TWA Flight 800 - "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IS A LIE? I CAN'T"

Accuracy In Media ^ | Reed Irvine

[Pistias]

c) Convenient, that.

d) It's called "RE-ELECTION"

[SubMareener]

Well, I know Reed Irvine, and I don't know you, so I can tell you Reed is the real thing, and not a fraud, but I don't know about you.

I also agree with Beers that "nothing we did off Long Island was classified." The "classified mission" BS was used by the Govermint to keep these believable eye witnesses from becoming public.

How you jumped to the conclusion that TREPANG was the 30 knot track, I don't know. There were other radar tracks that we not identified.

The real "bottom line" is that there is a Government coverup of the cause for the Flight 800 crash.

[mc5cents]

I'm not sure who said this but it is true: "All that is necessary to commit the perfect crime is to be in charge of the investigation."

I refer you to the Vince Foster matter and others where those that should have been investigating were put off by "higher authority'.

[Magician]

The disturbing aspect of the AA 587 crash is that ALL of the witnesses who watched the airplane climb out over the beach and had a clear view of the plane, say exactly the same two things:

1. The first visible sign of trouble was a small explosion at the root of a wing, most saying it was the right wing.

2. The wing and tail departed the aircraft at just about the same time. A boater with the closest view of events actually thought that the wing had STRUCK the tail assembly as it departed, both events being so close in time to each other.

In addition to the above, a bridge surveillance camera with a distant view of the crash shows the aircraft TRAILING SMOKE, which would not be a result of the tail departing the aircraft as the cause of the crash.

Also, I have a great deal of trouble understanding how the aircraft broke up completely in the air as a result of loss of the fin and rudder. Loss of control and crashing, yes. But not total destruction of the aircraft IN THE AIR.

Maybe the CIA will come up with a couple more ridiculous cartoons purporting to show how all the above took place, as they did for the benefit of every TV program that has been shown dealing with the crash of TWA 800.

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[chouli]

Actually it is probaly more like the Navy.

[Magician]

For many years, I held off a friend of mine on this subject. He is a retired Admiral who says that he would not believe that several shiploads of sailors would keep something like this secret. Someone would talk. Well, now someone has talked.

Another piece of information making the rounds among Medical Corps types is that the man who actually launched the missile is presently in a mental institution. This comes from a physician whose security clearance is so high that he has worked in the most secret medical facility maintained by the military (sorry, I won't say which one it is). I tend to believe anything this person says, but certainly can't prove it.

[Rokke]

"Almost every sentence you wrote is completely contrary to the facts before you."

Let's take a look at that.
Your first point "Beers said their activity was not classified."
I didn't say he did. That was Irvine's input. But Beers did say what I highlighted in bold print. He says his sub was a couple miles off Long Island and it is a fact that when TWA 800 exploded it was still daylight.
Your next point "The submariner here said the Trepang can dive in even shallower water."
Actually, what he said is it could submerge in shallower water. According to Beers' buddy, Beer's said the sub crash dived. Big difference.
Your next point "The TWA crash was not "in broad daylight.""
Really? Several eyewitnesses reported observing TWA 800 before it exploded. One even reported watching the right wing fall off. It must have been light enough for eyewitnesses to see an airliner at 13,000ft while standing at least eight miles away on Long Island. And surely if you can see an airliner 8 miles away, you must be able to see a surfaced submarine a couple miles away. Are you saying eyewitnesses might be wrong?
Next point: "The Trepang could have filmed falling debris regardless of the time it took it to dive."
I suppose. But how often does a submarine use its periscope on the surface?
Final point: "There are radar tracks other than the 30-knot track."
Sure, but find me one that matches Beer's description other than the 30 knot track. There isn't one.

My final point...I don't believe anything I wrote is contrary to the facts. What is clear is that the "facts" as presented by Irvine are either contridictory or impossible and for the most part, assumptions based on his understanding of the facts. Again, I say, if his goal is accuracy in media, he is a fraud.

[Rokke]

With regard to Irvine being the "real thing", I guess you'd have to define the real thing. What exactly does he do? Reveal unsupported testimony from unwilling witnesses?
As far as the "classified" thing, I believe that is all the creation of a group of professional conspiracy artists who make a living off this stuff (ie Reed Irvine). Note that he is the only one claiming there was a classified exercise.
With regard to the 30 knot track...we all read the same article. It is very clear the Trepang was supposedly directly below TWA 800. In fact, it was so close the OOD supposedly felt the need to "crash dive" to avoid the debris. There isn't another track within five miles of the crashsite when TWA 800 exploded. What other track could possibly represent the sub?

[SubMareener]

I suppose. But how often does a submarine use its periscope on the surface?

Again you are showing your ignorance of these things. A submarine almost always has its periscope up on the surface, especially in busy traffic areas. Both to keep track of surface contacts and navigation aides.

Here is the radar map, the 33 knot target is not TREPANG, or any other submarine. While submarines may be able to exceed 25 knots underwater, they are much slower on the surface.

[Rokke]

Well you are correct that I am ignorant about many things concerning submarine operations. I think I made that clear when I asked you several questions earlier in this thread. Your expertise would have been incredibly useful in an earlier thread when several folks were arguing that TWA 800 was shot down by a submarine that subsequently left the area on the surface at 30 knots. Obviously, that theory is impossible, but I was labelled "a government shill" for saying so.

But your picture proves my point. The only track in the vicinity of the crash site is the 30 knot track directly below the crash area moving in a southwest direction. Beer's story places the Sub directly under TWA 800. Unless a surfaced submarine doesn't show up on radar, the only track that matches Beer's story is the 30 knot track. Therefore, either the Trepang is a lot faster than you remember, or Beer's story isn't accurate.

[GBA]

What you have posted is of great interest to me. I hadn't followed it as much as I did with TWA 800. (The official TWA 800 explanation was stupidly BS and the CIA video underscores that point.) The rudder flutter as the cause makes sense, not knowing the about the video you mentioned, especially that from the bridge camera. I've not yet seen any of these videos. Have they been released or are they on the web somewhere?

I'm not surprised at a Clinton coverup. After Vince Foster's "suicide", I guess the sky was the limit for what they could get away with. But I expect better from Bush and hope we hear the real truth about both crashes, sooner the better.

[Asmodeus]

Reed Irvine: ”His acquaintance, whose name I won’t 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.”

The last 3 words of the of the referred to full page ad body stated as follows:

Confidentiality is guaranteed.

Click here for the newspaper ad and evidence of Reed Irvine’s interesting support of the Donaldson brothers “shootdown” website. Both of his articles about Randy Beers are also included for future ready reference because of the many questions raised in them about Reed Irvine’s own conduct.

Such as who organized the "TWA 800 Eyewitness Alliance" and who paid for the full page newspaper ad?

That's just for starters.

[Asmodeus]

"Logic dictates that all aspects of the 'official' Flight 800 investigation have been 'tweaked' or 'doctored' to an intended outcome."

That's what the Grassley Hearing was all about. Click here for the transcript.

[SubMareener]

Beer's story places the Sub directly under TWA 800.

That part is hearsay. Look at the article again. Reed's "friend", not Beers, told him that the sub was directly under the debris.

Face it folks! The Government is hiding something.

[Rokke]

"Logic dictates that all aspects of the "official" Flight 800 investigation have been "tweaked" or "doctored" to an intended outcome."

It does?? What logic is that? Does that mean all investigations are tweaked, or just TWA 800. And since it is the official investigation that is under dispute, what data should I be using? Theories from questionable web forums?

[Rokke]

Beer's says they were 1 mile away. My question stands...find a radar track other than the 30 knot track that matches that data.

Beer's story does not check out and the fact that Irvine chooses to publicize it throws his whole goal of "Accuracy in Media" into the crapper. If you're going to insist the government is covering something up, find a new source.

[Magician]

Any investigation that denies the testimony of 100 witnesses who say they saw a missile go up and hit the TWA 800 is a coverup. There is NOTHING you can post that gets around the witnesses' observations or the obvious coverup.

Another matter that PROVES that a missile took down TWA 800 is the data on the flight data recorder. The instantaneous large changes in the altitude, speed, rate of climb, etc. readings during the last second of the flight perfectly recorded the over-pressure created by the explosion of the missile in the vicinity of the forward part of the airplane.

[Rokke]

We've been round and round this one. There weren't hundreds of witnesses who said they saw a missile. In fact there were less than 100 who said they saw "a streak of light" rising from the surface and only 40 said it originated from the sea. Almost nobody described it as a missile. That's out of 755 official witnesses. In addition, most of those witnesses were interviewed at least a week after the tragedy. That's after seven days worth of rampant press speculation about bombs and missiles. Finally, almost none of the witnesses reported seeing an accompanying smoke trail which is probably the most obvious indicator of a missile in flight. The much repeated claim that "hundreds of witnesses say they saw a missile hit TWA 800" comes from the Washington Times ad that lists seven witness statements, none of whom say they saw a missile hit TWA 800. So please don't tell me that proves a cover up. As an interesting side note, the Flight 587 eyewitness you referenced earlier who stated he saw the wing come of almost at the same time as the tail is just more clear evidence that the human memory isn't the most reliable source of evidence in an accident investigation. Since the only 587 debris recovered from the water was pieces of the tail, the wing would have had to have "flown" to land, despite his account that it actually appeared to hit the tail.

Whose analysis are you relying on for your second paragraph concerning missile impacts and overpressure? According to many missile theory folks, the missile didn't even explode. That wouldn't cause much of an overpressure. None of the parties involved in the investigation support your analysis, and that includes Boeing, TWA, ALPA, and even the IAM.