http://www.twa800.com/news/as8-99.htm
excerpts
It was billed as an investigation of the investigators. On May 10, 1999, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) held a one-day hearing with witnesses offering damaging testimony about the Federal Bureau of Investigation's role in the TWA 800 probe. Grassley's opening remarks were particularly critical of former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom for failing to uncover the cause of the explosion that killed the jumbo jet's 230 passengers and crew on July 17, 1996.
Grassley's hearing focused on two star witnesses. One was Andrew Vita, assistant director of field operations for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF). The second was William A. Tobin, former chief metallurgist for the FBI. Both supported Grassley's claim that Kallstrom needlessly prolonged the probe.
Vita testified that several months into the investigation the BATF concluded there was no evidence that high explosives caused TWA 800's mid-air disintegration. In late January, 1997, Vita put the BATF's views in an unsolicited, written report to be submitted to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). But, Vita testified, he "met resistance" from the FBI. Grassley says Kallstrom suppressed the report and never forwarded it to the NTSB.
James Kallstrom, now retired from the FBI after an exemplary 28-year career, rebuts the charge as "a bald-faced lie."
He pointed to problems with the BATF report, which he rejected as " premature." At the time it was written, tons of TWA 800 still lay underwater. Kallstrom also had problems with the BATF methodology.
"The report was sophomoric," he told me, "in its science and in its writing. "
But his biggest beef with the BATF was that the flawed report would be poisonous in a courtroom. If the FBI eventually was able to identify suspects and bring them to trial, the report, because it had the weight of a government agency behind it, was precisely the kind of exhibit defense lawyers would parade before a jury to refute the prosecution.
"A defense attorney would have taken that report and jammed it twenty feet up my (expletive deleted)," Kallstrom said.
Nonetheless, Kallstrom informed the NTSB about the report soon after he reviewed it. To his surprise, the NTSB already had a copy. The BATF had apparently delivered the report through back channels.
Grassley did not explore one explanation for BATF's hasty conclusion and independent delivery of the report to the NTSB.
"ATF played a very political role," Kallstrom says. He calls the incident just one example of unusual collusion between the NTSB and other players in the TWA 800 investigation.
Grassley's other star witness, former FBI metallurgist Bill Tobin, is even more problematic.
Tobin testified that Kallstrom adamantly believed a bomb destroyed TWA 800. When traces of the high explosives PETN and RDX were found on the aircraft, Tobin says Kallstrom claimed it was proof of a bomb. Tobin thought otherwise. About six weeks into the probe, Tobin testified, he decided there was no evidence of terrorist act and told Kallstrom the crash was an accident.
Kallstrom had problems with Tobin's analysis. There were two possible ways terrorists might have destroyed TWA 800. One was a bomb, and the other was a missile. Tobin, says Kallstrom, had no experience in the forensic damage caused by missiles. Nor did he have the expertise to analyze aircraft wreckage after deterioration from prolonged salt-water immersion. Tobin's experience was limited to bomb damage on dry ground.
There was another problem. At the time of Tobin's conclusion, much of TWA 800 lay unrecovered. Larry Johnson, a former State Department counter- terrorism official directly involved in the Pan Am 103 case, says the volume of debris found by investigators in that case proved the bomb used was so small it could be "spread out on a kitchen table top." With tons of the plane still missing, Kallstrom felt Tobin's conclusion was unprofessional.
Kallstrom says he dismissed Tobin from the probe. He didn't trust the judgment of an investigator who reached conclusions while so much aircraft wreckage still lay on the ocean floor.
Grassley may not have known that Tobin's criticism of James Kallstrom could have been personally motivated. Nor did he seem aware that the BATF report may have been politically motivated. If he did know his witnesses' shortcomings, Senator Grassley didn't admit it.
Senator Grassley later criticized the FBI for dominating the probe. NTSB Chairman Jim Hall, in Duncan's House reauthorization hearings, said that the NTSB should have been exclusively responsible for the investigation until evidence of sabotage was found. But in the first days after July 17, 1996, only five NTSB crash investigators came to the site--far too few even to have collected the hundreds of witness statements.
Eight weeks into the NTSB's probe, Jim Hall arrived at Calverton, scene of the TWA 800 salvage operation. This changed the relationship between the NTSB and the FBI. Kallstrom recalled: "Then it was clear who was really running the NTSB investigation."
Re: "CIA Letter to Kallstrom"
On November 18, 1997, the CIA produced an animated video simulating TWA 800's final flight. The video explains the 244 eyewitness accounts, many of which suggested that a missile was fired into the aircraft, as mistaken. Because light travels faster than sound, the CIA concluded that witnesses actually saw a flame trail from burning jet fuel before they heard the sound of the plane's explosion, and naturally were convinced that the streak of light leading to the plane occurred before the explosion.
What the CIA did not explain in November was that its video was altered after consultation with the NTSB. In a letter from CIA Director George Tenet to Rep. James Traficant (D-Ohio) dated January 13, 1998, Tenet acknowledges that more than forty changes were made to the video animation at the NTSB's suggestion. After the changes were made, Tenet says the CIA showed the video to "NTSB managers" who approved its release to the general public.
YOU say....
"So once again, where is your evidence that the NTSB was also provided with the presumably classified information in the CIA's 28 March 1997 letter to the FBI's Kallstrom prior to the preparation of the NTSB video?"
I say.......
Did the CIA use it in their video?
YOU say......
"but not on the aerodynamics of the zoom climb because ALL the specs on that had to have come to the NTSB from Boeing at some time during the years prior to preparation of the NTSB video (and would accordingly appear to me to almost certainly be proprietary information)."
Provide YOUR evidence for the assertion... "because ALL the specs on that had to have come to the NTSB from Boeing"
And you say.....
(and would accordingly appear to me to almost certainly be proprietary information).
I say, I agree with Capt Lahr......
"Immediately after the CIA animation of the zoom-climb was shown on national television, Boeing issued a public statement that it had no knowledge of the data used by the CIA for its zoom-climb scenario. Later, the CIA itself stated that the data and conclusions for its zoom-climb came from the NTSB. Therefore, logic dictates that Boeing also has no knowledge of the data used by the NTSB for its zoom-climb scenario. Consequently, the Boeing proprietary information being withheld by the NTSB has no bearing on the zoom-climb. The NTSB is simply using the Boeing proprietary information as a pretext for denying public access to the NTSB zoom-climb calculations. The zoom-climb scenario was fabricated completely in-house by the NTSB. The Air Line Pilots Association criticized the NTSB for not allowing any oversight or participation by the other parties to the investigation. There is absolutely no verification of the NTSB zoom-climb calculations by an outside independent organization. This secrecy by the NTSB violates all of the principles of an open and objective accident investigation. How can the NTSB expect any public confidence in its operations and conclusions?....
I am repeating my appeal for the NTSB zoom-climb calculations. My appeal is based on the Boeing data already published by the NTSB. As pointed out above, the additional Boeing proprietary data that the NTSB is withholding in secrecy has no bearing on the zoom-climb; therefore, it is not a legitimate excuse for denying my appeal."
excerpts
http://twa800.com/letters/lahr-9-27-01.htm
The first paragraph of your infallible source "shootdown" tinfoil hat tells it all.
Birds of a feather flock together. But you're not a member of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats' flock, are you.
Yahoo TWA800 forum - 18 June 2001
From: John Fiorentino
Subject: The most likely scenario so far
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added]
Officials July 29 said that the event that triggered the crash appeared to have taken place toward the front of the plane. However, probers August 12 said they were focusing their examination on the center of the airplane, where the craft's wings met. Cantamessa July 29 said that the bodies of passengers seated near the front of the plane had more severe injuries than those in the rear section. Probers July 30 said that heavy damage to the recovered landing gear supported the theory that a bomb went off in the plane's forward section.
[end quote]
Yahoo TWA800 forum - April 12, 2002
From: John Fiorentino
Subject: Re: [twa800] Kabofovic revisited
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added]
Most here are convinced a "missile" did the dirty deed. I'm not, not yet at least. The initial assessment was "bomb". I thought so to. I still do.
[end quote]
And you torpedo allegations of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats, don't you, such as Jim Sanders and Fred Meyer, a member of the Board of Bill Donaldson's ARAP.
From: John Fiorentino - 18 June 2001
From: John Fiorentino - 18 June 2001
Subject: The most likely scenario so far
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added]
Just for s--ts and grins my son and I popped off a road flare and placed it close to the back of a discarded child car seat which had a foam backing to it. Left a reddish brown residue very similar to Sanders' swatch. Remember My scientist friend who thought the chem analysis resembled residue from a "flare?"
[end quote]
Yahoo TWA800 forum - 15 March 2002
From: John Fiorentino
Subject: Re: [twa800] A little sensitive, aren't we?
[excerpt][quote][emphasis added - caps yours]
However, based on Meyer's statements, I don't believe he witnessed the IE. Fl. 800 didn't explode in a MF at 13000+, the MF was somewhere 7500-8500ft. Look at his timeline, Please explain, HOW he could have witnessed the IE?
[end quote]
So isn't it long past time for you to provide the readers with your explanation of the streak?