TWA 800: How the CIA Hijacked the FBI Investigation

American Thinker ^ | June 14, 2016 | Jack Cashill

[Kaslin]

Within hours of the crash of TWA Flight 800 off the Long Island coast on July 17, 1996, the FBI seized control of the investigation from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Although illegal, this was done in full view of an indifferent media.

What the media did not see was the CIA’s illegal seizure of the investigation from both the NTSB and FBI. We know about this quiet coup now thanks to a treasure trove of CIA documents recently unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act separately by attorney John Clarke and physicist Tom Stalcup.

In a July 30, 1996, internal CIA memo, headlined “Hold the Press,” a CIA analyst warned his unnamed superior of an impending FBI report on a likely missile strike. This was less than two weeks after the July 17 crash.

After interviewing 144 witnesses, the FBI missile team insisted there was a “high probability” that a surface-to-air missile destroyed the airplane. According to the FBI report, the evidence was “overwhelming.” The witnesses were “excellent” and their testimony “too consistent” for the cause to be anything other than a missile.

From the beginning, the CIA’s job was to make all talk of missiles go away. Less than two weeks after the crash, the CIA analyst boasted to his superior of how he discouraged the FBI from pursuing the missile angle. In fact, the FBI did not go public with this report at the time even though it had “only minor corrections left to make,” and the CIA made sure it never would.

[piasa]

AUGUST 1996 : (ALQAEDA’S DECLARATION OF WAR ON THE USA IS ANNOUNCED FORMALLY)

[The Duke]

What was the revenge for?

[Alberta's Child]

If you’re looking to do this sort of thing and you position yourself so far to the east to avoid getting caught, you might as well do it from the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

[lonevoice]

This fish has been rotting from the head down for a long, long time. I want my country back.

[piasa]

MAY 1996 : (BIN LADEN RETURNS TO AFGHANISTAN AFTER BEING EVICTED FROM SUDAN)

JULY 1996 : (BIN LADEN ON IRAQ) “We, as muslims, do not like the Iraqi regime but we think that the Iraqi people and their children are our brothers and we care about their future.” —Osama bin Laden quoted in The Indeendent, UK, July 10, 1996

AUGUST 23 or earlier 1996 : (ALQAEDA’S DECLARATION OF WAR ON THE USA IS DISSEMINATED; WHEN HAD IT BEEN APPROVED BY AQ’S COUNCILS?)

[Moonman62]

It’s going to be a long four weeks as the conspiracy people show up for the twenty year anniversary.

[DiogenesLamp]

What was the revenge for?

For the USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air flight 655 back in 1988.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you’re looking to do this sort of thing and you position yourself so far to the east to avoid getting caught, you might as well do it from the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

Cruising altitude is something like 30,000 feet, isn't it? I think they made a judgement call about their missile's range and the best place to fire it without getting caught.

[Moonman62]

Think about it. Has anyone ever heard of any other 747 going down this way? I’m still surprised that Boeing didn’t sue the daylights out of someone for that fraudulent narrative.

...

One benefit of the TWA 800 investigation is that center fuel tanks have been made safer due to Airworthiness Directives.

There was a 737 in 1990 that had a center fuel tank explode while on the ground.

[DiogenesLamp]

It’s going to be a long four weeks as the conspiracy people show up for the twenty year anniversary.

Back in April 17 1961, an invasion force landed in Cuba. It was a force trained and outfitted by the United States, but intended to appear as a spontaneous uprising of Cuban dissidents.

But then only a "conspiracy nut" would believe something like that.

[DiogenesLamp]

It’s going to be a long four weeks as the conspiracy people show up for the twenty year anniversary.

Oh, and while we're at it, here's another "conspiracy" involving that Idiot Jimmy Carter.

How Ayatollah Khomeini suckered Jimmy Carter

The soon-to-be Supreme Leader of Iran certainly knew a sucker when he saw one. What Carter did in response to Khomeini’s pledge is not entirely clear from the newly declassified materials, but Khomeini did return; the military either fell into line or was ruthlessly purged; and Iran switched 180 degrees from being a strategic US ally to being one of our most implacable adversaries.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-ayatollah-khomeini-suckered-jimmy-carter/

[Alberta's Child]

Three things to keep in mind ...

1. TWA Flight 800 departed JFK Airport more than an hour late, so anyone off the south shore of Long Island who targeted that specific aircraft wouldn't have been able to predict the time and place where it would fly overhead.

2. From what I've read, Flight 800 was actually flying lower than usual that night through the area, having maintained a lower altitude to make way for a northbound aircraft flying into Providence, Rhode Island. Nobody would have been able to predict that. If anything, this supports a scenario of an accidental downing by a naval vessel conducting exercises off the south shore of Long Island that night.

3. Shooting a missile at an aircraft flying 15,000 feet overhead from a point that far east makes no sense if you're doing it from there to avoid getting caught. At that altitude there's a serious risk that the missile won't hit its target -- which means you're running the risk of getting caught without any certainty that your plan will even work.

[DiogenesLamp]

1. TWA Flight 800 departed JFK Airport more than an hour late, so anyone off the south shore of Long Island who targeted that specific aircraft wouldn't have been able to predict the time and place where it would fly overhead.

I do not know if that aircraft was specifically targeted or if it was just a target of opportunity. If that aircraft was the specific target, an hour's wait is nothing.

2. From what I've read, Flight 800 was actually flying lower than usual that night through the area, having maintained a lower altitude to make way for a northbound aircraft flying into Providence, Rhode Island. Nobody would have been able to predict that.

I wouldn't presume to know the missile's upper threshold of reach. It may have been good up to 40,000 feet for all we know. Jack Cashill has done some investigation as to the type of missile he believes is involved. I will have to suggest you look up his research on the subject.

3. Shooting a missile at an aircraft flying 15,000 feet overhead from a point that far east makes no sense if you're doing it from there to avoid getting caught. At that altitude there's a serious risk that the missile won't hit its target -- which means you're running the risk of getting caught without any certainty that your plan will even work.

The transponder was pinging from the aircraft. I don't think tracking it was that difficult of a problem.

The last recorded radar transponder return from the airplane was recorded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) radar site at Trevose, Pennsylvania at 8:31:12pm

[Moonman62]

You should really do separate threads on those topics. Putting them here makes it look like you’re losing it.

[LS]

Cashill has won me over. I think it was a Navy missile. Whatever the hell they were doing with live fire in civilian airspace is beyond nuts. One Freeper suggested it was a civilian contractor firing an antiaircraft missile from a sub, which is plausible.

[Nuc 1.1]

I saw a TV interview with a woman witness that said she saw a missile launched from a boat near her hit TWA Flight 800. I never saw her again. Not long later there was a no witness dirge from the propaganda media and everyone went to sleep. That plane was downed by a missile. IMHO.

[Two Kids' Dad]

Like the 30-knot radar track from very near the point of the explosion heading away a straight line rather than turning like other vessels in the area to see if they could render assistance.

http://twa800.com/images/30knot.gif

Whether that was an Iranian missile from a fast boat I have no idea. But it does raise yet another question.

[PAR35]

I’m still surprised that Boeing didn’t sue the daylights out of someone for that fraudulent narrative.

Boeing had to 'take one for the team'. They took the blame, and military sales continued and they didn't hit regulatory snags with their civilian operation. If it had been a current big seller, they might have had a difficult choice.

[Two Kids' Dad]

I respectfully disagree. I think Lamp is making cogent and interesting points.

[Jack Hammer]

Just goes to show that you can’t be too careful when stirring those fuel tanks.

Airliners are brought down all the time like that.