Replies

Why did the Justice Department write off a dozen... A dozen? I know of three.

...as being contaminated from a dog handling exercise done 10 June 1996 in St. Louis when no written record of such training exists You don't believe an interview with the officer who conducted the exercise can be considered sufficient?

Why would the FBI find the recollection of the dog trainer credible.... Because the manner in which bomb training exercises are conducted explains very well how different types of explosive could be dispersed throughout an aircraft without leaving any signs of an explosion. Despite his inability to recall with complete precision his exercise on 10 June, he has conducted countless similar exercises and knows exactly what he is talking about. His testimony about the nature of his exercise matters more than the timing of it. Especially considering the length of time evidence of the explosives can remain in an aircraft once they've been deposited there. If this were the only bomb sniffing exercise to be carried out in 1996, than maybe his recollection of the timing of his exercise would be more relevant, but with several thousands of these exercises being conducted annually, I think there is a very good chance that the TWA 800 aircraft experienced just what he described at some point in its career.

I don't believe I've ever said your questions have no merit. Now you are the one leaping to conclusions. In fact, I complimented you for the civil nature in which you asked them.

I must say, you continue for some reason, to miss the point. I have done and continue to do investigations for a living. If for example I wanted to present exculpatory evidence in a bombing of an aircraft for instance, and used the reports and documents generated by NTSB, FAA and FBI in the TWA800 case, the prosecution would tear me to pieces. The issue is not whether the dog-trainer was competent, whether he had performed previous exercises, whether those types of exercises are in fact performed on wide body civilian airliners. None of that is relevant. The issue is, was IN FACT the 6/10 exercise performed on the airplane that would be TWA800. Based on the evidence, it appears the answer to that question is no. One can conjecture, guess, or hypothesize ad infinitum, but there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. The facts show the trainer FAILED to write down the tail number of the aircraft, he stated he conducted an exercise that day, and true, there is no reason to doubt him. But was it conducted on Fl800? His statement in NO WAY corroborates the FAA contention. What he did do, was write down the time of the exercise, from that information, it can be deduced that he wasn't on Fl800.

It would have been much more believable if the NTSB had offered such an exercise as a POSSIBILITY, which rightly can be stated as you have, there is that possibility. But that is not what was done. The emphatic statement was made that the 6/10 exercise was performed aboard the questioned aircraft without any verifiable supporting evidence. The resulting "conclusion" coupled with claims of no evidence of any impulsive loading, pitting, etc. was used to categorically rule out a bomb or missile. The fact that traces of PETN-RDX remained after immersion in saltwater IS NOT necessarily an indication that said chemicals were placed on the aircraft after recovery, as you contend, or intimated that I contend. If in fact that were the case, then the dog training scenario would carry even less weight. And in fact, would be contradictory. What it does seem to indicate to me, is that there may have been a rather substantial amount of these chemicals present, before salt water immersion. Lending even more strength to the argument that said residue was in fact not the result of any training exercise, unless you believe it is standard operating procedure to contaminate passenger aircraft with large amounts of hazardous chemicals.

Let's move on shall we?......Reproduced below are excerpts from an investigative piece I wrote....You tell me why NTSB couldn't id this aircraft. (And thank you for the compliment)

The NTSB "Investigation"
"A Shot in the Dark?"
(excerpts)

Inspector Clouseau beware---the NTSB is gaining on you!

The NTSB, under the direction of it's then director, Jim Hall was apparently unable to identify an aircraft on an ATC, (air traffic control) tape despite the fact that the pilot radioed it's tail number to the control tower!

On the evening of July 17, 1996 a pilot of a private aircraft radioed Gabreski Tower on Long Island that he had witnessed a "boat leaving in a Westerly direction" from the TWA 800 crash scene. The report appears on the Gabreski ATC tape--the pilot gives his tail number as "N776." Although it would turn out this tail number was incomplete, the pilot nonetheless made other statements which would aid any competent investigator in determining the identity of his aircraft. Apparently the NTSB employed no such competent personnel.

The following are from official NTSB documents:
This is from exhibit 3A:
> > >
> > > >>At 0041:27 UTC and again at 0041:37 UTC, an Emergency
Locator
> > Transmitter
> > > signal was
> > > heard on the New York Flight Service Station frequency.
> > >
> > > The tape from Gabreski Tower (FOK) was barely readable.
However, the
> ATC
> > > group was able
> > > to discern a report on the tape of a pilot who reported a
power boat
> > > proceeding west from the
> > > vicinity of the impact site. The identification of the
aircraft was
> not
> > > clear

From exhibit 3E:
> > >
> > > 010545 125.3 N776
> > > 776 I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE ANY REPORTS
> > > ABOUT THIS THING OUT THERE BUT *** THERE'S
> > > SOMETHING BURNING AND WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THERE
> > > WAS A BOAT LEAVING IT *** TO THE WESTERLY DIRECTION.

During his several communications with Gabreski Tower the pilot of N776 indicated to the Tower--"Skyhawk 776"--another identifier. A "Skyhawk" is a Cessna 172P, fixed wing -- propeller driven, 4-seat aircraft.

In the initial investigation into this anomaly performed by ARAP, (Associated Retired Aviation Professionals, a group headed by Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, USN/Ret) which has been independently looking into Flight 800, the search for N776 was once again unproductive. This search yielded erroneous information which this author quickly refuted. The aircraft was initially traced to an individual in Texas, who did not own a Cessna, his tail number though was indeed N776. The total time spent tracking down ARAP's lead and discovering their mistake was approximately 3 hours. Subsequent investigation and searches of FAA databases have now uncovered the true identity of "N776." The total time expended was several days, at the cost of only several dollars.

Why is it that the NTSB---which expended many millions of dollars and several years---was unable to discover the identity of this aircraft? More importantly, what did the pilot of "N776" actually see? Why is it so important?

This aircraft's pilot is perhaps the only adult individual to view what has now been coined the "30-knot track." What was the 30-knot track? Simply stated, it is a radar return indicative of a surface vessel travelling at 30-knots away from the TWA 800 crash scene. It is the only vessel in the area, which the FBI says it was unable to identify. This radar return also falls within an area established by the FBI from which they postulated the launch of a portable shoulder fired missile or (Manpad) may have taken place.

The information presented here is still being investigated. Will it yield any new clues as to what may have happened to TWA Flight 800?...........

John Fiorentino, is an independent researcher and paralegal investigator, who has been looking into the tragic crash of TWA Flight 800. He is the author of a forthcoming book on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Mr. Fiorentino has also produced several independent musical releases. He is currently employed at a law firm in New Jersey.