Here's what another "shootdown" tinfoil hat had to say about that and related issues.
LSoft Flight 800 Forum
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 21:26:05 -0400
From: Ian Goddard
[excerpt][emphasis added]
Breaching the security of a criminal investigation, which all FBI investigations are, is a matter of National Security by definition.
Did Sanders illegally acquire evidence? Yes.
Did someone illegally give him evidence? Yes.
Is it the role of the govt to enforce law? Yes.
Because the answer to all those questions is "yes," the fact that the govt is pursuing violations of law proves only that the govt is guilty of enforcing laws.
The situation presents zero evidence of illicit cover-up and should not be measured as evidence of anything except that the govt is doing its stated job. If the FBI does not go after the violation, that would be derelict.
Another thing, it's been suggested that opponents of the Friendly Fire theory on the list are govt agents and that they work for some PR firm or some such hired to defend the Navy and the official case. Assuming that that is true, it is implied that this is yet more evidence that the govt is guilty of downing TWA 800 and has hired people to cover it up.
Let's think about it for a moment: if people started accusing Sears of killing people, and if it was false, would Sears have a duty to not defend itself? A duty not to hire a PR firm to defend itself? No. Would hiring a PR firm to defend itself constitute evidence of culpability? Absolutely not!
YET those who WANT to believe Sears is guilty will see it and paint it as evidence of guilt. That is in fact fascistic: any entity, private or public has a right to defend itself against charges made against it; to attempt to pervert that right to self-defence into evidence of culpability is a profound injustice. It is an effort to rape the opponent.
BTW, I'm not "switching sides." After taking time off to cool down from my TWA 800 fever, I've realized that I should look at things from the other side, make the other case, and then test the logic. Too much I was piling up anything I could to support the F-Fire theory with anything that felt like evidence, but which, upon a more objective analysis, might not even be evidence at all.
It's fun and even addictive to kick around the government, that big faceless establishment that your allowed to pummel with words; but that does not necessarily ensure logical conclusions.
Could the FF theory simply be a house of cards built upon a base of wishful yet errant analysis? It's not wrong to propose a theory. When I proposed the FF theory over a year ago (not the first to do so) I was viciously attacked, my reputation smeared and called insane 10 million times. That will cause the meek to quickly disappear, it caused me to go to war, to prove I was not wrong, it was an ego battle. So as a matter of fact, I started off on the wrong footing. The people who attacked me did everyone on all "sides" a disservice.
If no one had attacked me, I probably would have wandered off onto other things. Instead I had to prove my case by any means short of the unethical. I don't consider listing all the reasons to believe X unethical,even if the reasons not to believe it are omitted, so long as those for are true.
While not unethical, it's not objective, it is biased. The need to defend my reputation against such base assault compelled be to be as biased as ethics would allow. If I had to run everyone in the Navy into jail in the process, so be it. Which is not to say I did not induce belief in my case in myself. I was 99% sure.
Taking several weeks off my TWA 800 fixation has been the best thing I've done in over a year! I don't care to ever get involved inthe case again and will ignore replies to this, which I'm sure will accuse me of becoming a govt agent and therefore as more evidence that the Navy shotdown TWA 800... yawn. I've had enough of all that paranoia.
I think we all need to get over TWA 800 and let the families pursue the case in the fashion that they see fit.
[end quote]