Posted on 12/14/2006 9:28:35 AM PST by Hal1950
Slowly but surely, retired United Airline Capt. Ray Lahr and attorney John Clarke are prying open the can of worms known as the TWA Flight 800 investigation, and sooner or later the major media will have to take notice.
WABC in New York already has. Two weeks ago, the station's Jim Hoffer did a short feature headlined "Major court ruling in TWA Flight 800 case." What proved to be most newsworthy about the feature, however, was not the ruling in question but a surprising admission by former NTSB managing director Peter Goelz.
As Hoffer noted, and has been reported here previously, a U.S. district court judge in Los Angeles has granted Lahr access to most of the documents he has requested to get at the truth behind the alleged 3,200-foot "zoom climb" of the damaged aircraft.
In the WABC feature, Hoffer interviewed not only Lahr but also Goelz, who oversaw the investigation. Wittingly or not, Goelz made the stunning comment that "whether [TWA Flight 800] climbed 3,200 feet or not is really irrelevant."
Irrelevant? Really? The FBI and the CIA did not think so. In 1996-1997, the two agencies climbed over the notorious "wall" to collaborate on an animation showing how a crippled 747 could climb rocket-like for 3,200 feet after its nose had been blown off. This animation was critical. The FBI needed such a scenario to silence the media and close the case.
The CIA video could not have been more definitive. "The Eyewitnesses Did Not See a Missile," reads an underlined script on the video screen. No, "What the witnesses saw was a Boeing 747 in various stages of crippled flight." The FBI showed the CIA video at its final press conference in November 1997, thereby ending any serious investigation.
Despite doubts, the NTSB stuck to the story. At the final NTSB hearing in August 2000, Dr. David Mayer, acting chief of the NTSB's Orwellian-titled "Human Performance Division," reaffirmed the zoom climb. "As the airplane maneuvered in crippled flight," said Mayer in an attempt to explain what the eyewitnesses saw, "it appeared to fly nearly straight up." Tellingly, at no NTSB hearing were the eyewitnesses, several of them pilots or military personnel, ever allowed to testify.
Goelz himself knows just how relevant the zoom climb is. His claim that "there is absolutely no evidence that a missile was fired at this aircraft" hinges on the zoom climb. Without it, there is no way to explain the testimony of the 270 FBI eyewitnesses who had seen lights streaking up toward the plane in the seconds before it exploded. Without it, that eyewitness testimony becomes once again all but irrefutable evidence of a missile strike.
Much of that testimony was vivid and specific. One travel industry professional, for instance, told the FBI that she was standing on the beach when she noticed a 747 "level off." With her eye still on TWA Flight 800, she watched in awe as a "red streak" with a "light gray smoke trail" moved up towards the airliner at a 45-degree angle. Then, the "red streak went past the right side and above the aircraft before arcking [sic] back down toward the aircrafts [sic] right wing."
She saw "the front of the aircraft separate from the back" and watched as the burning pieces of the debris fell from the aircraft. She provided a drawing that showed the scenario in some detail, including the "upside down Nike swoosh," which ended at the plane's right wing. By the way, she correctly identified the departure of the plane's nose long before that detail became publicly known. For the record, hers is one of perhaps 100 comparably strong testimonies.
A veteran safety investigator and a serious student of aerodynamics, Ray Lahr thought the zoom climb scenario a canard the moment he saw it. There is scarcely a pilot anywhere who disagrees with Lahr. Buttressed by wide support in the aviation community, he began his nine-year quest to see the evidence used to calculate the zoom climb.
Lahr is making progress. The Los Angeles judge clearly sided with him. He ruled that the case Lahr and Clarke presented was sufficiently strong "to permit plaintiff to proceed based on his claim that the government acted improperly in its investigation of Flight 800 or at least performed in a grossly negligent fashion."
Ten years out, the evidence for a missile strike grows stronger by the week. A Pulitzer awaits the first major media organization to tackle this case in a serious way. Shamefully, none ever has.
Get Jack Cashill's groundbreaking exposé, "First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America"
This is a crucial point that has been overlooked. Who could tell the CIA to make that animation? Only one person: the President of the United States.
And those same factors were in play in the design of the 707. We should've seen something like this much earlier. Hell, we should've seen a KC-135 or two just spontaneously explode in similar fashion back in the 1970s, given how hard SAC & MAC flogged them during Operation Chrome Dome and the Vietnam War, and how badly maintenance standards slipped during the post-Vietnam "hollow force" period.
Tom Clancy said it in The Hunt For Red October, through Admiral James Greer, the Director of Central Intelligence.
I like to think it came from someone more hoity-toity, like Metternich or Machiavelli, but it could be original to Clancy. I haven't read Red October in years; might be time for another run at it.
We did. And I guess I can't convince you that the wiring and fuel systems of 707's (or KC-135's) are not the same as the wiring and fuel systems in 747's. But I would like to sell you my buddy's Cheverolet Corvette. It looks like a 1988 Caprice Classic, but a car is a car and a Chevy is a Chevy. It's all the same except for the name. He's asking for $40,000. Not bad for a "Vette". But seriously, your insistence that engineering flaws should reveal themselves according to schedule ignores both reality and the complex nature of the environment in which engineering marvels like 747's (or 707's operate). I currently fly the MD-11. An MD-11, Swissair 111 caught fire in flight and crashed into the ocean in 1998. I currently fly in former Swissair MD-11's. Know how many changes were made to their flammable insulation and faulty wiring after Swissair 111 went down? None. But despite the aircraft being used 24/7 by several cargo and passenger services all over the world, the same problem has never happened again. That doesn't mean it never happened or that it won't again. And it doesn't mean it's not a problem. It just means that the same set of circumstances has not been duplicated since...yet.
Actually, it did not come to that conclusion. The NTSB said:
'On April 29, 2005, the Accident Investigation Committee of Thailand issued a final report in which they determined that the Probable Cause of the accident was an explosion of the center wing tank resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of the ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but the most likely source was an explosion originating at the center wing tank pump as a result of running the pump in the presence of metal shavings and a fuel/air mixture.'
You will kindly notice the 'could not be determined with certainty.' The prevailing opinion in Bangkok is that a briefcase under the seat that was going to be occupied by a local politician exploded too soon due the the plane being late. Since my buddy was one of the passengers I'll stand by his first hand report.
My wife & I will never forget seeing that video loop on a satellite feed that night.
- As you say, it was never shown again.
Perhaps selling books is a factor. But why would that matter to you so long as he manages to push things closer to the truth? Do you have any solid reason to believe the official version of events or just reasons to belittle anyone who does not?
You might find reply #56 of interest.
Unless, that is, it was meant to be simple payback.
Recall that, on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes accidentally brought down Iran Air's Flight #665, a 747, over the Persian Gulf...with a missile.
If Iran was responsible, there was no need for them to advertise the fact.
Before you carry this too far, I want to be clear. A terrorist group did try to take credit. But they were trying to take credit for something they did not even do.
The 'truth' of the downing of Flight 800 has been stifled, and was due to a chain of events that no one would ever have predicted.
It was stifled because the details were just too embarrassing for the Clinton Administration to have show up on the news.
The idea that everyone with any knowledge of the event has kept quiet, and that the concept that they could keep quiet is almost impossible, is not true either.
Those in the know have made attempts to disclose the information, and have been pointedly ignored by the MSM, and some have been 'shut up' by their former superiors as a way of protecting those who were in charge.
The whole event was almost like a clown act at the circus, and most of those involved are keeping their mouths shut for a reason.
Not one reporter, not one editor, has been willing to jump on the story of the century, which would be worth millions. Uh huh.
And even your own posts have been notably lacking in any details or evidence. Did THEY get to you, too?
Correct, it was not a terrorist group attack but an attack by a nation state, that is Libya. When a terrorist attacks we do not know whom to attack. If it were known at the time that Libya was behind the bombing, the Brits and the USA would have immediately destroyed Kaddafi in Libya.
Is it possible there were some hand written notes regarding TWA 800 on the papers that Sandy Berger stole and destoyed?
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.