TWA Flight 800 - Someone Has Finally Talked!

Those who accept the government's claim that the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by a fuel-tank explosion dismiss the evidence that the plane was shot down accidentally by missiles launched in a Navy exercise off the Long Island coast. They say that such an accident could not have been covered up because a lot of Navy personnel would have known about it, and some of them would have talked.

One of them has finally done so. He recently said in an interview that I recorded that he was on the deck of a Navy submarine very close to the crash site and saw TWA 800 shot down.

He was brought to my attention by an acquaintance of his who told me that this retired Navy petty officer had said he was "underneath TWA 800 when he saw a missile hit it and the 747 explode overhead." He had told this acquaintance that he had given a statement to the FBI when they returned to their port, and that the FBI had checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they had when they left port. Asked if there were other military vessels in the area, he had said, "Yes, several."

When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, 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. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who learned of the Navy's involvement from a friend who had a son in the Navy. The son was said to have personal knowledge that a Navy missile had downed the plane, but his father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy was hiding.

There are hundreds of Navy and Coast Guard personnel, as well as some FBI, CIA, FAA, NTSB and former White House employees who know that the real cause of the crash of TWA 800 was papered over with a tissue of lies. Two of them, James Kallstrom and George Stephanopoulos, have made statements that indicate an official cover-up. Stephanopoulos, a Clinton adviser who is now an ABC News correspondent, mentioned on the air a secret meeting in the White House situation room "in the aftermath of the TWA 800 bombing." Kallstrom, who headed the FBI's TWA 800 investigation, told me – and I have this on tape – that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed.

Our newly found talker was on one of those submarines. The Navy claims that it was at least 80 miles from the crash site, but he says it was very close, and that is confirmed by the radar tracks. In our taped interview, he was more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn't want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement.

He said he saw "something come up." "I don't know what in the hell it was," he said, "but that's what it looked ..." Not completing what he started to say, he said, "You know, something went up." He estimated that it went up about a mile from his location, which was only a few miles from the shore. He said there were a couple of other subs nearby. When told that the radar tracks of all three disappeared because they submerged when the plane went down, he said, "Yeah, that's what we did."

He acknowledged that a number of Navy vessels were heading for W-105, a large area of the ocean south of Long Island that is used for naval maneuvers. He said that nothing they did off Long Island was classified, but he was not comfortable in discussing it.

When I called him a few days later, he was scared to death. He feared the Navy would withdraw his pension if I reported what he had said. It was not possible to convince him that the Navy couldn't do that. Not wanting to worsen his anxiety, his name and other details are being withheld as we try to get his and other interview reports that the FBI has withheld.

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

I don't discount your personal observations. I have no reason to doubt anything that you are stating, so just because I debate this issue shouldn't be taken as disputing your personal experience or expertise.

Let's remember that this aircraft was 13 miles off the coast of Long Island. That's over the horizon to those on land. What they would see is a small missile type object heading up to the plane. They would have seen a missile trail at that distance, but they wouldn't see as much as you might think. What would a telephone pole look like at 13 miles? Even the flame wouldn't be that big. The military people who saw this, recognized it for what it was. You're looking at 8:00 p.m. on a summer night. They would not see the ship. And this occured while the sky was still somewhat light. Let's face it, the private boating that might have been out that far in the daytime was likey headed for or at shore by the time this happened. 13 miles is quite a distance to sea for most people.

As for missile exercises taking place out there, I've seen the picture that everyone else has of that missile near the beach. I have also seen reports from other captains seeing a missile in their vacinity about a month after TWA-800. Some testing does seem to have been taking place out there. If I'm not remembering incorrectly, it was acknowledged that south of Long Island, not that much, but a ways beyond TWA-800's flight path was an area acknowledged to be used for certain testing including missiles.

I realize you know what you are talking about. Let's accept that this was not a normal operation. I doubt you've seen three submarines surfaced near Long Island very often. Perhaps that's not true. But something unusual was going on. The fact that lies were told to avoid having to admit those subs were there is significant to me.

--the militry doesn't have a way to control a missile from another asset overhead? Like, couldn't a missile be launched, then it's targeting be accomplished from a very high flying drone aircraft, or satellite or awacs or surface ship elsewhere's?

The problem is that the submarine would have to come up on Link 16 to both receive a basic tactical picture (the problem is that the SUBMARINE wouldn't have sufficient siutational awareness without external cueing) AND report their overall tactical situation. People tend to get a wee bit suspicious when they detect datalink signals coming from an otherwise empty patch of ocean. Once again, this idea compromises the sub's stealth.

Most proposals I have seen for SUBSAMs involve a mast-mounted box launcher, loaded with Stinger. There was a SIAM (Self-Initiating Antiaircraft Missile) project in the late 1970s; this would have used acoustic sensors to detect overhead patrol aircraft or helicopters and could be left as a sort of "SAM Mine" to help a submarine escape.

ALL of the SUBSAM proposals have had one thing in common: the submarine community has said, in unison, "We are NOT toting those things on our boats." They have too many negatives (a submarine's only defense is stealth; these weapons tend to compromise same) and not enough positives to get Fleet "buy-in."

--if what you say is accurate at that date, the twa 800 "incident", then what terminology do you want to use to describe a grouping of military assets conducting *something*.? Is this called an "exercise"? What else would you call what as going on off of long island then, if not an exercise? this is getting into what "is" is here.......... Semantics aside, it "looks" like an exercise off of long island to this admitedly untrained internet discusser.

Point 2, I'm a long time computer user. I've seen computers do some goofy stuff before. The military at any one time during one of these non-exercise exercises has to be running dozens if not hundreds of computers, all trying to work together. Hmm, wonder why the computer industry needs zillions of trained sysadmins, could it be because computers have to be tweaked and repaired and fixed all the time because they messup, they don't "do" exactly what you intended them to do? Just maybe? Or our are military computers all 100% reliable all the time, everyplace, never break, never ned adjusting, always so perfect that nothing weird ever happens between the old human actions and the hard and software actions? This is the stance I seem to be reading from all the military guys here, as in "no way, it could never happen.

I would like to purchase one of these 100% reliable, never mess up and won't let ya mess up computers, if one of the military guys would point out the exact brand of said miracle computer.

. To me, it's possible that a computer malfunction occurred, leading to a launch. Besides that, I couldn't tell ya which computer system or whatnot, I'm sure they have a lot of failsafes, but I really couldn't ever claim computers always do what you think they are going to do. Software conflicts with a hardware glitch perhaps. I'll let someone else claim that is reality, ie, the "never break or fail" brand peecee.

Now this isn't my personal pet theory, just throwing it out. My pet theory- at this point- is "it"- a missile- was launched from a small boat in the immediate area, by so far "unknown and not identified" people, either middle eastern terrorists, or by rogue mercenary units under the direction of the shadow government types "just following orders". As to "who's' government, that's up in the air as well. Anyone and their cuizzin leroy could have had a boat in that area at that time. No need for a massive conventional forces coverup then, only a tiny small number of people who needed to keep their mouths shut, quite do-able and possible.

The navy perhaps wouldn't have had anything to do with it, but they were used as a collective "patsy" as obviously attention would have been directed to them, and initially they would have denied everything from precisely the fact it was 100% plausibly deniable from their point of view, because they honestly didn't do it, they just happened to be in the area at the same time. whoopise in other words. maybe it was even one of those cosmic joke dealies, the shooters didn't know they were going to be inside this non exercise exercise, it was just a legit coincidence, surprising the heck out of everyone concerned. Iranian airbus deal was such a happenstance. Think richard jewell scenario on a different scale. someone does something, so publically they glom onto the first things that come to attention, eventually get bogged down into a whodunit. It's called leaving a false trail, quite common in crime that is premeditated. The navy honestly had nothing to do with it, but being all around the area when it went down would have gone into emergency WHATTHEFUGJUSTHAPPENED? mode, and understandably so.

That's my theory so far, as to who did it or why, then the possibilites can get complex and extreme. There are even a variety of motives I can see here. So far, the el al plane that was 'supposed" to be in that area and wasn't is most intriguing, as they delayed their flight , and twa 800 took off ahead of them. perhaps the el al flight was the real target? I don't know, ansd that really is just one of many possibilities. In this day, an el al flight would certainly be considered a target by "someone". Perhaps it was just a random flight targeted. perhaps.

As to the exact species of missile used, no idea, nor do I think *every* possible missile that exists is available for public review or discussion. Again, I'd really like to meet the government military employee or ex employee who has had access to EVERYTHING. Personally, I doubt such a job description exists, I doubt seriously US Presidents ever get to look at everything. I doubt even cia directors get to see everything. Maybe someone does have this experience, and has a habit of posting on internet forums, but I doubt it. Like, does the military admit to brilliant buzzard or aurora yet? Anyone reading this want to admit to any high performance aircraft that exists at this time but isn't officially recognized? Or does anyone here on the forum admit to being a total insider in ALL foreign nations development labs, so they can 'rule out" a russian or chinese or french or italian or israeli or whatnot missile? Prototypes can exist in small numbers of "working models", yes? And the world market in weaponry certainly appears to be if you got the cash yopu can buy whatever you want, either legitimately, or via cutouts, from theft, or whatever. Maybe someone has come up with a missile that doesn't leave as nasty a smoke trail. maybe there's something out there that can out perform the what-30 year old stinger technology, whatever it is? I dunno, but can't state with certainty no one *hasn't* yet, as I lost my bilderburger card and they quit sending me updated intel emails.

%^)

Last point, if center fuel tanks explode, why don't they ground and repair jumbo jets for this 'problem"? If doors blow off in midflight, which causes planes to explode in midair and then climb thousands of feet UP, why no grounding and repair efforts? We see it with other verifiable airframe problems, when they find a serious design flaw, they usually fix the other ones, eventually anyway, so why in twa800 case, no "fixes" apparent on other jumbo jets of similar design? Any exactly why again was the fbi and cia involved in a "normal" plane accident? Do they usually do this, was this past SOP for the industry and government?

--I tend to agree with you, just pointing out it's not completely impossible. I realise subs basic defense is to *not* be there all the time, we'll accept that as a common sense given. Personally, I don't think any of the regular naval units were involved, I think they were just in the vicinity. So far anyway. I know that's a popular theory, but I don't put it at the top of the list. With that said, I know people personally who have related stories of things they have seen go down who were "ordered" such and such never happened, they didn't see it, 'or else". I think both these observations are correct and *true*. Here's an example, my girlfriend and her crew, she's retired skygoddess-were deadheading one day, for 20 minutes they had a ...hmmm...an "aircraft" sitting right off their wings at around 200 yards. When they landed, offical but un-identified dudes walked the cockpit crew into a room, ten minutes later, they come out with these other unidentified guys, the captain tell the rest of the cabin crew they "didn't" see what they saw, "or else". This was an 'advisory" that was designed to basically coerce them into shutting up about it right then. shes' still scared of these guys, BTW..... I've met the captain, he's retired now as well, and he's still steamed about it, but wasn't in any rush to mess up his check, if ya get my drift. None of the crew was in any rush to mess up their checks, although anecdotally a few sentences get spoken. Quite the story really...... I'd bet a nickle that's not the only time this sort of thing has happened with the airline industry, or the military either.

Total aside, what's the ID of the aerial asset reported at the time at around 80,000 feet? Do you know? No, don't have that discussion link handy, but I read it here on this site, someone else might have it. I'm just interested in anything that can maintain that sort of altitude, that would have been used in a non-exercise exercise.

"This theory simply defies logic."

Not at all.

When was TWA800 shot down? July 17, 1996.

What else was happening in 1996?

Re-election campaign of one Bubba Clinton.

A terrorist shoot down of an American airliner MIGHT have been cause enough to mount the coverup effort which was enhanced, no doubt, by Clinton bonuses being paid to the people who helped put the coverup through. Threats of everything from loss of military retirement to imprisonment of any military people who saw what happened and/or knew from the reaction of their ships racing AWAY from the shootdown sight, instead of to it, would account for the silence of those in the military who might have witnessed it. (Reed Irvine, by the way, is an honorable man and could not possibly lie about this. I have no problem believing this person whoever he is is terrified. Wouldn't you be if you KNEW what really happened to TWA800 and the most powerful people in the world had put through the massive coverup of it????)

If, however, Clinton's defunded military had somehow mistakenly shot down an American Airliner by mistake - do you think Clinton would have had a hope in hell of being re-elected just 4 months later?????

I don't think so. Obviously, the Clinton "team" did not think so. And they made the decision that the Clinton "team" had made down through the years......(I am sure, dictated by one Hitlery Clinton) - we will take control of this "incident" and we will come up with something and we will spin it. We will use intimidation, threats, and bribery to enforce our will.

That is their M.O. that was used- and has been documented -over and over and over through their heinous years in power both in Arkansas and in the US.

The ONLY other explanation would be a Communist Chinese sub shoot down of the American Airliner. Since the Chinese ran the Clinton administration - publicizing a Chicom shootdown of an American airliner - while the Chinese communists were funneling money to re-elect their agent - would NOT have been a good thing for either party to the Clinton crimes.

But the Chinese are NOT terrorists......they are Communists who use terrorism as a matter of policy. Just like the Clintonoids do.

To: DoughtyOne

Please tell me which of the above individuals or agencies that refuted that lie.

I do not know the specifics of that lie. However, I do know that in order to believe your conspiracy theory you have to believe that hundreds or even thousands of
honorable men and women have to coverup a mass murder. For example, why would an entire investigative team from the NTSB coverup an accidental shoot down
of a civilian airliner by the military? They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by participating in the coverup.

At first you attempted to take a pass on the lie. That's fine if you wanted to investigate the facts of it. But then to dismiss the lie because it defied logic is disengenous. Then to attempt to bring up the honor of men and women to dispute it, well that's simply dishonorable.

Yes why would an entire investigative team cover up? The answer is that the whole investigative team may not have been privey to the lie. I did not say every member of these agencies knew the full story. Certain elements of them, and the leadership of each most certainly did.

Okay you didn't want to address the lie directly. So be it.

This theory simply defies logic.

Perhaps you can tell me how many times you've seen the FBI hijack an investigation? And further, how many times have you seen a CIA agent standing behind an FBI agent who's hijacked an NTSP investigation?

You really are willing to sign on to a lot if these types of questions and the lack of reasonable answers don't at some point begin to be more than you can dismiss.

67 posted on 2/1/02 6:18 AM Pacific by BoPepper

To: DoughtyOne

Line of sight can be pretty far, especially at altitude. The smoke and flame of a Standard or similar missile is visible and unmistakable. Nobody mentions smoke trail
or flame plume. Nobody mentions flash of light out at sea, not even witnesses in aircraft who would be able to see for miles.

The only people at altitude do describe what they believe to be a missile. One of the most notable was a former/possibly current member of the military which was familiar with this type of ordinance. Many people described a trail of smoke behind the object. That's why the FBI/NTSB created a sharade stating that the 747 actually climbed for 2000 feeet and that leaking fuel ignighted to create a false ploom. That wouldn't have been necessary if it hadn't been for eye witness reports.

I'll admit that I've never seen three submarines surfaced together. Neither have any of the people posting on this theory. They look at radar pictures on the web and
claim that it indicates surfaced subs, but I have yet to see any confirmation.

The article specificly states: "Kallstrom, who headed the FBI's TWA 800 investigation, told me – and I have this on tape – that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed." Anothewords, we're not talking about blips exclusively. We have the lead agent of the FBI in charge of the TWA-800 investigation admitting there were subs. That's the refutation of the lie that I addressed. He is also the person who stated early on that there were no Navy assets within 130 miles.

I've seen that picture of the missile near the beach. I've also seen the picture of the guy on the World Trade Center observation deck with the airplane heading for
him. Enough said.

That picture has been investigated. It has been judged to be real. What it means isn't exactly clear.

If you wish to dismiss any concerns over this incident so be it. I have long ago accepted that for some, it will take an insurmountable amount evidence to convince them that the TWA-800 was shot down. I can live with that.

65 posted on 2/1/02 5:20 AM Pacific by Non-Sequitur

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.