Posted on 02/28/2002 9:31:30 AM PST by Asmodeus
AIM Report: 2002 Report # 03 - CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IS A LIE? I CAN'T
By Reed Irvine |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2002 Report #03 | February 25, 2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IS A LIE? I CAN'T
My by-line is on this article because it involves some very sensitive conversations that I have had and opinions about them that are best discussed in the first person. I am revealing the name of the Navy master chief who last November told an acquaintance of his that on the evening of July 17, 1996, he was on the bridge of the USS Trepang, a submarine that was practically underneath TWA Flight 800 when the plane exploded and crashed into the sea. His acquaintance, whose name I wont disclose because it adds nothing to the story, had called me the night before on a line in my office that had been used to take calls for the TWA 800 Eyewitness Alliance generated by an ad placed in The Washington Times on August 15, 2000. He shared our views about the cause of the crash, and we had a good conversation. The next morning he called again to tell me that he had just run into a casual acquaintance who was a retired Navy petty officer. Because of his discussion with me the night before, he brought up TWA 800. Here is an edited partial transcript of our conversation. [H for him and I for me] H: Have you ever heard of the submarine Tripanga? I obtained Beers phone number from information and found him willing to talk. In our taped interview, he was somewhat more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didnt want to do anything that might mess up his retirement, but nothing was said about the conversation being off the record. I told him that I was with Accuracy in Media and recommended that he visit our Web site, where he would find a lot of articles we had written about TWA 800. The following is a partial transcript of the taped interview. I did not begin taping at the very beginning of the conversation. The transcript begins where the taping started. This was Thurs., Nov. 15 at 10:00 a.m. B: I told everything, you know, when the Navy came on board with everybody else on my submarine. I called Randy again the next morning, Friday, Nov. 16. He asked me to call him back Monday morning, Nov. 19. I did, and I found myself talking to an entirely different person. The confident, courageous master chief had been transformed into a quivering moral coward. He said he had talked to his skipper over the weekend and that he had been reminded that he had signed certain papers when he retired from the Navy. Whoever it was that he had talked to had scared him to death. He feared that he was going to lose his retirement because of what he told me. He claimed he had spoken off the record, but I told him that was not so and that was very clear from the tape that I had recorded. I said I didnt want to hurt him and that there was no way the Navy could rescind his disability pension because he told the truth about what he had seen on the evening of July 17, 1996. Something had obviously gone wrong and they had successfully covered it up, but that too was wrong. It would be a scandal if they tried to deprive him of his pension because he had helped expose an illegal, immoral cover-up of a mistake that had cost the lives of 230 people. Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, who tried very hard to pin the blame on terrorists, told me several times that if it turned out that the Navy was responsible he would spearhead a demand that the officers behind it be court-martialed. I told Randy that he had a moral obligation to go public with what he knew and to help us expose the cover-up. I cited the example set by another chief petty officer, Kathleen Janoski, who was in charge of photography for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Dover Air Force Base. She had found and photographed the perfectly round hole, about the diameter of a .45-caliber bullet, in the top of the head of the late Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. She had also photographed what was called the lead snowstorm inside his skull that showed up on the head x-ray. She took photos of the x-rays that were up on a light box, and it was a good thing that she did, because the one showing the lead snowstorm was destroyed. The colonel in charge rejected recommendations of three lieutenant colonels that an autopsy be performed on Browns body. Kathleen Janoski had put her job at risk when she was still on active duty. She was relieved of her duties, and she feared she was going to be court-martialed. But she nevertheless shared her photos with Chris Ruddy who reported on the suspicious hole in the top of Ron Browns head and the lead snowstorm in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. I suggested that he ought to show as much courage as she had. Kathleen Janoski retired and is drawing her pension. Nothing I could say had any effect. He explained that he had lost his job, and although his wife was working, they would be in deep trouble if he lost his pension. I can sympathize with him, but there are whistleblowers in the government who risk their jobs by exposing wrongdoing. If we want to encourage more government employees to follow their example it would make sense to reward the whistleblowers and punish those who see the wrongdoing but seal their lips and close their eyes. I couldnt budge Randy Beers, but one of the significant things about that conversation was that he did not deny the truth of anything he had told me when we first talked. When Pierre Salinger held a press conference in March 1997 and declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile, this former presidential press secretary, U.S. Senator and ABC News correspondent, was mercilessly attacked by his former colleagues in the media. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who had a friend whose son was in the Navy. The son was said to have called home and told his family that we shot down the airliner. Salinger said the father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy wanted to keep hidden. That, of course, was dismissed as hearsay. We succeeded in verifying that Randy Beers was a chief petty officer on the Trepang and that he was the ships corpsman. We verified that Lt. Michael Leitner, with whom he drank Diet Pepsi on the Trepangs bridge on the evening of July 17, 1996, was also a member of the crew. What Beers said about the Navy ships in the area that night and the exercise that was being conducted confirmed what we already knew from the radar data obtained by the Flight 800 Independent Research Organization, FIRO, and what Jim Kallstrom had told me about the three Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. I wrote a column about what Randy Beers had revealed, but I did not include in it his name or the name of his submarine. Finding someone in the Navy who was willing to talk as freely as he did was an important breakthrough. He was the answer to those who were sure that the Navy could not have been responsible for shooting down TWA 800 because it would have been impossible to keep a secret like that when so many Navy personnel would have known about it. In the five and a half years since TWA 800 was shot down we heard stories about Navy personnel who had told family or friends that the Navy did it, but we were never able to make contact with them. The response to the column was encouraging even though it did not get the attention of the big media. I was persuaded by the e-mail I received that we should reveal Randy Beers name and the name of his submarine. The Navy had claimed that the Trepang was 117 miles from the TWA 800 crash site. The exposure of that lie and the fact that it took so long for someone on the sub to expose it should have shaken up those who have so confidently insisted that a secret like that could not remain hidden for long. However, I was surprised to get a few responses from individuals who completely missed this important lesson. The claim that the Navy couldnt have done anything wrong because someone would have revealed it, dies hard. My last conversation with Randy Beers was on February 5. I wanted to tell him that I was going to reveal his name, and I left a message saying it was important that he call me. He did. He first asked me if I was recording the call. I wasnt and I said so. He then said that he was so upset that he had experienced trouble sleeping for two months. But he had found a solution to his problem. He told me that he was notorious for telling tall tales and that all that he had said about where the Trepang was and what he had seen was false. He claimed he just made it up. He said the submarine was at its homeport in Groton, Connecticut that night, not beneath TWA Flight 800 when it was blown out of the sky. He said he didnt know anything about any exercise that was taking place and he had never heard of W-105, the large area off Long Island that is regularly used by the military for testing and training. He said at least twice that this was his story and he was sticking to it. That is a gag line that says, in effect, I am lying but dont expect me to admit it. The transcripts of his conversations with his acquaintance and me have been printed out because they are the best evidence that he was not lying. He had no reason to lie to either one of us. What he says and the way he says it has the ring of truth. It is consistent with what we know from other sources. I asked him for references who would attest to his propensity to lie. He gave me one name, someone who had served on the Trepang. He doesnt know where he is now. The office manager of the firm where he worked for over a year attested to his honesty. The fact that he was worried sick when we had our second conversation and was virtually begging me not to report what he said shows that the idea of claiming that he had told tall tales had not yet occurred to him. If he were a habitual liar, he would not lose a lot of sleep worrying about his lies. Unfortunately his stratagem casts a cloud over his credibility, giving the media an excuse for ignoring anything he says. We are printing a list of the officers and petty officers who were on the Trepang in 1996. We will try to locate and question them and FOIA their FBI 302s (interview reports). Your help is invited. PARTIAL SHIP'S ROSTER, U.S.S TREPANG (SSN-674), 1/12/96
AND LEADING PETTY OFFICERS
|
So, because I point out you can't spell or properly access a website, I'm a government shill? Man, you ARE paranoid.
No you IDIOT,
BWHAHAHAHAH!!!
Pot.
Kettle.
Black.
we were stupid enough to try and host it our self.
Aside from the obvious, who is "we"?
HINT: You are only one person, those voices inside your head don't count.
I did?
For someone who can't spell, you really need to be careful with those "ignorant" accusations.
And as far as rebuttal goes, Rokke is doing a fine job of making you look silly. I'm just here for the entertainment.
Who threw out the witness database? The following websites are current NTSB documents concerning their TWA 800 investigation.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/exhibits_web.htm
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf
Every single witness statement the FBI collected is there with pages and pages of analysis. It doesn't look to me like they threw out anything. As far as Donaldson's triangulation is concerned, I think he triangulated everything to a launch site about 1.5 miles off the coast of Long Island. If that's the triangulation you are talking about, then that launch site is out of range of any shoulder launched missile which is Donaldson's theory. Once again, his theories are as reliable as Irvine's witnesses.
Ummm, that is "break" out.
Not having a very good day, are WE?
lol. I've been trying to figure out what you've been refering to. I think it was this statement I made:
"Are you beginning to get the feeling that maybe the reason nobody is talking is because there is nothing to talk about?"
I made that statement in response to your post about whistle blowers. I wasn't talking about this thread. But frankly, I'm surprised anyone would pay any attention to this thread. Please note I've never accused you of being a dumb farmer. I've been around farmers enough to know dumb farmers last about as long as dumb pilots. I respond to your posts because you ask me to respond. Also, it's a Sunday afternoon, I've been watching a pretty good NASCAR race, my wife and kids are taking a nap and like I said before, I find the whole topic interesting. I think the OshKosh forum would be a great idea, if for no other reason than the fights that might break out. Hopefully someone other than the folks from AIM would show up. I checked out their website and they look like a bunch of old retired guys. It would be a battle of canes vs. walkers. At least no one would have to worry about losing any teeth (again).
However, I believe that the Navy fired the missile(s) by virtue of the "Dog that didn't bark" principle. No response by the military to dozens of incoming reports of a missile shooting down an airliner. Whether real or not, every military plane and ship in the area should have been out there almost immediately to find the boat from which the missile was fired. That it didn't happen indicates that the military almost immediately recogized that it was one of its own missiles.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/644704/posts?page=18#18
2. After nearly 6 years of effort, nobody has been able to publicly present one atom of physical evidence that the 747 was a missile(s) "shootdown" or a bomb victim nor has anybody been able to present anything remotely resembling a meaningful rebuttal to this.
The reference source documentation for #1 is also applicable to the Gas Burp Theory, the Meteor Theory, John Barry Smiths presentation of his Cargo Door Theory and the Center Wing Tank Theory. In short, there is zero eyewitness support for any of these theories either
____________________
Message 7231 Yahoo TWA800 Forum
From: George A Donaldson
Date: Fri Mar 15, 2002 2:39 pm
Subject: Re: [twa800] A little sensitive, aren't we?
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added]
Ace, I totally understand your faith in Fritz Meyer's report. It is natural. But what would be the purpose of missile action after the IE? The IE broke up the airframe. Nothing was flyable after the IE. The debris contained falling aircraft structure and bodies of the victims. It seems rather morbid for someone to be shooting at falling bodies such as at a skeet shoot.
To place the MF at a much higher altitude would prevent gravity from being a constant 32.2 feet per second per second. Some claim that the MF was at the IE altitude but anything falling from that altitude would take a nominal 30 seconds to free fall to the ocean. Most witness reports were that is was around 10 seconds which agrees with an altitude reported by Faret and Wendell. With the MF that low, what were Meyer's missiles or ordnance shooting at? It would take anything falling from 13,700 feet a nominal 20 seconds to fall to the MF altitude. Fritz claimed the 'ordnance' occurred a few seconds before the MF. 15 seconds delay before the ordnance does not allow a few in my mind if a few seconds totalled five.
Physics controls what may have occurred, not someone's guess as to what happened. Fritz had wartime experiences which 'told' him that he had witnessed ordnance. The best witness is someone who has had no experience which acts as a bias to his observations. Fritz saw explosions. I don't contest that but what actually was exploding? Emergency breathing oxygen bottles exploding would look like ordnance. [end quote]
__________
Message 7252 Yahoo TWA800 Forum
From: Jack Reed
Date: Sat Mar 16, 2002 10:38 am
[quote][emphasis added]
Explosion fireballs, the luminous sphere in nuclear blasts, reach about 165 ft from 1-kt NE, scaling down to 16.5 ft for 1000 lb TNT. That is a 33 ft diameter, which is 1.4 minutes of arc at 15 miles range. And that is just below visual acuity, according to Tricker in "An Introduction to Meteorological Optics" which I cited in an earlier posting. The duration would be very short and most unlikely to be visible without intense concentration. Thus I believe it highly unlikely that anyone outside that doomed aircraft saw the IE.
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.