Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TWA Flight 800 - Someone Has Finally Talked!
WorldNetDaily ^ | January 31, 2002 | Reed Irvine

Posted on 01/31/2002 5:49:54 PM PST by VectoRama

Someone has finally talked!

By Reed Irvine
© 2000

Those who accept the government's claim that the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by a fuel-tank explosion dismiss the evidence that the plane was shot down accidentally by missiles launched in a Navy exercise off the Long Island coast. They say that such an accident could not have been covered up because a lot of Navy personnel would have known about it, and some of them would have talked.

One of them has finally done so. He recently said in an interview that I recorded that he was on the deck of a Navy submarine very close to the crash site and saw TWA 800 shot down.

He was brought to my attention by an acquaintance of his who told me that this retired Navy petty officer had said he was "underneath TWA 800 when he saw a missile hit it and the 747 explode overhead." He had told this acquaintance that he had given a statement to the FBI when they returned to their port, and that the FBI had checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they had when they left port. Asked if there were other military vessels in the area, he had said, "Yes, several."

When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile, this former presidential press secretary, U.S. Senator and ABC News correspondent, was mercilessly attacked by his former colleagues. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who learned of the Navy's involvement from a friend who had a son in the Navy. The son was said to have personal knowledge that a Navy missile had downed the plane, but his father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy was hiding.

There are hundreds of Navy and Coast Guard personnel, as well as some FBI, CIA, FAA, NTSB and former White House employees who know that the real cause of the crash of TWA 800 was papered over with a tissue of lies. Two of them, James Kallstrom and George Stephanopoulos, have made statements that indicate an official cover-up. Stephanopoulos, a Clinton adviser who is now an ABC News correspondent, mentioned on the air a secret meeting in the White House situation room "in the aftermath of the TWA 800 bombing." Kallstrom, who headed the FBI's TWA 800 investigation, told me – and I have this on tape – that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed.

Our newly found talker was on one of those submarines. The Navy claims that it was at least 80 miles from the crash site, but he says it was very close, and that is confirmed by the radar tracks. In our taped interview, he was more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn't want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement.

He said he saw "something come up." "I don't know what in the hell it was," he said, "but that's what it looked ..." Not completing what he started to say, he said, "You know, something went up." He estimated that it went up about a mile from his location, which was only a few miles from the shore. He said there were a couple of other subs nearby. When told that the radar tracks of all three disappeared because they submerged when the plane went down, he said, "Yeah, that's what we did."

He acknowledged that a number of Navy vessels were heading for W-105, a large area of the ocean south of Long Island that is used for naval maneuvers. He said that nothing they did off Long Island was classified, but he was not comfortable in discussing it.

When I called him a few days later, he was scared to death. He feared the Navy would withdraw his pension if I reported what he had said. It was not possible to convince him that the Navy couldn't do that. Not wanting to worsen his anxiety, his name and other details are being withheld as we try to get his and other interview reports that the FBI has withheld.

Reed Irvine is the chairman of Accuracy In Media, a media watchdog group based in Washington, D.C.

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-165 next last
I know I'll never convince those who long ago wedded themselves to that bizarre and untenable theory, but it is so obviously implausible to any credible Sailor with a shred of USN experience that it just isn't worth even arguing over.

Well thats just because YOU ARE STILL WORKING for THEM!! You must be part of the COVERUP! {/sarcasm}

Hey, dont you know that on FR we already have amateur aviation and military experts whose knowledge dwarfs yours? What, you worked on a sub? Heck, these guys read an article in popular mechanics about them!

41 posted on 01/31/2002 7:28:42 PM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
"They wrap that foil too tight around their heads they can't see,

Oh, so true! I had to give up on tinfoil.

A collander works better. Cooler too.It's holes are too small for radio reception, but big enough for ventilation. I attach a bungee cord to the legs as a chin strap. Stays on when I hang my head out the car window.

You all should try it!

42 posted on 01/31/2002 7:35:36 PM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

In my opinion, this submariner, if he does exist, has an axe to grind with the Navy.

So I guess James Kallstrom also had an axe to grind with the Navy when he told Irvine that the Navy was conducting classified maneuvers under the crash..... Surely you can come up with a better cover story than that.

43 posted on 01/31/2002 7:43:53 PM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: HoustonCurmudgeon
Senator Pierre Salinger, appointed in 1964 by then California Governor Pat Brown to fill the vacancy which resulted from the death of Democrat Senator Claire Engel.
44 posted on 01/31/2002 7:51:50 PM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Confederate Keyester
I have a buddy who was a Submariner at the time of TWA 800, and we talked about the possibility of it being shot down. Not by a sub, but maybe some other ship, or even a plane for that matter. We ran down a few scenarios, and basically there were only a couple that made sense, and some that well, would put me in the Tin Foil Hat crowd for a while.

There are two reasons for a coverup. One reason is to keep the trust of the people. When you perpetrate this kind of cover-up, it's to make sure that the citizens have faith in your military, and or leaders. We can look to a few examples like the JFK and MLK assassinations. Another cover up would be Waco. Yet another cover up would be Gary Condit. These are examples of keeping the faith types of coverups.

Then there's the other reason, The reason that you can't explain what happened, because if the truth got out it would bring down governments world wide. These coverups are the kind you see on TV. The UFO things, and the conspiracy type coverups. Things that make the X-files look like non-fiction. If it was a UFO that brought down TWA 800, there would be many questions asked of our government. The first would be, how come we didn't know about it. The next questions would be even more intrusive. How long have aliens been visiting us? Have you made a deal with them for technology. Are abductions happening, and how come you let it happen? Why are our cows being mutilated in goofy ways? How come you're grabbing up so much land, are you making room for them to live in our country too?

The main question I would ask, if it were a UFO accident, is what kind of retribution or apology can we exact upon them?

This is why if you cover it up, just to keep the faith, you're better off, than if it's to hide something more sinister.

I've now removed my tin foil hat.

45 posted on 01/31/2002 7:56:44 PM PST by MadRobotArtist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Magician
I believe that the Navy now has an antiaircraft missile that can be launched from the torpedo tubes, so it is usable on existing subs. The subs need antiaircraft capabilities to take out an enemy ASW aircraft that might be hunting them.

OK, some problems with your idea:

First, the range of the missile is going to be extremely limited--if by nothing other than the limits on SENSORS passing through the air/water interface. The only thing you're going to be able to rely on that doesn't involve coming to periscope/mast depth and sticking up the BPS-15 radar set will be passive sonar, listening to the noise of the aircraft on the ocean surface. That signal fades out very quickly as the target gains altitude.

Second, a SUBSAM doesn't NEED to reach up to 13,000 feet to bag an ASW aircraft; most ASW ops are flown at much lower altitude.

Third, the missile can easily generate what is known as a "flaming datum." In other words, if the plane manages to get off a warning that it's under missile attack, that area of ocean is going to suddenly have a LOT of ASW aircraft overhead, and any other ASW assets (ships and subs) will start closing in. A submarine's greatest weapon is its stealth. Once it loses that, it's in BIG trouble, as it has very few weapons available to it.

46 posted on 01/31/2002 7:58:24 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
Re: Sub AA missile

I don't have any specific information. I just remember reading about the development of such a missile about 5 years ago.

47 posted on 01/31/2002 8:57:07 PM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Confederate Keyester
That was the second interview, after he had laready been talked to by the Navy. He was desperately avoiding the word "missle" and backing off the story.
48 posted on 01/31/2002 9:35:28 PM PST by Plummz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wheezer
But who's missile?........considering the WH occupant at the time, I'm open to the terrorist got lucky position

I firmly believe it was a terrorist missile or bomb. Stephanopoulos did not call it an accident. He called it a bombing

49 posted on 01/31/2002 9:57:49 PM PST by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy; Rokke; SBeck
The original article by Reed Irvine is dated January 31, 2002 and is available at Accuracy In Media's website. Click here.
50 posted on 01/31/2002 10:05:11 PM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Hey, I just saw your comment about Elvis. Reed Irvine is a good man. I've never known him to lie. You may differ with his conclusions, but you can take his word as the gospel truth.
51 posted on 01/31/2002 10:31:23 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Consider also that the missile that went up did not have to come from a surfaced sub. There may have been one that wasn't surfaced, while the others observed.
52 posted on 01/31/2002 10:35:06 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ragin1; _Jim
No, not _Jim. Ol _Jim seems to stick to these threads like flies on rice. No need to page him. It's his duty to shoot these down. He'll be along.
53 posted on 01/31/2002 10:40:04 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: yazd
I never knew that. Good find.
54 posted on 01/31/2002 10:41:17 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: yazd
Nice post. You are exactly right.
55 posted on 01/31/2002 10:50:14 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Long ago I realized that this case had changed.

Those who wear the tin foil are the ones that still believe the government line on this. How many times did the White House mount a situation room scenario due to an airline crash prior to 09/11?

My guess would be zippety doo da outside of the TWA-800 missile downing. It just isn't a White House duty to scramble for an airliner crash. The NTSB takes over and does an investigation.

That one glaring fact seems to be lost on the real tin foilers.

56 posted on 01/31/2002 11:02:46 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Again, I'll ask what is the wisdom of such a system? Submarines evade aircraft and helicopters, the don't take them on. For such a missile to work there would have to be some way of targeting it. A simple heat seaking warhead won't work because it has to be aimed in the general direction of the target so it can pick up the heat source. One way or another a sub would have to stick something above the water to acquire the target. If it is a radar mast then the radar radiations automatically give the sub away. If it is something else it still advertises the subs presence and gives it's location away. Launching such a missile gives the subs position away, too, and would be suicide if there are more than one aircraft involved in the hunt.
57 posted on 02/01/2002 2:47:51 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I would suggest that this thread took an unfortunate left turn at the mention of submarines.  The observer didn't state that he saw a missile fired by one of the submarines.  The fact that three submarines did show up on radar, then disappear is mentioned.  But the significance of this is not that the submarines were shooters, but that they were there at all.  Let's remember that at first we were assured that no military activity was taking place in the area.

First reports stated that the closest Navy ships were 130 miles away.  This was used to discredit the idea that one of them could have fired a missile.  Contrast that with what we have just been told.  The first statement was a flagrant bald faced lie!  There was clearly a significant operation going on that evening, directly under the flight path of TWA-800.  We know there was a P3 Orion flying over.  It was reportedly discharging flares.  Now we know there were three submarines in the area as well.

We haven't heard the last of this.  What will become accepted over time, is that our government lied.  People will assume that it had a good reason to lie.  And over time it will just become accepted that TWA-800 was downed by a missile, perps unknown.  Perhaps at some point we'll know that it was our missile, perhaps not.

The facts are that our Commander in Chief, the FBI, the NTSB, the CIA, the Navy and other concerns knew what happened all along.  The aircraft was hit by at least one and possibly two missiles.  The shooter could very well have been one of ours.  I do not believe that a massive coverup would have been launched to avoid us knowing of an act of terrorism.

Due to this incident and several others, our government has severely damaged it's ability to be trusted.  Couple the security type problems we are facing with the legislative problems we are facing.  Our leaders are passing some incredibly devistating legislation, the full aspects of which will not be realized until years have passed.  There isn't any level of government that can be fully trusted.  From our farms, to our airports, to our skys, to our borders and to the halls of our givernment buildings, there's a growing odor of doom wafting through our national concience.

I don't like what I'm seeing one bit.

58 posted on 02/01/2002 3:09:55 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
The reason I have such scepticism about these kinds of theories is that they go against everything I know about submarines and missiles. I spent almost 9 years on active duty in the Navy all of it with the Atlantic Fleet. I was stationed on guided missile destroyers and frigates for almost all of it. My ships have operated against U.S. and Allied boats time and again in exercises, and conducted a number of missile firings, including several fired at night. And I can sat without a doubt that none of the descriptions I have seen remotely resembles any of the missile firings I have participated in. A missile fired at night lights up the sky like nothing you have ever seen. It rides a plume of smoke and flame the length of a telephone pole. There is no way that a Navy ship could have fired a missile anywhere near TWA800 without someone seeing something like that. Second, of all the live fire exercises I have participated in, none of them took place north of the Virginia capes. All of the missile firings took place off Puerto Rico. Missiles aren't fired near Long Island precisely because it is the most heavily travelled air corridore in the world. None of these theories make the slightest bit of sense to me and I speak as someone who knows what he is talking about.
59 posted on 02/01/2002 3:32:57 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
---the militry doesn't have a way to control a missile from another asset overhead? Like, couldn't a missile be launched, then it's targeting be accomplished from a very high flying drone aircraft, or satellite or awacs or surface ship elsewhere's?
60 posted on 02/01/2002 3:56:01 AM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-165 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson