Posted on 11/09/2006 9:04:16 AM PST by Hal1950
This week I received a communication from retired United Airline Capt. Ray Lahr. It contained two items of great interest – one dollop of good legal news and one unexpected and truly incredible report.
The legal news concerned Ray's success in Los Angeles District Court after years of "long and lonely and expensive" effort. Judge Howard Matz had succinctly mandated that "Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shall produce to plaintiff the material set forth in Exhibit A and the National Transportation Safety Board shall produce to plaintiff the material set forth in Exhibit B." Significantly, the judge also authorized Lahr attorney John Clarke to file for fees and costs. This is a definite win.
Lahr has been suing for release of the information that the two agencies in question had used to produce their notorious zoom-climb animation subsequent to the 1996 downing of TWA Flight 800 over Long Island – animation that was used to discredit the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses, many of them military and aviation personnel. Lahr sees this animation as the Achilles' heel of a consciously skewed investigation, and in this he is correct.
Lahr also sent me a CD review of the case titled merely "TWA Flight 800 Crash Evidence Review," which I will hereafter refer to as "the Review." Before I finished reading it, I sent Lahr an e-mail, which read in part:
"Brilliant work on your explication. I am only halfway through it, but I am totally impressed. Everything else that has gone before it is the work of amateurs, mine included."
The message I got back from Lahr, however, floored me. He did not write this report. He received it anonymously in the mail. I was stunned. The Review in question is the most sophisticated piece of investigative reporting that I have ever read on this or any other crash. The unknown author likely put years into this work. He surely comes from within the aviation community, which may explain his desire for anonymity. He argues crisply, patiently and comprehensively. He provides ample illustration of his contentions and rarely, if ever, does he exceed his knowledge base.
Most impressive is his knowing synthesis of all the available evidence – radar, eyewitness, physical, audio, GPS, debris field – to recreate in detail the flight taken and damage done by each of the missiles fired at TWA Flight 800. What is more, the author uses only the evidence that was available to the National Transportation Safety Board to reach conclusions that they should have reached with the same data.
The Review author believes that based on the debris field alone, "the administration would have known within the first two weeks after the crash that missiles brought down the aircraft." Although prudent in his accusations, he strongly suspects that the long delay in recovering the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder indicates that the decision to misdirect the investigation "actually occurred the night of the disaster." With this conclusion, I fully concur.
No one who reads this Review can doubt for a moment that the government has engaged in a massive misdirection in the gathering of evidence. Every major media outlet owes it to its audience to assign its best technical writer to read and review this work. The one CD includes the entire NTSB report as well.
To make things simple, I will happily provide a copy of the entire Review to any interested major media party. The author asked that the information be shared. Interested observers, who are willing to identify themselves, can obtain a pdf copy of Part I of the Review by contacting me through my website, .
In the weeks to come, I will break down the information into manageable chunks. For now, allow me to summarize the author's approach. The Review is divided into four parts. Each of the first three parts is dedicated to the destructive path of one given missile.
In the way of example, the author argues that the first of the three was a large surface-to-air missile launched from 16 to 22 miles west of the crash site. The missile approached the aircraft on a descending track from the rear and struck it without exploding. The author is very specific in his detail, to wit, "This impact broke the horizontal stabilizer pitch trim jackscrew in tension and caused the aircraft to pitch upward." Not all the writing is this technical, but where specifics are needed, the author does not shy from providing them.
The fourth part, and the one least supported by existing evidence, is dedicated to other unidentified objects in the sky that night. The author makes the public relations mistake of calling them UFOs. What he means are unidentified aircraft. They do not come from outer space. I will call them UACs.
In the book "First Strike," James Sanders and I argue that a UAC may very well have been in the mix, and that UAC may have been a terrorist plane. The author, too, believes that a UAC was in the mix as well as three missiles, but he does not believe that the UAC was a manned aircraft. He makes a compelling argument that the UAC information that the FBI gathered was so hot that it was simply not allowed in to the official record. Every now and then, however, some information bled in accidentally. The most obvious example of the same was a photo taken by Linda Kabot that seemed to show a slender cylindrical object flying away from the scene of the crash.
Wisely, the author refrains from saying who fired the missiles or launched the aircraft, although the evidence strongly leads away from anything but a highly sophisticated military operation. It is possible that terrorist involvement may have gone no deeper than warnings given and credit claimed. Someone in Washington knows just how deep that involvement was.
The author argues that an independent panel from outside Washington is essential to conduct a new investigation. "Otherwise," he contends, "the same insider influences in both political parties, who have prevented the truth from being revealed previously, would control the investigation's outcome."
In the best of all possible worlds, Ray Lahr's case may just crack open the official door.
A Klintoon Kover-up of monumental proportions, IMHO........
Ping - TWA800
My question has always been "who on that airplane did Clinton want dead"?
Only the military could have mounted such a sophisticated mid-air strike. The sky and waters were full of military assets that beat a hasty retreat after the plane went down.
I've always had a hard time believing the cover-up theory. What exactly was the motivation? To prevent the need to a military response against militant Islam? To prevent panic? To prevent the country blaming Clinton for allowing it to happen? I suppose all three of these theories have been bandied about, but, I'm sorry, none of them seem convincing to me.
TWA 800, Oklahoma City Bombing, Chinese campain money, and so forth, all covered up in the interest of a New Tone.
That's convenient, since it eliminates the evidence of explosion or fragmentation on the outside of the aircraft. Surface to air missiles of that era had proximity fused warheads. I find it hard to believe this was a hit-to-kill mechanism like THAAD or PAC-3, since the Clinton administration killed the missile defense projects. So who did this and why would the Clinton admin cover it up?
Considering the election was only 3 months away, it's plausible there was ample reason to make sure people didn't think a terrorist attack downed that plane. Remember, bill was running on "PEACE and Prosperity". How would he be able to reconcile that so-called peace with an attack?
Everyone refers to TWA 800 as a terror attack. No one will be surprised if it is incontrovertibly proven.
I guess the thing to do is to examine (or re-examine) the apparently excellent evidence for a missile attack and worry about WHY later.
This government leaks like a sieve. If something this monstrous happened due to government action, it certainly would have been leaked by someone. This sounds like the theories about the US government blowing up the twin towers and shooting a missile into the Pentagon. This goes beyond tinfoil hat. More like titanium hat!
Since sailors and airmen are human, there is no way that at least one (and likely many) crewmen would not have come forward with the information, top secret be damned!
And exactly the same if it was a horrible accident during war games.
I agree. I haven't seen anything remotely convincing. The theories, in my opinion, belong on an Alex Jones blog.....not here.
IAWTP! People talk, and many would be willing to sell a story that sensational for mega-bucks IF IT WERE TRUE.
I agree. This is the kind of moonbat morass the leftists have fallen into over the last 5 years. Let's not waste our energy with pointless speculation.
Mine too, but not because it was something ala Ron Brown, but because Clinton would never want the stigma of "terrorism" staining (excuse the pun) his watch. I have always believed that the plane was taken down by a shoulder held grenade launcher(s) and is/was the work of Al Qaeda. I think the evidence pointed in that direction, Clinton admin. officials knew it and the word came down to squelch any reference to terror so as not to instill any panic which might get chalked up to Clinton and tarnish his "legacy". Recall what he looked like with Chris Wallace, the man KNOWS he was responsible (or irresponsible may be a better description) regarding the spread of terror in the '90's but he'll go down swinging to deny it!!
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.