Skip to comments.Cashill: FBI suppressed video of TWA (800) explosion / Are feds hiding crash imagery?
Posted on 09/20/2007 7:33:48 PM PDT by cgk
FBI suppressed video of TWA explosion
Recovered debris from TWA 800
More than six years after retired United Airline captain Ray Lahr launched his Freedom of Information Act petition into the fate of TWA Flight 800, the FBI has shown him likely by accident one seriously smoking gun.
The Boeing 747 blew up off the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1996. One of the FBI documents received recently by Lahr and his attorney details a communication that took place six days after the crash:
"The FBI guy who looked at this must not have read it, or not have realized what it would reveal, Otherwise he would have redacted most of it as before."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Oh really? Could you perhaps point me to the archives so I can check it out? All I can find is speculation on conspiracy sites.
Feel free to file a FOI request. Have fun. You know, you aren’t going to rile me up. Like I said, I know for a fact what happenned. If you don’t know, too bad for you. Not my issue.
Anyone who would base his plans on the belief that an airliner would pass by the same spot on the beach at the same time everyday has obviously never flown out of New York and has to qualify as one of the worlds dumbest terrorists.
Sorry that one was a clean equipment failure problem.
No. The issued the NOTAM about the training area because there was a P-3C out of Brunswick doing some low-level maneuvers in the area. The P-3 was in the area because a U.S. nuclear sub was transiting the area on it's way to New London and it was common for the Brunswick crews to take advantage of these rtansits to practice tracking subs in real life. If the Navy at first denied assets in the area then it's because they don't like to announce the comings and goings of their subs. Kind of shoots the whole 'stealth' part of their activities right out of the water. So now your questions were answered.
Besides the Navy being in the area, doing something or other, we have a Coast Guard. Certainly a missile fired from the water close to our shore, should arouse their interest. So far as I know it did not.
What Coast Guard assets were in the area and why should they have been on guard for a terrorist missile launch?
I'd need a whole lot more than some paranoid ramblings before I'd go through all that time and trouble.
You know, you arent going to rile me up. Like I said, I know for a fact what happenned. If you dont know, too bad for you. Not my issue.
Oh please, by all means enlighten us and explain just how you 'know' it happened. I'm up for a laugh.
I thought the official explanation was wake turbulence?
You’d be waiting an awful long time for that sunrise.
Actually, I believe President Reagan would have done the same thing.
I already mentioned how I knew. You are rude. Bye bye.
There was a cocktail party on Long Island, I think the Hamptons but it was somewhere on the South Fork on the water. At that party someone took a photograph of it. There were lots of witnesses and at least one picture. The FBI came and took the pictures and the negatives. That is one incident that I know of.
“Paranoid ramblings”... “conspiracy theories”... is this stuff coming from a handbook? There has to be another, more creative way to belittle people.
Check out the Coast Guard's mission. Pay special attention to the parts about Maritime Security and National Defense. The Coast Guard not reacting is sort of like police doing nothing after learning of a bank robbery.
FWIW. I’m not ready to say it happened that way, but I certainly concede it’s possible.
I’m surprised this wasn’t just moved to Chat: Conspiracy or maybe the Smoky Backroom. It was removed from news, extended news & crime/corruption. I thought I was being quite fair.
Refresh my memory. What was the basis upon which the Cardinal was resisting Klinton’s participation?
On behalf of everybody who wants the truth about how those 230 citizens were killed to be known, what you think we look like couldn't be any more insignificant.
But it's nice of you to leave the sports threads to share that with us.
This conspiracy stuff is embarrassing.
If?/ claimed by the “government” of the USA many things are conspiracy, as the TWA, why do they lock the investigation away for forty years? Then when we are allowed to view it, half of it is redacted.
Example, JFK assassination?
I wondered about that as well. Are they saying that someone tried to shoot it down five days earlier?
All of them.
Well, with you not having seen my guest, I must assume yours is REALLY lousy. ;-P
Not to be overtly christian, but I wonder what BJ Clinton sold to the Devil... I'm not convinced he EVER had a soul.
I'm perfectly willing to learn any new evidence either supporting or rebutting the claim TWA 800 was brought down intentionally. But that wasn't evidence. That was the worst kind of unsubstantiated innuendo.
All that blurb told me is that there was something the investigators discarded as unusable, unworthy of further consideration. Conspiracy nut-jobs immediately latch onto the fact something, anything was discarded and decide that must be the real story. They take that as some kind "evidence" of a conspiracy, of a coverup... It's not evidence, it is worthless noise in the pursuit of real information on the event.
So someone shot a video and saw something funny in it. After the crash what, they turn it over to the investigators. They look at it, conclude that what they see is consistent with a MANPAD, they obviously cannot state it is a video of a MANPAD launch. Apparently, there is nothing else to support/link the event captured on that video with the crash 5 days later. So the video is dropped from the investigation and not mentioned again.
Suppressed? You better believe it was suppressed. Why? Because it is just the kind of thing that if/when it gets out, will cause exactly this kind of hand wringing, finger pointing, this-must-be-it jumping to conclusions. After the investigators are satisfied it is not related, they don't want to have to spend time/energy/resources fighting public opinion and media circus refuting every third wild theory involving the video.
If that discarded video from nearly a week before the crash is the kind of "evidence" there is to support the missile claim, then IMHO there is nothing there to see/learn.
JFK, RFK, MLK
I remember that - the people were on the Today show with the photo - then later it was reported that the photo was confiscated by the FBI. The photo clearly showed something that looked like a missile heading toward the plane.
I think that the reason for the suppression is clear. If it was admitted that a missile was responsible, the terrorists would have been given a hugh victory. I hate to say it, but Clinton probably made the correct call in suppressing the facts. Flame away.
Being from Kansas City and knowing of Jack over the years is the one thing that has kept my mind open to the allegations of Federal manipulation. I have to ask myself, if Jack has been on this track hw can I ignore it?
There’s no way to prove it, but I think that this was not a fuel tank explosion, that it was a mistake by the military under Clinton, that he ordered the FBI to cover it up, and Bush came into office with the promise to continue the coverup.
I hope we find out the truth one day.
In other words, they would have had to have been in the most favorable launch position, directly under the course track of the aircraft and linearly somewhere on a line slightly in front of it to slightly behind it. It would depend on the seeker sensitivity of the missile - if it could lock on from a slightly forward aspect angle. That would be best, then the missile could fly nearly straight up. From slightly behind, the seeker gets a better look at the hot engine exhaust, but has a slightly longer tail-chase intercept.
I don't remember the specifics of the witnesses that claim to have seen a missile trail. Here again, if I remember correctly they thought they saw something arcing in, not climbing straight up. The other consideration is, why was there only one?
Think about it, put yourself in the planners position. You're a terrorist organization, and you want to shoot down an airliner, strike a blow, etc. You're going to go to all the trouble of setting this up... Why shoot only one missile? They are not that expensive. If you can find a source to get one, you can probably get more than one. A big 4 engine aircraft might just shake off a single small missile hit. Heat seekers go for the engine exhausts and fragment. 747s fly very well on 3 engines... We may hate terrorists, but don't assume they're stupid just 'cause they're fanatics. Something the size of a 747 I'd shoot at least 3 at it, figuring 1 to miss, and needing 2 good hits to have a fair chance of bringing it down - giving the pilots too many problems to cope with in time. I don't recall any of the witnesses described multiple missile trails.
I don't think anyone can definitely prove there wasn't a missile (hard to prove a negative). But examining the data it looks extremely unlikely.
So the theory would be something like either they were practicing/training (?) or that the tape shows an attempt at another aircraft earlier.
The first theory begs the question, why would they be so foolish as to train in such a populated area? That would be stupid, begging to be seen/reported. I still hold terrorists are fanatics, but not stupid. I don't think it would've been someone training.
The second theory begs the question, how did they miss? Why wasn't the missile heard/seen/reported by anyone? Also, if you took a shot, you would immediately execute your escape and evasion plan. They would not have stayed around or come back just a few days later to try again.
That's why I think investigators looked at this, said yes, it is consistent with the launch of a MANPAD. But it apparently is not definitively a launch. Also, there is apparently nothing else to indicate a launch took place, and nothing else to tie it to the crash a few days later.
it looks extremely unlikely.
= = =
Would that be so even for an advanced, higher umph, military model of such missles?
I think the evidence that the plane was shot down when taken as a whole . . . is more than impressive. I think it’s conclusive almost to the max.
Sometimes that's all it's worth. Cindy Sheehan types like SolarStorm may be convinced that the military leadership is full of bloodthirsty incompetents but I'm here to tell you that it isn't true. I spent 30 years in the Navy, active and reserve, and all of it on the East coast. And in all that time I never once heard of a missile firing outside of the Atlantic Fleet Missile Range in the Caribbean, and never heard of a live firing test or exercise of any kind north of the Virginia capes. The reason should be obvious for anyone with any sense at all - it is the most densely travelled air space in the world. The risks of accident are too great. So there is no conceivable reason for doing so. Give the military some credit for not being terminally stupid.
No, you didn't. You said that they were public knowledge but without pointing to any evidence supporting it. I had an uncle that said it was public knowledge that the government faked the moon landing. I didn't believe him, either. So toddle off if you want, but if I see you spreading nonsense again you can expect me to call you on it again.
I expect to wait even longer for John Kerry to say something I would believe.
At least I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Good! it needs to be embarassing.
I'm still waiting for the passenger manifest to be published.
This might be a good place to start: Eyewitness Highlights.
And more than 150 people, credible persons all, unrelated in any way, shape, or form, in many different vantage point geograpghical areas, are all liars, drunks, confused, media whores.
Metal from the plane clearly shows something went IN, and something came OUT.
Go ahead, flame me, I have a triple layer, double reinforced, Nomex suit on. And a spare in the closet.
I said nothing about clintoon.
This is certainly a Clintonesque reply.
I have never suggested that the missile which downed TWA 800 was a MANPAD. In fact, I believe I have refuted this idea.
You said you wanted evidence that a missile downed TWA 800. Not all missiles are MANPADS.
And while the eyewitness accounts might not be consistent with a MANPAD attack, they are certainly not consistent the idea that no missile at all was involved.
Could be, but why would the terrorists would remain quiet? After all it is their intent to terrorize.
I feel insulted now. I wasn’t attempting to give you a Clintonesque response. I have mentioned before that people who believe the missile theory would have to accept the possibility that a Naval missile downed the plane, which very few are willing to do.
736 eye witnesses saw a bright flash rising UP and hit the plane (a missile). The CIA tried to convince us that the bright light was debris floating DOWN from the plan contrary to all of the witnesses.
Give me a break.
Here is a 6 part series on Youtube. The last 2 sections give most of the evidence for a terrorist attack via 2 surface to air missiles
Bill Clinton didn't want to have to deal with terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism and sully his presidency with having to respond, so he ignored it and had all involved government agencies cover up the real cause.
His dislike for Clinton was common knowledge. I will have to do a check on old threads but I think it somehow became known in the media about the confrontation.
The nose (section) broke off, and would fall immediately, The tail does not get "heavier" but the center of gravity of the remaining part of the fuselage moves dramatically, and instantly, aft causing the tail to drop and the wings to STALL almost immediately as the maximum angle of attack is rapidly exceeded.
That plane would not "Zoom Climb" for 15 seconds with no nose, it would be in a near horizontal Accelerated Stall after about 2 seconds and then drop like a stone.
You are claiming that somehow, a plane that had just blown into two pieces and had all it's engine and flying surface controls severed, was able to maintain stability to climb vertically for over 15 seconds before it pitched over and headed down.
A lightly loaded 747 can climb at about 6000 FPM, You are claiming that crippled, out of control, plane with no inherent stability can outperform that by a factor of 2
And finally, can you account for this eye witness testimony?
......Writes Dwight Brumley, a 20-year Navy vet who watched the tragedy unfold from above, after watching "Silenced":
"The CIA animation in no way represents what I saw that night. Based on the time line, as I understand it, the "flare" that I reported seeing off the right side of and below USAir 217 could not, I repeat, could not have been TWA 800 in crippled flight just before and after it exploded. There are two reasons why. First, TWA 800 would have been moving in my field of view from left to right, not from right to left as I clearly observed; and second, my understanding of the basic laws of aerodynamics leads me to conclude there is no way that TWA 800, with the nose section gone, could have possibly climbed 3,000-4,000 feet as the CIA video portrays."