Replies

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.

"None of the parties involved in the investigation support your analysis, and that includes Boeing, TWA, ALPA, and even the IAM."

Nor has even one member of Congress, past or present, ever found any of the differing "shootdown" allegations to be palatable. Not even o-n-e. That's because the "shootdown" people are big on wildly reckless allegations and accusatory rhetoric but have routinely fallen on their faces when publicly pressed for meaningful evidence and facts.

Click here for the transcript of the testimony of Bill Donaldson before the Congressional Subcommittee On Aviation.

In fact there were less than 100 who said they saw "a streak of light" rising from the surface..."

What matters is the percentage of those who said where the streak came from surface or sky and who had a clear view. An analysis by Dr. Stalcup and Mr. Shoemaker gives the breakdown based on the NTSB's own data.....

Flight 800 Witnesses on "Streak" Origin

almost none of the witnesses reported seeing an accompanying smoke trail which is probably the most obvious indicator of a missile in flight.

You obviously have not read too many of the witness accounts.

Whose analysis are you relying on for your second paragraph concerning missile impacts and overpressure? ... None of the parties involved in the investigation support your analysis, and that includes Boeing, TWA, ALPA, and even the IAM.

The official IAM report states on page 7...

"Approximately nineteen (19) holes in the fuselage below the L3 door that appear to originate from the exterior of the aircraft."

Then on page 9 of the official IAM report we find....

"A definite cause cannot be determined at this time. The center wing fuel tank did explode! We find that its explosion was as the result of the aircraft breakup. The initial event caused a structural failure in the area of Flight Station 854 to 860, lower left side of the aircraft. A high-pressure event breached the fuselage and the fuselage unzipped due to the event. The explosion was a result of this event!"