CIA animation
Posted on 04/02/2003 12:23:26 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 04/02/2003 12:38:24 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
On Nov. 18, 1997, the CIA and the FBI announced the end of the criminal investigation of TWA Flight 800 with the presentation of a video that ostensibly put to rest theories that the Paris-bound Boeing 747 had been destroyed by a bomb or missile.
With the 14-minute video, investigators overcame the biggest obstacle to the mechanical failure theory – 736 eyewitnesses, including the key witnesses who said they saw an ascending streak head toward the jetliner before it broke apart.
CIA animation |
In an animated sequence, the CIA argued that when the nose of the plane broke off – due to a spontaneous explosion in the center wing tank – the plane pitched up and climbed like a rocket for more than 3,000 feet. According to the CIA, this climb, not a missile, is what the official eyewitnesses saw.
"Everything about [the video] we know to be wrong," said Jack Cashill, co-author with James Sanders of the recently released book "First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America."
"The whole video hinges on an interview that never took place, and we can prove it," Cashill said.
When National Transportation Safety Board officials interviewed the CIA in 1999, they were totally perplexed by the video, Cashill said, "because everyone in the airline industry told them it's totally impossible for an airplane to do that."
"There is not an aviator in America who believes that it could actually happen," he said.
The NTSB officials asked the CIA how many people actually saw the plane ascend 3,000 feet as claimed, pointing out that a pilot flying at 16,000 feet would have seen the plane ascend, if it did, because it would have gone right through his airspace.
The CIA replied that, at least, they had the witness of "the guy on the bridge" who in a "second interview" with the FBI supposedly clarified his story and supported the mechanical-failure version.
"They are very specific about the second interview they commissioned the FBI to do," Cashill said. "But they never did it, they made all that up."
He notes that at the NTSB's final hearing in August 2000, the CIA talked only about one interview.
"They wiped from the historical record the interview the CIA had to insert to make this case here," he said.
The man on the bridge was Mike Wire, a union millwright from suburban Philadelphia, who had been working all that day on a Long Island bridge. At the end of the day, he leaned against the rail on the southwest end of the bridge and looked out toward the sea beyond the house line.
In his only meeting with an agent, in July 1996, Wire gave the following testimony, according to the official "302" form:
"Wire saw a white light that was traveling skyward from the ground at approximately a 40 degree angle. Wire described the white light as a light that sparkled and thought it was some type of fireworks. Wire stated that the white light 'zig zagged' (sic) as it traveled upwards, and at the apex of its travel the white light 'arched over' and disappeared from Wire's view. ... Wire stated the white light traveled outwards from the beach in a south-southeasterly direction."
Cashill notes that the testimony of other witnesses was the same, "flare after flare, streak after streak, zig-zag after zig-zag." At least 96, he said, saw the light rise up off the horizon.
The CIA, for reasons not fully explained, he said, chose to build its case on Wire's testimony.
"FBI investigators determined precisely where the eyewitness was standing," the CIA narrator said of Wire as the video showed the explosion from his perspective on Beach Lane Bridge. "The white light the eyewitness saw was very likely the aircraft very briefly ascending and arching over after it exploded rather than a missile attacking the aircraft."
While the video misses numerous aspects of Wire's testimony, most noticeably, said Cashill, it fully ignores his claim that the light ascended "skyward from the ground" and places his first sighting 20 degrees above the horizon, exactly where Flight 800 would have been.
A CIA analyst's oral report to the NTSB on April 30, 1999, revealed how critical the "second interview" – which never happened – was to the CIA's version of events.
He explained how when Wire was "re-interviewed," he told how "the light did appear in the sky" and not from the horizon.
"Now, when the FBI told us that, we got even more comfortable with our theory," the analyst said. "[Wire] also described, he was asked to describe how high in the sky above the house he thought that light appeared, and he said it was as if – if you imagine a flagpole on top of the house it would be as if it were on the top or the tip of the flagpole."
Cashill wondered why the CIA chose Wire's account from among all the eyewitnesses. He notes that others, that didn't see the streak of light, would have been easier to fudge.
He speculates that the CIA used the detailed information on the 302s to infer that, unlike the many affluent Long Island eyewitnesses, Wire was a humble mechanic heading home to Philadelphia the next day.
They almost got away with it, he said, because Wire spent the next four years completely unaware of what had transpired. Had it not been for two mistakes by the FBI, he might still be unaware. On his interview form, the agent neglected once to capitalize "Wire." So when it was redacted for public release in 2000, the FBI employee failed to black out "wire" since it was a common noun. The 302s also included Wire's hometown.
Cashill said that since then he has come to know Wire fairly well, and the Pennsylvanian definitely has not changed his story.
Clinton's people blamed that on anyone to the right of Hillary, but were backing water on the allegedly arabic appearance of John Doe 2.
. IMHO, we have been under attack for some time (WTC '93 on, anyway), but until 9/11, attacks were deniable. 9/11 changed the official scenario, as there could be no denial of terrorist attack.
Admission of such by the Clintoons would have required an accounting of their behavior in re treatment of terrorists here (pardons and such).
This administration will spend at least the first term cleaning up a lot of the Clinton's fecal legacy...
Not so.
Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
|
Middle East Economic Digest News; Pg. 14 August 2, 1996
|
Investigators say circumstantial evidence points to a bomb explosion aboard the TWA flight. Some have alleged that the White House was initially discouraging sabotage theories in order not to spoil the festive atmosphere of the Olympic games in Atlanta, Georgia. Copyright: EMAP Business International Ltd. All rights reserved |
Yep, the hints were there all along...
That's an interesting piece there... I had forgotten about the Dhahran barracks bombing also taking place a few weeks before this. It would appear that terrorists were working overtime that summer.
Cheers.
Exactly WHAT is thqat case, Wideminded? Show us the evidence.
Nice to hear from you again, oldtimer.
Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
|
Deutsche Presse-Agentur July 20, 1996, Saturday, BC Cycle 15:00 Central European Time Cairo A radical Moslem group which claimed responsibiltiy for two attacks on U.S. military installations in Saudi Arabia may be behind last Wednesday's TWA passenger plane crash which claimed 230 lives, an influential Arab newspaper said Saturday.
"The mujahedin (wagers of Jihad holy war) will have the severest response to the threats made by the foolish U.S. President," the fax was quoted as saying. "The size of the response will be a surprise to all, and the time and place will be up to the mujahedin." The fax, also received by as Safir newspaper in Lebanon, claimed responsibility for the June 25 bombing of a U.S. Air Force building in Saudi Arabia which left 19 Americans dead and 500 others injured. Al Hayat said in its banner headline report that the same group had claimed responsibility for a similar bombing last November in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, which killed seven persons including five Americans. The report said the group had sent a fax in May 1995 containing an ultimatum to "the American infidels to leave Saudi territory" but that no one took the warning seriously at the time.
|
He said however that "what happened in Riyadh and Khobar showed that the people who did this have a deep understanding in choosing their targets. They hit their main enemy, which is the Americans. They killed no secondary enemies." |
Indeed! And now we know all too well who that heretofore unknown POS was.
From the NTSB report:
2.2.1.2 Consideration of a High-Energy Explosive Device Detonation (Bomb or Missile Warhead)
Several factors led to speculation that the accident might have been caused by a bomb or missile strike. These factors included heightened safety and security concerns because of the 1996 Olympics then being held in the United States, the fact that TWA flight 800 was an international flight, and the sudden and catastrophic nature of the in-flight breakup. In addition, numerous witnesses to the accident reported seeing a streak of light and then a fireball, which some people believed represented a missile destroying the airplane. Further, some anomalous primary radar targets were recorded by the Islip, New York, radar site in the general vicinity of TWA flight 800 at the time of the accident that apparently could not be explained. Accordingly, the Safety Board considered the possibility that a bomb exploded inside the airplane or that a missile warhead from a shoulder-launched missile exploded upon impact with the airplane. Testing performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) found trace amounts of explosives on three separate pieces of airplane wreckage (described by the FBI as a piece of canvaslike material and two pieces of floor panel). However, none of the damage characteristics typically associated with a high-energy explosion of a bomb or missile warhead (such as severe pitting, cratering, petalling, or hot gas washing) were found on any portion of the recovered airplane structure, including the pieces on which the trace amounts of explosives were found. Only about 5 percent of the airplaneís fuselage was not recovered, and none of the areas of missing fuselage were large enough to have encompassed all of the damage that would have been caused by the detonation of a bomb or missile. Although several large holes are visible in the reconstructed portion of the airplane fuselage, almost all of the structure that originally filled in these holes is attached to the remaining structure but is folded either inward or outward. No area of structure in the reconstructed portion of the airplane contained any unexplained holes large enough to represent the entry point of a missile. Further, the victims' remains showed no evidence of injuries that could have been caused by high-energy explosives, nor was there any damage to the airplane seats and other interior components consistent with a high-energy explosion. Investigators considered several scenarios to determine how the trace amounts of explosive residue might have gotten on the wreckage from the accident airplane. Trace amounts of explosive residue could have been transferred to the contaminated pieces from the military personnel (and their associated clothing, boots, and equipment) that were on board the accident airplane when it was used to transport troops during the Gulf War in 1991. In addition, explosives were placed and then removed from several locations in the accident airplane during a dog-training explosive detection exercise about 1 month before the accident. However, testing by the Federal Aviation Administrationís (FAA) Technical Center indicated that residues of explosives found on the accident airplane would dissipate completely after 2 days of immersion in sea water. Very few pieces of airplane wreckage were recovered during the first 2 days after the accident, and those pieces that were recovered were found floating on the oceanís surface; several days of side-scan sonar searching preceded any underwater wreckage recovery operations. Therefore, it is very likely that the pieces on which the explosive residues were found were immersed in ocean water for considerably more than 2 days before they were recovered. Thus, it is quite possible that the trace amounts of explosive residue detected on wreckage pieces from the accident airplane were not present before the airplane entered the water but, rather, were deposited during or after recovery operations. The military personnel, ships, and ground vehicles used during the recovery operations had come into frequent previous contact with explosives. Trace amounts of those substances could have been transferred from the surfaces of the ships or ground vehicles, or from clothing and boots of military personnel, onto wreckage pieces during the recovery operations or through subsequent contact with the pieces in the airplane hangar where the airplane wreckage was later assembled and laid out. Despite being unable to determine the exact source of the trace amounts of explosive residue found on the wreckage, the lack of any corroborating evidence associated with a high-energy explosion indicates that these trace amounts did not result from the detonation of a high-energy explosive device on TWA flight 800. Accordingly, the Safety Board concludes that the in-flight breakup of TWA flight 800 was not initiated by a bomb or a missile strike.
2.2.1.3 Consideration of a Fuel/Air Explosion in the Center Wing Fuel Tank
It was clear from the wreckage recovery locations that the first pieces to depart the airplane were from the area in and around the airplaneís wing center section (WCS), which includes the CWT, and, therefore, that the breakup must have initiated in this area. Specifically, wreckage found in the red zone (the wreckage zone closest to JFK along the airplane's flightpath and, therefore, containing the earliest pieces to depart the airplane) consisted primarily of pieces from the WCS front spar and spanwise beam (SWB) 3, the manufacturing access door from SWB2, the two forward air conditioning packs, large pieces of a ring of fuselage structure just in front of the wing front spar, and main cabin floor beams and flooring material from above the WCS and from the fuselage in front of the WCS. None of these pieces showed evidence of prolonged fire exposure. (There was insufficient fuel in the CWT for its destruction to have resulted in a significant fire.) However, some pieces were lightly sooted, indicating that there was some fire associated with the initial event in this area. As discussed in section 1.16.3, the Metallurgy Structures/Sequencing Group's sequencing study concluded (in part because pieces from inside the CWT were among the first pieces to depart the airplane) that the initial event in the breakup sequence was an overpressure event within the CWT and that the earliest piece of the airplane to be disturbed was SWB3. Specifically, the Sequencing Group concluded that SWB3 fractured at its upper end and that overpressure within the CWT caused it to rotate forward about its lower end. As the upper end of SWB3 rotated forward, it impacted the aft surface of the front spar, leaving distinct witness marks across most of the front spar. Analysis of the wreckage further indicated that when SWB3 impacted the front spar, it initiated multiple fractures along the upper chord of the front spar. Overpressure escaping from the CWT caused the front spar to bulge forward on either side of the two potable water bottles attached next to each other at the center of the front spar. The upper end of the front spar then completely separated from the upper skin of the WCS. After the upper end of the front spar was completely separated from the upper skin, the overpressure remaining within the CWT forced the WCS lower skin and the forward end of the keel beam downward. Downward loading of the forward end of the keel beam greatly increased the stress in the ring chord and in the fuselage skin adjacent to the front spar. As the keel beam was forced downward, cracking propagated down through the lower pressure bulkhead and ring chord and immediately entered the fuselage skin at stringer 40 right. This initial fuselage skin crack at stringer 40 right propagated forward at an angle to the left (toward the bottom center of the airplane), then branched circumferentially left and right, and then (from the left branch) propagated back toward the front spar on the lower left side. Thus, at this point, the fuselage skin had cracked The remainder of SWB2 was found in the green zone (the wreckage zone farthest from JFK along the airplaneís flightpath, and, therefore, containing the last pieces to depart the airplane). The manufacturing door was only lightly sooted, whereas the sooting on the remainder of SWB2 was moderate to heavy, indicating that the remaining portion of the WCS was subjected to a more substantial fire after the early departure of the manufacturing door. around three sides of a large piece of fuselage structure (including the piece identified after recovery operations as LF6A); only the side adjacent to the lower pressure bulkhead (beneath the front spar) remained attached to the other structure. Downward loading (from normal cabin pressurization and vented CWT overpressure) on this weakened fuselage piece was transmitted to the forward end of the keel beam, which caused it to separate from the WCS lower skin panel and fracture about 22 inches aft of the mid spar. The separation of the large piece of fuselage created a large opening in the fuselage, just forward of the front spar, through which pieces of the front spar, SWB3, and the manufacturing access door from SWB2 exited the airplane. (The apparent forward and upward motion of the manufacturing access door after it separated from SWB2 at its lower edge indicates that, at that time, the pressure on the aft surface of the door was greater than on the forward surface, consistent with venting of the overpressure forward of SWB2 through the large opening in the bottom of the fuselage.) The sequencing study determined that the breakup sequence was initiated by an overpressure inside the CWT. Because there was no evidence that a high-energy explosive device detonated in this (or any other) area of the airplane, this overpressure could only have been caused by a fuel/air explosion in the CWT.
The White House has cautioned the media against the kind of early speculation which in 1995 wrongly blamed the Oklahoma bombing of a government building on Muslim fundamentalists.
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.