A statistical study of a recently released FBI database of 736 witness interview summaries refutes the NTSB’s conclusion. Most significantly, eighty-six percent of the witnesses who described the motion and/or origin of the rising streak reject the NTSB’s explanation. These witnesses observed the streak emanate from the surface when Flight 800 was 2.6 miles (approximately 4 km) above it. Others reported seeing the streak moving along a different trajectory from that of Flight 800 and/or seeing the streak collide with Flight 800 (see “FIRO Witness Statistics” on page 8). The remaining fourteen percent offer no information concerning the streak’s origin.
Rather than openly address these observations, both the FBI and NTSB on various occasions suppressed the witness evidence:
1) The FBI withheld the accounts of 278 witnesses from the NTSB for more than one year after the crash. All witness accounts with descriptions of a “streak” colliding with an aircraft were concealed from the NTSB in this withheld data.[3, 4]
2) The FBI ostensibly lost the results of a study to determine the origin of an alleged surface-launched object seen before the crash. Those results are officially listed as “unable to locate” by the FBI.[5]
3) At the first public hearing on the crash, the FBI prevailed upon the NTSB to prohibit any discussion of the witness evidence.[6]
4) Official witness sketches that purport to show a surface-launched object cause the crash have never been discussed or addressed in any official report or public hearing on the crash.[4]
5) The witness evidence was withheld from the public until April 2000, almost four years after the crash.
6) At the final public hearing on the crash in August 2000, the NTSB dramatically under-reported the number of witness accounts that conflicted with their proposed crash scenario.[2]
Thank you! Excellent summary. Despite the multi millions spent to perpetrate the Clinton administrations convoluted and totally false explanation for the demise of flight TWA800 - it is good to read that those eyewitnesses, most of them, refuse to swallow such garbage. OH but they are all just stubborn conspiracy theorist wackos.
In the case of TWA 800, we have hundreds of spontaneous eye witness accounts by people of a wide variety of backgrounds and professions as well as geographic perspectives all claiming to have seen the same thing: something streaking upwards towards the aircraft and then an explosion. For a few hours, the FBI and other investigators acted as if these accounts were credible and then suddenly the mindset and track of the investigation changed to support any theory except a missile. It quickly settled on a spontaneous explosion of the fuel tank.
In the case of the WTC attack, where hundreds if not thousands of people saw the first attack with their own eyes in close proximity to the building and many others, perhaps millions saw the second attack live on television. I saw the second attack live myself.
The similarity is that in the first case, in my opinion and that of many others, few facts support the official version and many facts support a missile attack. It has been my observation that of the people who disbelieve the official account of the incident, many are conservative. In fact, I don’t know a single conservative who accepts the government version without reservation. In my experience, only people on the Left accept the fuel tank explosion explanation.
In the WTC attack, the weight of the facts agree with the accounts from eye witnesses. In my experience, most of the people who think that the buildings were destroyed by explosives instead of the aircraft are liberal, and few who are conservative accept this alternate explanation.
In both cases, it is not the particular points of the theory of the event but what those theories imply.
In the case of TWA 800, if it was shot down as a deliberate act, then our government made a choice not to find evidence that would require us to take military action against those who carried the attack out. The implication being that Clinton wanted to avoid having to go to war in the Middle East. This is reinforced by the decision to treat the 1993 WTC bombing, as a crime as opposed to an act of war.
In the case of the theory that the 9/11/2001 WTC collapse was an “inside job” with planted explosives, the implication of that theory is that Bush wanted an excuse to go to war for various reasons, including cheap oil, to be able to invoke martial law, to suspend the Constitution, to bring about the End of Days.
And I’m still wondering what documents were stolen by Sandy Berger for the 911 commission which involved civilian aircraft as terrorist threats.