Satellites tell the truth: Reed Irvine exposes CIA cover-up of downed aircraft

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, October 13, 2001 | Reed Irvine

[JohnHuang2]

---

Satellites tell the truth

---

By Reed Irvine
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

The explosion of a Russian airliner over the Black Sea on Oct. 4 has raised an interesting question relating to the crash of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island five years ago. Both planes exploded and crashed into the sea. Flight 800 was still in its ascent, at 13,800 feet, and it was only 10 miles off the shore of Long Island. Its crash was witnessed by hundreds of people who have been questioned by the FBI about what they saw. Many of them said they had seen what must have been a missile either rising from the surface or high in the sky streaking toward the airliner just before it blew up.

The Russian airliner was over 30,000 feet above the Black Sea, and as far as we know, no eyewitnesses saw the crash. But U.S. satellites apparently did. It was reported the next day that Defense Department satellites equipped with infrared sensors detected a missile launched by Ukrainian troops on the Crimean peninsula which U.S. intelligence officials believed hit the airliner. The government of Ukraine acknowledged that a training exercise involving missiles was being conducted at the time, but they insisted that none of their missiles could have shot down the Russian plane. Russian investigators have found small metal balls from the missile's warhead in the bodies of the victims. President Kuchma of Ukraine now says he will accept the findings of the investigation.

In 1996, the United States had two KH-11 satellites in polar orbit. Their infrared sensors have a resolution down to a few inches. Ray Lahr, a TWA Flight 800 afficionado, has pointed out that if one of those two satellites was over New York on July 17, 1996, there is a lot of information about TWA 800 that has not been released. Apparently one of them was able to record images of the TWA 800 crash. Request for that imagery or descriptions of it have been made under the Freedom of Information Act to both the Department of Defense and the CIA. Both have acknowledged that they have the images, but they have refused to release them or descriptions of them to the public.

In rejecting an FOIA request last January, the CIA claimed that information was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. It cited exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3), which cover material that must be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and for the protection of intelligence sources and methods. The CIA has actively propagated the government's claim that the TWA 800 crash was the result of a fuel-tank explosion. It is hard to see why releasing satellite images of an airliner fuel-tank exploding would imperil national security, damage our foreign relations or reveal anything not already known about the use of satellites.

The CIA devoted a lot of time and money to the production of a video that was crafted to prove that the hundreds of eyewitnesses who thought they saw a missile streaking toward the airliner actually saw nothing but the airliner itself. The CIA claims that it rocketed upward after its entire front end was broken off and that the eyewitnesses mistook it for a missile. That claim and the video that presented it have been the subject of a lot of ridicule by people who are knowledgeable about aeronautics. It was not at all convincing.

If the CIA has satellite imagery of what transpired and the pictures show that there were no missiles anywhere near the airliner when it blew up, they could have used those pictures to make their case. It would have been far more convincing and would have cost them nothing. The speed with which the government released the information about the Ukrainian missile, which no doubt offended the Ukrainians and showed them our intelligence capabilities, exposes the absurdity of the CIA's excuses for not releasing the pictures.

The press officer for the National Transportation Safety Board says that they examined the satellite images but they were of no help in determining the cause of the crash. He said they did not retain them or keep any records of what they showed. The member of the staff who gave him that information refuses to be interviewed, and Mrs. Marion Blakey, the new NTSB chairman, also seems to think that not returning calls is the safest policy.

Apparently, the satellite imagery is not being released because it does for TWA Flight 800 what it did for the Russian airliner. It tells the truth that governments want to hide.

---

Reed Irvine is the chairman of Accuracy In Media, a media watchdog group based in Washington, D.C.

For Education And Discussion Only. Not For Commercial Use.

[riverrunner]

You have a hard time beliving that are own government spys on us. Right.

[CommiesOut]

.

[strela]

And just where is the evidence for any "cover-up" that the screaming title of this piece alludes to? The CIA refusing to reveal intelligence assets or capability does not automatically equal a cover-up.

Make mine with extra tinfoil, please!

[patriot_wes]

hey Syncro, it's not important, just ask RDangerfield (sic)

[ScreamingFist]

.

[jlogajan]

At some point, especially in time of war, conspiracy nuts become anti-American. Give it a rest.

[TLBSHOW]

so once again for the self interest of THE CLINTONS America MUST SUFFER.

[anniegetyourgun]

Assuming the Clinton admin kept this all under wraps, what would be the reason to continue the coverup now? Just a simple question, but I suspect I'll get all the usual "Bush is a statist, globalist, bilderburger, CFR, one-worlder, tri-lateralist, who is covering for his buddy Bill" response. Which, of course, during a time of national crisis, during which the president has been forthcoming without jeopardizing troops and missions, makes total sense.

[Judge Parker]

"because our spy satellites are targeted at other countries, and not NY????? I would find it extremly strange if we spied with high-resolution satellites on ourselves, especially since we could simply use an airplane to get much better pictures."

That being the case, why did the Government refuse to release information it didn't have, non-existent information which must be kept secret under exemptions (b)(1)- national defense and foreign policy? You might argue that it would be improper to let potential enemies know that we don't monitor ourselves, but we're a fool if we don't, and it possibly could have a deterrent effect if we allowed people to know that we cover everything.

But, on no, "it's secret," and you wormy American people have no business making informed decisions about national policies concerning the deaths of more than 200 people on an American airliner.

We know the Government repeatedly lied and broke at least one law in covering-up the evidence of the destruction of TWA 800. The Government also used a Soviet style show trial to convict an innocent woman of a felony. But who should care - certainly not Americans. We should follow the example of peoples in foreign lands who just trust and obey those in charge of them - some of whom have had leaders no more trustworthy than that truthful, honest American president BILL CNINTON.

[backhoe]

Indexing....

[MadameAxe]

Interesting. IIRC, the TWA800 incident happened right before the Olympics were to be held in Atlanta. I always thought one of the reasons for the coverup was so people wouldn't stay away from there because they were afraid of terrorists.

Regards

[ironman]

The DSP satellites are infrared scanning and I don't find it unusual at all that one was focused over the NY area at that time. Of course the DoD is not going to release the images or data. That would reveal the capabilities of the satellites. It would be a little unusual if a KH-11 was focused there, but not totally unexpected.

[max61]

No, they will protect information that if declassified would disclose intelligence sources, methods, and capabilities. Just because we have it, does not entitle you to see it.

Crawl back into your previous state of delerium, you'd rather not know the truth. I'll bet you can't wait to have that number tattoed on your arm.

In matters of criminal investigations, yes we are entitled to see it if it has bearing.

---max

[cyn]

thanks for compiling. thanks, John (sheesh, people, don't shoot the pinger!) repeat for those who apparently missed the extra step taken on this that makes this above and beyond a simple matter of not wanting to reveal sat technology:

"The CIA devoted a lot of time and money to the production of a video that was crafted to prove that the hundreds of eyewitnesses who thought they saw a missile streaking toward the airliner actually saw nothing but the airliner itself."

IOW, active steps were taken to prove an unlikely situation. . .

at TAXPAYER EXPENSE, of course.

[Victoria Delsoul]

The CIA claims that it rocketed upward after its entire front end was broken off and that the eyewitnesses mistook it for a missile. That claim and the video that presented it have been the subject of a lot of ridicule by people who are knowledgeable about aeronautics. It was not at all convincing.

Bump.

[LouD]

Crawl back into your previous state of delerium, you'd rather not know the truth. I'll bet you can't wait to have that number tattoed on your arm.

F**k off, clymer.

You have no need to know anything which would tend to disclose sources and methods of intelligence collection. Period. Intelligence information is seldom if ever presented as evidence in trials, precisely for this reason - As well because it generally does not rise to the standard of evidence required in a court of law.

Why don't you crawl back under that big tin foil hat? Every paradigm carries it's own validation, and if you seek to find a tortured enough theory to fit the facts, you will. However, Occam's Razor applies: The simplest explanation is the most likely.

In this case, an arcing fault in the electrical system, coupled with a tank full of fuel vapor. I occasionally wake myself out of my delirium long enough to go to work, which happens to be at a company which makes products to deal with exactly this phenomena, specifically arcing faults. To a person, our scientists and engineers believe that an arcing fault was the cause of the crash, as does the FAA, the airline, and the manufacturer of the aircraft.

You might want to ask yourself if maybe you're the one who's delirious, clymer.

[Richard Axtell]

"Every paradigm carries it's own validation, and if you seek to find a tortured enough theory to fit the facts, you will. However, Occam's Razor applies: The simplest explanation is the most likely."

Like, for instance, proven missile propellant residue covering several rows of TWA 800's seat upholstery proves that burning missile propellant came in contact with those very seats?

In this case, an arcing fault in the electrical system, coupled with a tank full of fuel vapor.

Is this IN SPITE of the fact that there is NO proven ignition source in any position to ignite those "fuel vapors?" Is this DESPITE the fact that numerous FAA conducted tests COULD NOT reproduce a similar explosion of a CWT, due to the fact that the aviation fuel used by TWA 800 will not ignite with only a spark as an ignition source. A different fuel had to be substituted to get the CWT to explode. On top of these facts, the government itself has essentially given up pushing the story regarding a spontaneous CWT explosion, as we have witnessed in several recent contradictory public statements by various government officials. They just could not keep up the charade.

If Occam's razor cuts to the quick, why not face the fact that 735+ eye witnessed saw what can only be described as a missile shoot down of TWA 800? The FAA, FBI, NTSB, and CIA all have gone to tremendous lengths to misdirect the public's attentions away from those hundreds of consistent and reliable eyewitnesses. Occam asks why? You can't even get an official copy anymore of the ridiculous CIA contrived computer animation footage used as an explanation of what those eyewitnesses saw. This preposterous example of disinformation made the contention that an airliner could zoom 3000 ft. vertically after such catastrophic damage as loss of it's nose and fuselage section forward of the wings. So preposterous was this footage, that the embarrassed officials that originally used it in the cover-up, now are red faced when confronted with almost universal authoritative rejection of its validity.

In the case of TWA 800, the government's cover-up is as obvious as the pants around its ankles. They are too busy with other matters at present to blush, however.

[freefly]

Some of you are either missing or ignoring what the article is saying:
The fed ADMITS that it has satellite images of flight 800 but refuses to release them.
The fed also just released satellite images of the Russian airliner being shot down by a missle.

This indicates that the fed isn't hiding the intellegence capabilies of the satellite.
It fully admits them.

What it IS saying is that the flt 800 images are not being released for OTHER reasons.

In this case it is saying:
The satellite images cannot be released because of:
the interest of national defense or foreign policy and for the protection of intelligence sources and methods.

So, let's look a bit closer at why they won't release the info.

the protection of intelligence sources and methods.

That one is out...
the source is known, the method is known, and they fully admit the capabilities of the systems.
This leaves:

The interest of national defense and foreign policy.

Well, that could mean that they don't want anyone to know about
a foreign (terrorist?) group shooting down the plane, either
A. because of the embarrassment of admitting they don't know who did it,
B. because of the embarrassment of admitting they couldn't stop it,
C. because of the public outcry against the foreign group that did it,
D. because of some other reason.
OR
they shot it down themselves and
A. don't want to admit that their new missle has tracking problems
B. don't want to admit that they screwed up.

The noise about the center fuel tank exploding is, at this point, unquestionably laughable.
The fact that they won't release satellite imaging (which wouldn't compromise anything at this point)
simply emphesizes that they have facts to hide.

Some people out here seem to think that the government should be
allowed to do whatever it wants for any reason it deems appropriate.
The blanket of "national security" works well to coverup a lot of examples
of the government stepping over it's boundries as well as it's screwups.
That is exactly what the evidence shows that it's doing here.

[freefly]

"Assuming the Clinton admin kept this all under wraps, what would be the reason
to continue the coverup now? Just a simple question," Good question.
One that can be applied to all sorts of things associated with the clinton administration.
A list of incidents such as Chinagate, Vince Foster, the real reasons behind Kosovo,
the blood trail, the Mena connection, the missing FBI files, Waco,(just to list a FEW).
Why DOES the coverup continue when the clintons -and the democratic party-
-and the media with their socialist bias- could all have their lies exposed and their tails
in jail and/or discredited as anti-American for all time?
Very good question annie...
One that hasn't been answered yet.
One that WON'T be answered if nobody bothers to ask.
We need to keep asking until credible answers are given.