The Great Media Scandal Keeps Getting Greater {TWA 800}

Two items have put the veteran investigative reporter – and my partner on the documentary "Silenced" and the book "First Strike" – on his own personal Code Orange.

One is the news out of JFK that Islamic terrorists are up to their old tricks again. At JFK? My, who da thunk it?

The second, and more personally galvanizing, is that Sanders has just gotten a big batch of new TWA Flight 800-related documents from the FBI through the Freedom of Information Act.

These documents stem from Sanders' stillborn civil suit against a government that convicted him and his wife, Elizabeth, of conspiracy for his reporting on the TWA Flight 800 investigation.

In the course of our history, citizens have received worse treatment at the hand of a generally benign government. But no reporter has been treated more shabbily at the hand of the media – ever.

In truth, the Clinton years did not bring out the best in the major media. During the TWA 800 investigation in particular, they hewed to the government line with a pride and passion that would make Edward R. Murrow squirm in his grave.

Undaunted now as then, Sanders wades through these new documents like a wily prospector in Sutter's Creek. Most of the gold has been stripped away or redacted, but if you know what to look for, as Sanders does, the nuggets stand out.

His sense of humor somehow intact, Sanders forwards key documents to my shared fax under the heading, "SECRET – sensitive journalism. Do not read. If you do, you will turn into a Democrat."

The one document that intrigues me most tells of Sanders' treatment at the hands of that great 57th Street institution, CBS News.

In the way of background, Sanders had granted an exclusive interview to Emmy Award-winning CBS producer Kristina Borjesson the same day a story about his research broke in California's Riverside Press-Enterprise.

"New Data Show Missile May Have Nailed TWA 800," screamed the paper's one-inch, front-page headline on March 10, 1997.

Working with Terrel Stacey, TWA's 747 top manager inside the investigation, Sanders had received, among other information, a few foam rubber bits of seatback that contained the DNA of the investigation, streaks of an unknown red-orange residue.

Sanders had the residue tested at an independent West Coast lab, which found it to be consistent with exhaust from a solid fuel missile. To verify his claim, Sanders had sent a separate sample to CBS.

After the CBS interview had been videotaped, however, Borjesson grew alarmed when she realized no one at the "Evening News" was editing the piece.

Frustrated, she walked into a meeting of news executives and asked why the network wasn't doing the story on Sanders and his documents.

"You think it's a missile, don't you?" queried an executive she didn't recognize.

"I don't know what the hell it is," Borjesson shot back, "but don't you think we should be doing a story that asks a few questions about this guy and his documents?" The silence that followed was, as Borjesson admits, "deafening."

When she had walked in to the room, she honestly believed she was about to correct an oversight at a level where it could be corrected quickly. "I walked out of there," said Borjesson, "feeling like I'd cooked my own goose."

When CBS finally aired the story, it used what Borjesson calls "a classic avoidance tactic" to keep Sanders off the air while reporting – and dismissing – his side of the story.

Borjesson was elated, however, when "60 Minutes" expressed its interest in doing the story. She thanked its senior producer, telling him "60 Minutes" was the "last broadcast with balls." Borjesson put the residue sample in the producer's desk for safekeeping until she could locate a lab.

The FBI 302 tells the dispiriting story of what happened next. Two special agents visited CBS and talked to a senior attorney, Howard Jaeckel. Jaeckel told the FBI that "disclosing a source is very sensitive to us."

That much perfunctory business out of the way, Jaeckel and CBS eagerly cooperated with the FBI to the point of deep-sixing any scheduled production on the subject and meekly handing over the untested residue sample.

Abandoned by the last broadcast with balls, James and Elizabeth Sanders were charged with conspiracy under a law that had been enacted to discourage scavengers and souvenir hunters, not reporters.

At the time of their arraignment on Long Island, none among the media managed to pose even one First Amendment question. The reporters found it much more comfortable to frame the Sanders' transgression as simple theft.

When the Sanders' lawyer attempted to bring this issue into focus, Newsday's Bob Kessler argued the government line, insisting the Justice Department had not found sufficient evidence to declare James Sanders a journalist entitled to First Amendment protection.

This shocked Sanders in that the Riverside Press-Enterprise article had identified him as an "investigative reporter," detailed his previous nonfiction books, and described his inquiry into the TWA 800 investigation over the preceding five months.

Another reporter asked the attorney why his client did not immediately return the residue to the NTSB and turn Stacey in to the FBI. Sanders shook his head in disbelief. Was it only a generation ago that the New York Times made Daniel Ellsberg a hero by publishing the purloined and fully classified Pentagon Papers?

Of course, just four years later, as soon as a Republican re-occupied the White House, whistleblowing came roaring back into vogue with almost comic ferocity.

At the end of 2002, self-parody reached something of journalistic peak when Time magazine named as its "Persons of the Year" three female whistleblowers.

"They took huge professional and personal risks to blow the whistle on what went wrong at WorldCom, Enron and the FBI," said the newly vigilant Time, "and in so doing helped remind us what American courage and American values are all about."

In summary, most have considered 302s to be "witness reports" but they're not. The only witness report referred to in this thread is the personally prepared report of Faret & Wendell.
118 posted by Hal1950

Weird reply Hal, - do you really think it refutes anything we've written here?

Sure does. None of you has presented any missile(s) shootdown witness reports nor any other irrefutable evidence of such an event.

Well hal, considering your reply at post #118 concerned undisputed facts about FBI 302's, and you are now shifting reference to unmade missile(s) shootdown witness reports; - again, - who can ~present~ reports that have never been made? - Bizarre accusation.
- I think anyone here can see the weird illogic in your replies.

Get that help, seriously.

That is not an FAA CFR. Show me the regulation and or inspection and or modification change. Show me where every Boeing aircraft ever made or being made or flying that has mandatory fuel tank purging on empty tanks.

Fighter aircraft don't purge their empty tanks and often to prevent the fuel pump problems in the engine feed tanks aircraft will go into the hot fuel skids right after landing to put some fresh cold fuel in the dry tanks to cool down the pumps and to cool down the hot residual fuel remaining in the near empty internal tanks that even recirculation could not keep cool on warm days. The nitrogen may be used for longterm storage or maintenance but not everyday flight line ops.

You can't seem to tell the same story twice:

"My wife & I saw the 'party tape' loop being shown on a network satellite feed the night of the incident. Obviously, if I had the 'cocktail party tape', we would know exactly [how long it was]. It disappeared after being shown a few times many years ago, as has been discussed on many previous threads."

At any rate, those who provide incontestable proof that they did see something happen on live TV broadcasts are witnesses - and those who make questionable claims they saw something on live TV broadcasts are alleged witnesses, because of their questionable credibility.

It's interesting to try to find a timely report from those alleging to be Flight 800 TV broadcast(s) streak or streak & fireball witnessses. One would think they'd at least rush to mention it in forums or otherwise on the internet. Or to authorities. But it was only with the entrance of missile(s) shootdown conspiracy theorists and their assorted kooks and nuts camp followers later on that this allegation began to very slowly appear, most or all or which allegations had more and more glaringly obvious differences from each other as time went by.

That in turn led to their efforts to badger, bully, harrass and make personal attacks on those who disagreed with them, whoever they are.

Which have been and continue to be your tactics on the TWA 800 threads.

Well hal, considering your reply at post #118 concerned undisputed facts about FBI 302's, and you are now shifting reference to unmade missile(s) shootdown witness reports; - again, - who can ~present~ reports that have never been made? - Bizarre accusation.
- I think anyone here can see the weird illogic in your replies.
Get that help, seriously.
122 by tpaine

Hal responds to: tpaine - #122:

"I and my wife saw the 'streak of light' video the night of the crash, - and we were both amazed the next morning that it no longer 'existed'. I have no specific theory of what happened, but I know what I saw that night."
You can't seem to tell the same story twice:
"My wife & I saw the 'party tape' loop being shown on a network satellite feed the night of the incident. Obviously, if I had the 'cocktail party tape', we would know exactly [how long it was]. It disappeared after being shown a few times many years ago, as has been discussed on many previous threads."

Your point Hal? -- Yes, those two quotes are mine, and they "tell the same story twice" - to everyone but weird you.

At any rate, those who provide incontestable proof that they did see something happen on live TV broadcasts are witnesses - and those who make questionable claims they saw something on live TV broadcasts are alleged witnesses, because of their questionable credibility.

Yet another bizarre comment from Hal. -Unless a witness to the 'streak of light tape' recorded the event, they have no proof. - I'd speculate that in 1996, not many people recorded news shows. -Is this questionable credibility?

Not that many people were active on the Internet in 1996 Hal. -- And few rational people make a practice of ~calling authorities~ about disappearing tv tapes till long after events are 'explained' by authorities, contradicting what we saw.

But it was only with the entrance of missile(s) shootdown conspiracy theorists and their assorted kooks and nuts camp followers later on that this allegation began to very slowly appear, most or all or which allegations had more and more glaringly obvious differences from each other as time went by.

You can't find any differences in my statement Hal, yet as time goes by you get increasingly frantic to ~claim~ you see some. - Sound familiar to your rant above?

Making that even more interesting, none of their fellow missile(s) shootdown conspiracy theorists joined the growing chorus of doubters, thereby engaging in the coverup of the truth while alleging that their intent was to "determine the truth". That in turn led to their efforts to badger, bully, harrass and make personal attacks on those who disagreed with them, whoever they are. Which have been and continue to be your tactics on the TWA 800 threads.

Good grief hal, - that paragraph is so disjointed as to be almost incoherent.
Get some rest, and ping me back in the morning when you feel better.

"Yes, those two quotes are mine, and they 'tell the same story twice'"

Not quite.

1. "I and my wife saw the 'streak of light' video the night of the crash, - and we were both amazed the next morning that it no longer 'existed'. I have no specific theory of what happened, but I know what I saw that night."

2. "My wife & I saw the 'party tape' loop being shown on a network satellite feed the night of the incident. Obviously, if I had the 'cocktail party tape', we would know exactly [how long it was]. It disappeared after being shown a few times many years ago, as has been discussed on many previous threads."

You ignored the fact that the "party tape" was previously repeatedly debunked because it was a single STILL photo (see posting #79) that could not have been seen anywhere the night of the disaster because it had not yet been developed and also stated in your second version that "the cocktail party tape . . . disappeared after being shown a few times" even though it has always been available to the public through various press sources.

Your credibility on this subject is nonexistent.

Yes hal, those two quotes are mine, and they 'tell the same story twice'"

Not quite.
1. "I and my wife saw the 'streak of light' video the night of the crash, - and we were both amazed the next morning that it no longer 'existed'. I have no specific theory of what happened, but I know what I saw that night."
2. "My wife & I saw the 'party tape' loop being shown on a network satellite feed the night of the incident. Obviously, if I had the 'cocktail party tape', we would know exactly [how long it was]. It disappeared after being shown a few times many years ago, as has been discussed on many previous threads."

Hal. - That is at least the third time you have posted those two comments, claiming/insisting that somehow they contradict each other. It is obvious to anyone else that they do not. - Poor you.

You ignored the fact that the "party tape" was previously repeatedly debunked because it was a single STILL photo (see posting #79)

This is yet another delusion you insist upon. Many of us here - and on other threads, have said we saw a brief 'cocktail party' tape broadcast on that night. You bizarrely insist we saw - "a single STILL photo (see posting #79)". Poor you.

that could not have been seen anywhere the night of the disaster because it had not yet been developed and also stated in your second version that "the cocktail party tape . . . disappeared after being shown a few times" even though it has always been available to the public through various press sources.

Your photo was 'available' after developing hal, not the videotape, which needs no 'developing'. Poor you, logically impaired.

Your credibility on this subject is nonexistent.

Whatever.

Just for the record:

THE LINDA KABOT PHOTO

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/51099lsa.htm
(quote) The photo taken by Kabot depicts a bearing of north/northeast. TWA Flight 800 was south/southwest almost directly behind her. Photograph analyzed by CIA National Imagery and Mapping Administration (NIMA) advised that
1. THERE IS OBJECT IN PHOTO
2. OBJECT IS NOT A MISSILE
3. OBJECT APPEARS TO BE AN AIRCRAFT
Not possible to ID aircraft because:
Not possible to determine distance of object from camera.
Exact time of photo unknown. (time frame only is known)
Insufficient detail in photo to determine type of aircraft.
4. OBJECT IS NOT A DRONE
No drone exercises conducted near Long Island July 17, 1996

no one could have seen the Kabot photo broadcast on TV that night because the film of this still photo had not yet been developed.

No one could have seen a video broadcast of all or part of the disaster at any time because no such tape ever existed and no irrefutable proof has ever been presented by you or anyone else to the contrary.

You ignored the fact that the "party tape" was previously repeatedly debunked because it was a single STILL photo (see posting #79)

that could not have been seen anywhere the night of the disaster because it had not yet been developed and also stated in your second version that "the cocktail party tape . . . disappeared after being shown a few times" even though it has always been available to the public through various press sources.

Your photo was 'available' after developing hal, not the videotape, which needs no 'developing'.
Poor you, logically impaired.

Just for the record: no one could have seen the Kabot photo broadcast on TV that night because the film of this still photo had not yet been developed.

Poor you, reduced to making points that are not at issue.

Poor you, reduced to claiming eyewitness testimony never ~existed~. - And that eyewitnesses can be impeached by their inability to ~prove~ what their lying eyes witnessed.

Give it up hal; your efforts at 'logic' are laughable.

You wrote, "Perhaps the real answer is that these are one time acts, and the terrorists are actually afraid to repeatedly use the same tactics."

I was the Plans, Programs, and Requirements Officer–J6-PR for US CENTCOM before and during Desert Shield, so I do have some limited knowledge of what I am talking about. Terrorists are not afraid to repeatedly use the same tactics as evidenced by the widespread use of rocket attacks, IEDs, car bombs, and suicide bombers. They use what works, and if they were able to shoot down TWA Flight 800, I guarantee you, they would have shouted it to the entire world and would have kept using that method of terror until they were either caught or it stopped working.

retarmy:
So if terrorists are able to get the missiles and get them into the US, why has that not happened more often? Perhaps the real answer is that it was not a shootdown, but actually bad wiring.

So if terrorists are able to get knives and get them onto airplanes, why has 9/11 not happened again?
Perhaps the real answer is that these are one time acts, and the terrorists are actually afraid to repeatedly use the same tactics.

I was the Plans, Programs, and Requirements Officer–J6-PR for US CENTCOM before and during Desert Shield, so I do have some limited knowledge of what I am talking about.

Fine, - Gotta love arguments from authority.

Terrorists are not afraid to repeatedly use the same tactics as evidenced by the widespread use of rocket attacks, IEDs, car bombs, and suicide bombers.

Yet they haven't been doing that in the USA. - Why?

They use what works, and if they were able to shoot down TWA Flight 800, I guarantee you, they would have shouted it to the entire world and would have kept using that method of terror until they were either caught or it stopped working.

Your expert 'guarantee' is no better than my layman's opinion. What exactly as a Plans, Programs, and Requirements Officer–J6-PR for US CENTCOM before and during Desert Shield, makes your unsupported opinion credible - about why terrorists haven't used those same methods?

The radar track does not support the CIA film and official report “zoom climb” scenario given to explain the upward streaks seen by witnesses and given enough creditability then had to be explained by the official report

The radar track does not record altitude just direction an ground speed but you can deduce an aircraft going in to a climb or dive by relative ground speed (straight up, straight down = zero relative ground speed)

The radar track does not show the changes in relative ground speed you would see with a zoom climb then stall out and dive...

The radar track relative ground speed shows the simple curve of an aircraft doing a steady climb out then descent

The radar track relative ground speed does not show the "S" curve you would expect with a steady climb then, zoom climb, then stall out, pitch over and final descent.

The thing is the CIA and Government official are not stupid and know the radar track relative ground speed does not support the final report

TWA800 public report is one I do believe is a cover story for something else.. that details of what did happen were classified for nation security reasons be they legit (do not want to blow a source of intel) or illegit (Clinton admin CYA)

The TWA 800/Government zoom climb story is as bogus as the Government story on illegal immigration and why they never can enforce the law

You wrote, "Your expert 'guarantee' is no better than my layman's opinion. What exactly as a Plans, Programs, and Requirements Officer–J6-PR for US CENTCOM before and during Desert Shield, makes your unsupported opinion credible. . ."

First, you evidently have never served our country in the military services, otherwise you would not make such a naive statement as that, nor would you ask such an obtuse question. I am assuming that you know that US CENTCOM was and is responsible for all US military operations in S.W. Asia. Therefore, in response to your statement and your question, there are three things that exactly make me far more credible than you.

First, it was part of my job to know the enemy so that I could be effective in my job as a General Staff officer planning for operations in the SWA ops area.

Next, in addition to having had accessibility to military intelligence prior to my retirement, I was and am also able to read and review the mass of unclassified information from other experts about the psychology and tactics of these Islamic terrorists. This is also available to you on the Internet, were you to take the time to read and research, rather than gloss and guess.

Finally, I have over 25 years of training and experience in the U.S. Army, serving around the world with some of the finest men and women in uniform. Understanding warfare was what we did for a living.

If this explanation does not answer your question, nothing else I can say will, but you really don’t care anyway do you? Your mind is made up, so I will no longer confuse you with the facts.

No name and no date on this letter. Doesn't sound like your alleged "party tape".

Dear ARAP, The night TWA800 went down, our local TV news station aired a video of what apeared to be a flare aproaching the aircraft seconds before the jet exploded. They also reported on the eye witness accounts to support what the video plainly showed. That was the first, last and only time I saw that video.
As we all know, when the media has in its hands this type of video; we the public are always treated to an ongoing barrage of showings over and over again. This is after all, big news. When something this big suddenly disapears from the TV screens, my antenni go through the ceiling.
Sure there has been reporting on TWA800 but I have yet to see that video again on any broadcast. This video showed a very clear sky and not poor visibility as stated by the NTSB. I cannot recall which local station broadcasted it but I usualy tune into wtvt ch.13 Tampa Florida. I have not contacted them on this matter because requests for other news stories have been responded with little or no help at all.
With such massive amounts of investigating you have done, this seems to me miniscule but, I thought it worth mentioning. Some where out there is the original home video that captured the actual account of TWA800. I am a person with little clout and little means but I saw what I saw and have long been suspicious of the Federal investigation of 800. I would be interested in receiving future e-mails and updates on 800. Thank you for your attention.

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.