticed. I am the only person who has responded to your post.

[Non-Sequitur]

Something you and I don't know about. Something that they were testing that night. Something that could produce the the data shown in the original NTSB BlackBox listing. New stuff is being developed all the time. Testing is necessary. No it wasn't a Trident. Are you a disinformationalist too?

No, but unlike you I think I know what I'm talking about and I'm basing my opinions on actual military experience and not a taste for conspiracy theories or hatred of the military. Submarines do not have surface to air missiles, they would be absolutely worthless on them. But say for the sake of argument they did, do you honestly believe that someone would be insane enough to propose testing it by firing it into the most densely traveled air corridor in the world? I mean my God, can you honestly believe that the navy would be stupid enough to do that? Why?

Why don't you Google "TWA 800 radar," and have a look around.

So you actually believe that the Islip ATC radar was tracking surface targets? You actually believe that? Stop and think for once. Why would an air traffic control radar pick up anything on the surface anywhere? If your air traffic radar is returning echoes from boats, trucks, water towers, fire trucks, big buildings, submerging submarines, super secret missile launches, and what not, how are you going to pick out the airplanes from all that clutter? Wouldn't you want to direct your radar beams so they would, like, pick up airplanes? Isn't that what it's there for?

Do you think the people who present this made it up or merely misinterpret it?

Probably both. You all are so hell-bent on trashing the military that you'll swallow anything, no matter how ridiculous, that fit your tin-foil tales. But hey, knock yourself out. The harder you try the dumber it all looks. But one last point. You want proof how wrong your crazy theories are? Look at the newspapers and their coverage of the military in Iraq. The MSM will stop at nothing to trash the services, and would jump at the chance to do it over this. If the Navy had shot down TWA 800 they would cover the airwaves with it.

[Rokke]

"Why is there so much disinformation here?"

THAT is a DAMN good question. Especially since the disinformation is being spread almost exclusively by the same whackjobs who make a living from exploiting this nonsense. The fact that you just posted the Reed Irvine transcript you posted as some kind of proof of a government cover up is just classic. THE SOURCE IN THAT INTERVIEW WAS A LIAR. But don't believe me. Believe Reed Irvine. Here's a link to his follow up article regarding his "unimpeachable" source....
Lies About TWA 800: Which Are The Worst?
Allow me to quote Reed himself from the article..."He (his unimpeachable source) lied to me, and I regret having been deceived by him."

It is crap like this that the whole TWA800 conspiracy nonsense is based on. Half-truths, untruths, lies and misinformation all thrown out there by people making money from a tragedy. Then those lies and half-truths are repeated by more people who know even less about what they are talking about than the shysters who created the nonsense in the first place. All of whom insist the government (including the military) is lying because its investigation doesn't answer questions raised in the fantasy world created by the conspiracy nuts. It is an ugly cycle all designed to line the pockets of people who make a living creating bogus conspiracies. And it is sickening.

[ml/nj]

So you actually believe that the Islip ATC radar was tracking surface targets? You actually believe that? Stop and think for once. Why would an air traffic control radar pick up anything on the surface anywhere? If your air traffic radar is returning echoes from boats, trucks, water towers, fire trucks, big buildings, submerging submarines, super secret missile launches, and what not, how are you going to pick out the airplanes from all that clutter? Wouldn't you want to direct your radar beams so they would, like, pick up airplanes? Isn't that what it's there for?

You wear me out. You haven't a clue. ATC radar uses mathematical algorithms to eliminate ground clutter. Pointing the radar up doesn't do much good because if you point up at angles sufficient to eliminate ground returns, you're not going to capture much more than the Space Shuttle ten miles distant from your equipment. Curvature and diffraction work against you. Check out Radar Basics - Clutter.

Maybe you should give your insight to the NTSB. One of their reports shows a number of slow moving tracks in the vicinity of the crash. According to this report, some of these were captured by the Islip radar you say cannot have seen these targets.

ML/NJ

[I'm ALL Right!]

I think it was a terrorist attack, and Clinton did not want to mess up his approval rating/legacy by actually engaging the attackers.

[ml/nj]

It is crap like this that the whole TWA800 conspiracy nonsense is based on. Half-truths, untruths, lies and misinformation all thrown out there by people making money from a tragedy.

Actually the whole "conspiracy" as you call it is based upon the FACT that the plane was shot down by a missile seen and reported by more than 100 disparate witnesses; and that at the position where the plane was shot down, there are no known weapons which could reasonably have been acquired by private interests that could have been used to shoot it down. The reset is probably circumstantial, but damning none the less: the activated military-operations-area, the lies and retractions, the failure of the investigation to consider witnesses. Doesn't any of this bother you?

I'm not sure who you think is getting rich, or even making money from this. Maybe you could send me some info so I can get a piece?

As for Reed's follow-up, it doesn't ring true to me. But even if it is correct that this guy is some sort of fraud, don't you think it might be interesting to find out why someone in the Navy would make up stories about that night? Maybe you believe that Vince Foster committed suicide too? There was plenty of positive disinformation in the Foster case (Swiss banking trips, clipper chip, etc.).

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

I think it was a terrorist attack, and Clinton did not want to mess up his approval rating/legacy by actually engaging the attackers.

I guess you didn't bother to read my TWA 800 "It wasn't terrorists. It couldn't have been." .

Also, you would have to posit that our nation's defenders (the military) had standing orders not to engage and that Clinton wouldn't have seen it as an opportunity. I know if he ever went after people who did attack us, I would have given him high marks for it.

ML/NJ

[I'm ALL Right!]

Nope. Didn't read it.

[Mr. Silverback]

Dubs was a typo, I meant subs. All the Iranian subs (and those of other Middle Eastern powers and North Korea) are diesel subs, which must come to periscope depth on a frequent basis to run their diesels and charge their batteries. While underwater they are quieter than most nucear subs, but the diesel makes them realtively easy to track over long distances.

SOSUS is a sonar tracking net composed of passive sonar mikes seeded across the ocean floor in the Atlantic. The Navy can track all but the most stealthy subs with SOSUS to the point that they have a general idea of the location of every sub operating in the Atlantic.

In other words, no sub-launched missile from the Middle East crazies or Kim Jong Il.

[Mr. Silverback]

Two hundred witnesses seeing something they think is a missile trail doesn't mean it was a missile trail, it means that they saw soemthing that looked like a missile trail to them. And of the 200 witnesses, I'm not aware of a single one who saw the launch of said missile, even though the launch point would have been on or easily visible from Long Island. A missile launch at night is impossible to miss.

As for the "radar tape," please don't make me laugh. Salinger's a moonbat, and his tape fell apart under scrutinty. In any case, you still have to explain why none of the hundreds necessary for the vcoverup have come forward, and your silly "spontaneous combustion" comment shows you have no bloody idea what you're talking about. During my Air Force career, 2 KC-135s and a C-141 "spontaneously combusted" in the same manner. Why aren't you and Salinger trying to identify the Navy ship that shot at them?

[Mr. Silverback]

By the way, I am certain you have noticed. I am the only person who has responded to your post.

It is as I expected. :-)

[Mr. Silverback]

Regarding "what radar," I've already stated that I don't know the provenance of the radar with the information I have at hand. Did you not understand what this means?

I do. It means you're making assertions from unsourced evidence. Also known as flinging a load of crap.

[Mr. Silverback]

I wonder if you have ever seen the NTSB's own data from the BlackBox recorder. I mean the first version they released, which indicates that there was explosion outside the aircraft, rather than the "corrected" one which removed data supposely left over from an earlier flight.

How would the Black box indicate that? All it does is record flight instrument data and cockpit conversations.

[groanup]

It is impossible to get that many people to agree to be silent.

Maybe they weren't all that silent:

[Mr. Silverback]

Actually the whole "conspiracy" as you call it is based upon the FACT that the plane was shot down by a missile seen and reported by more than 100 disparate witnesses; and that at the position where the plane was shot down, there are no known weapons which could reasonably have been acquired by private interests that could have been used to shoot it down.

The launch of such a missile would have been impossible to miss at night, yet none of the witnesses saw a launch. Why not? Then there's the fact that we know the back end of the plane would have climbed, yet IIRC none of the witnesses report a missile track followed by another streak rising from near the impact point.

The "missile track" was the flaming aft fuselage, surging upward after being freed from the weight of forward fuselage.

[NY Attitude]

Save for later