Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
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 WorldNetDaily.com

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
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-165 next last

1 posted on 01/31/2002 5:49:54 PM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Yeah, ha ha, an anonymous someone. Did he see Elvis too?
2 posted on 01/31/2002 5:54:34 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Will the truth finally break out? I doubt it, but I sure wish it would.

The case of TWA 800 and the case of the recent plane crash in Flushing are entirely different. There is overwhelming evidence that TWA 800 was brought down by a missile. The evidence in last fall's disaster is unclear so far, and the witness testimony is conflicting and uncertain, to my mind at least.

Once the government covers something up, for whatever reason, it usually stays covered up, even under a new administration. But we can always hope. Clinton is such a scum. He has hundreds of crimes to answer for.

3 posted on 01/31/2002 5:58:59 PM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
**Bump**
4 posted on 01/31/2002 5:59:19 PM PST by TwoStep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
In my opinion, Reed Irvine is a trustworthy source. If he says he talked to a submariner, I believe him. But whether this will go any further is another kettle of fish.
5 posted on 01/31/2002 6:00:21 PM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
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.

Hmmm....how many aircraft have been shot down with torpedoes? For that matter, how many have been shot down with Tomahawks and Harpoons?

I'd like to hear what the submariners here think of the Navy fellow's terminology, and whether that's what they call being outside on the hull or on the sail.

6 posted on 01/31/2002 6:00:49 PM PST by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Paging _Jim. You can appologize to a large portion of the forum now.
7 posted on 01/31/2002 6:01:35 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Thank God for Reed Irvine! Ya gotta love it!
8 posted on 01/31/2002 6:02:14 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
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.

Senator?????

9 posted on 01/31/2002 6:05:17 PM PST by HoustonCurmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Rivero; Plummz; aristeides
There is no doubt now.
10 posted on 01/31/2002 6:07:49 PM PST by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
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.
11 posted on 01/31/2002 6:09:00 PM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
. If he says he talked to a submariner, I believe him

Yes but the Submariner was Monica and she went down on Bill no up on a plane.

Ross Perot has yet to admitt that great sucking sound was Monica in the oval office.

12 posted on 01/31/2002 6:13:42 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Magician
What do you have to support this? If such a system did exist how practical would it be since there is no way for a submerged submarine to target the aircraft and if it surfaced or stuck up a mast with radar it would just give away it's position.
13 posted on 01/31/2002 6:14:36 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Submarines spend almost no time on the surface (they are actually faster completely submerged, for one thing) except when entering or exiting a shallow port.

There would be no reason for there to be THREE surfaced submarines in an "exercise" for example.

This all stinks on ice. WND give DEBKA a run for its money most days for pure unadulterated crap.

14 posted on 01/31/2002 6:19:26 PM PST by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Myself, I've always believed what Senator A; D'Amato said the night of the crash, and that was that it was brought down by a missile....Big Al never did know when to shut up.

But who's missile?... well at first I agreed with those who suspected a navy misfire...but post 9-11, and considering the WH occupant at the time, I'm open to the terrorist got lucky position.
15 posted on 01/31/2002 6:19:33 PM PST by wheezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Submarines don't carry surface-to-air missiles that I've ever heard of, nor do their targeting and fire-control systems even contemplate such a thing. They depend on submerging for their defense, not slugging it out on the surface. So, unless it was a surface ship that launched the missile, or the secret manuvers were to test some sort of new sub-based SAM (which would be a pretty big mod to a sub, and of questionable value IMO), this story doesn't make sense.

It's also pretty rare to step on the deck of a sub when it's out at sea. Unless you're doing something like launching/recovering a boat or the like. It would be useful to know what he was supposedly doing. Or did he mean he was up on the sail and the story just got the terminology wrong? Something else to contemplate.

16 posted on 01/31/2002 6:19:57 PM PST by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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

I heard that years ago, they were talking about a mast mounted Stinger system for the Seawolf. I'd be interested in seeing any sources you have on this submarine mounted SAM system, especially range.

17 posted on 01/31/2002 6:20:55 PM PST by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
reed irvine bump
18 posted on 01/31/2002 6:25:49 PM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
I am wondering about the logic of the source trying to remain a secret. I would imagine the Navy could pretty easily narrow it down with the information in this article. How many recently retired petty officers who served on submarines which were surfaced at the time of the crash and within a reasonable range to be a witness could there be?
19 posted on 01/31/2002 6:32:36 PM PST by sharktrager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
nothing to see here folks, move along, move along;
20 posted on 01/31/2002 6:33:22 PM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Yeah, ha ha, an anonymous someone. Did he see Elvis too?

"Anonymous"? Reed knows who the guy is, and is withholding the name due to the person fearing retaliation. Reed is not the type to make this up.

21 posted on 01/31/2002 6:35:07 PM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
LOL! I think ya gotta put _Jim in the To: box.
22 posted on 01/31/2002 6:36:22 PM PST by Ragin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
The pilot of the HH-60 Major Meyers (Nam Vet) from the NY Air National Guard, 106th Air Rescue Group... already said it was a missle, he was doing a mission in the area (so close that he had to evade falling junk) to support a "RAMS" training mission (rubber raft from a HC-130 dumped in the water and pararescuemen swim to it...yada yada)
23 posted on 01/31/2002 6:39:59 PM PST by alphadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoustonCurmudgeon
Salinger was indeed a U.S. Senator for a few months, appointed to fill the remainder of Claire Engle's term when he died in 1964. See: http://politicalgraveyard.com/geo/CA/ofc/ussen.html
24 posted on 01/31/2002 6:41:59 PM PST by yazd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Submarines don't carry surface-to-air missiles

Stingers and maybe a little gismo launched out or the "tubes" the kinda floats on the surface bobbing nose up when the anti sub plane or whatever flies over....well surprise....just guessing don't know for sure.

25 posted on 01/31/2002 6:46:29 PM PST by alphadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager
I am wondering about the logic of the source trying to remain a secret.

I agree that the Navy should be able to track the guy down with just this information and so he'd be better off coming out of the closet. But if by that you suggest that the story is questionable. Consider that the actions of two people are involved, Irvine and a source. The actions of Irvine in reporting what someone told him are not the same as the actions or fears of the person he spoke to. The source did not think "I'll report my story but keep my identity secret." If he did, that would be strange... but that is not the case here. The source also became spooked after their first discourse.

It will be interesting to see what if anything develops from this.

26 posted on 01/31/2002 6:48:17 PM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
bump
27 posted on 01/31/2002 6:49:49 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
I have posted on this forum several times about a student I had in a class I taught that was the one on a sub in the Navy in the position of "locking on" targets in the area 800 went down, and they would practice by locking onto commercial aircraft. he said it was only one more step to fire. I am not saying that is the case in this, but it was not a center tank aircraft failure that caused it. There *may* be some NTSB agents have never SEEN an airplane before becoming an investigator ;)
28 posted on 01/31/2002 6:51:08 PM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: VectoRama
. 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."

Opps. That was suppose to be a Clinton secret.
The tin foilers still don't believe it. They wrap that foil too tight around their heads they can't see, I guess.

30 posted on 01/31/2002 6:55:44 PM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alphadog
I'm pretty familiar with submarines, having worked on the communications system used for Tomahawk targeting, and I've not heard of anything like a tube-launched anti-air missile. I have a difficult time conceiving of the circumstances in which you'd be messing with an experimental one near the coast like that. They also need some means of positive targeting. You wouldn't just pop one out to float on the surface and activate it to shoot down whatever comes within range. At least I wouldn't. Never know what those dweebs at Naval Research Lab might do in their drunken stupor (just kidding, NRLers).
31 posted on 01/31/2002 6:57:40 PM PST by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wheezer
But who's missile?... well at first I agreed with those who suspected a navy misfire...but post 9-11, and considering the WH occupant at the time, I'm open to the terrorist got lucky position.

I'm not a fan of the friendly fire scenario. That would involve a wide ranging coverup. What's really weird is the night of the crash some kind of practice "missile" was photographed over the area. This photograph was included in one of the issues of Paris Match.

32 posted on 01/31/2002 6:58:37 PM PST by UberVernunft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
read 28?
33 posted on 01/31/2002 7:00:30 PM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: UberVernunft
What's really weird is the night of the crash some kind of practice "missile" was photographed over the area.

This should properly be termed a "drone", perhaps towed by another aircraft.

34 posted on 01/31/2002 7:04:08 PM PST by UberVernunft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
"Anonymous"? Reed knows who the guy is, and is withholding the name due to the person fearing retaliation. Reed is not the type to make this up.

Reed is careful not to state that the missle (or whatever the witness saw) came from a sub, but he is clearly stating that, if his witness is to be believed, the authorities have lied to us about the location of USN subs. This is a big advance in the process of untangling the coverup.
35 posted on 01/31/2002 7:05:15 PM PST by yazd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: VectoRama
Excuse me, I wanted to know how is this was true there would only be 36 posts after ALL this time. Then I reas the year 2000 mark on the article.

Why the article at this time?

37 posted on 01/31/2002 7:08:52 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
This is so sad because I used to have such a great deal of respect for Reid Irvine. In this case, however, he really is dead wrong. I was the weapons officer on board USS Normandy in 1991-1993, a few years before this alleged shoot down. Normandy is the usual culprit cited by conspiracy theorists as the alleged source of the missile. From my own experience as a Navy officer with extensive battle group experience, I can tell you that this Navy shoot-down theory is pure bunk. 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.

In my opinion, this submariner, if he does exist, has an axe to grind with the Navy. After his first interview with Irvine, he probably realized he was in over his head with his "sea story" and hence his reticence when Irvine tried to get his story on tape.

38 posted on 01/31/2002 7:09:22 PM PST by JHL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
reas = read. I found the article date of Jan 31. I at least feel better now about that.

The story is a story still though.

39 posted on 01/31/2002 7:10:07 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: yazd
Exactly. It's a virtual certainty that a missile, or possibly two missiles, brought down the plane. But no one has brought forward any evidence to say who fired the missile. It could have been the naval exercise, it could have been terrorists in a small boat. This statement only says that people on the subs saw the missile--as did many others, including a number of pilots who were Vietnam veterans and know what ordinance explosions look like.

Clinton covered things up and lied more or less instinctively, so it could easily have been terrorists who were responsible, and he didn't want that to get out because he might have to do something about it.

As for losing his pension, a number of retiring generals were threatened with just that penalty by clinton. There are ways of doing it. Anyone who has been in the service knows that the mysterious military bureaucracy can do anything it wants, and no one ever knows who was responsible.

40 posted on 01/31/2002 7:26:54 PM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JHL
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]

To: JHL
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-165 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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