Skip to comments.TWA Flight 800 - "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IS A LIE? I CAN'T"
Posted on 02/28/2002 9:31:30 AM PST by Asmodeus
AIM Report: 2002 Report # 03 - CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IS A LIE? I CAN'T
By Reed Irvine
|2002 Report #03||February 25, 2002|
| CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IS A LIE? I CAN'T
My by-line is on this article because it involves some very sensitive conversations that I have had and opinions about them that are best discussed in the first person. I am revealing the name of the Navy master chief who last November told an acquaintance of his that on the evening of July 17, 1996, he was on the bridge of the USS Trepang, a submarine that was practically underneath TWA Flight 800 when the plane exploded and crashed into the sea.
His acquaintance, whose name I wont disclose because it adds nothing to the story, had called me the night before on a line in my office that had been used to take calls for the TWA 800 Eyewitness Alliance generated by an ad placed in The Washington Times on August 15, 2000. He shared our views about the cause of the crash, and we had a good conversation. The next morning he called again to tell me that he had just run into a casual acquaintance who was a retired Navy petty officer. Because of his discussion with me the night before, he brought up TWA 800. Here is an edited partial transcript of our conversation. [H for him and I for me]
H: Have you ever heard of the submarine Tripanga?
I obtained Beers phone number from information and found him willing to talk. In our taped interview, he was somewhat more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didnt want to do anything that might mess up his retirement, but nothing was said about the conversation being off the record. I told him that I was with Accuracy in Media and recommended that he visit our Web site, where he would find a lot of articles we had written about TWA 800. The following is a partial transcript of the taped interview. I did not begin taping at the very beginning of the conversation. The transcript begins where the taping started. This was Thurs., Nov. 15 at 10:00 a.m.
B: I told everything, you know, when the Navy came on board with everybody else on my submarine.
I called Randy again the next morning, Friday, Nov. 16. He asked me to call him back Monday morning, Nov. 19. I did, and I found myself talking to an entirely different person. The confident, courageous master chief had been transformed into a quivering moral coward. He said he had talked to his skipper over the weekend and that he had been reminded that he had signed certain papers when he retired from the Navy. Whoever it was that he had talked to had scared him to death. He feared that he was going to lose his retirement because of what he told me. He claimed he had spoken off the record, but I told him that was not so and that was very clear from the tape that I had recorded.
I said I didnt want to hurt him and that there was no way the Navy could rescind his disability pension because he told the truth about what he had seen on the evening of July 17, 1996. Something had obviously gone wrong and they had successfully covered it up, but that too was wrong. It would be a scandal if they tried to deprive him of his pension because he had helped expose an illegal, immoral cover-up of a mistake that had cost the lives of 230 people. Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, who tried very hard to pin the blame on terrorists, told me several times that if it turned out that the Navy was responsible he would spearhead a demand that the officers behind it be court-martialed.
I told Randy that he had a moral obligation to go public with what he knew and to help us expose the cover-up. I cited the example set by another chief petty officer, Kathleen Janoski, who was in charge of photography for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Dover Air Force Base. She had found and photographed the perfectly round hole, about the diameter of a .45-caliber bullet, in the top of the head of the late Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. She had also photographed what was called the lead snowstorm inside his skull that showed up on the head x-ray. She took photos of the x-rays that were up on a light box, and it was a good thing that she did, because the one showing the lead snowstorm was destroyed. The colonel in charge rejected recommendations of three lieutenant colonels that an autopsy be performed on Browns body.
Kathleen Janoski had put her job at risk when she was still on active duty. She was relieved of her duties, and she feared she was going to be court-martialed. But she nevertheless shared her photos with Chris Ruddy who reported on the suspicious hole in the top of Ron Browns head and the lead snowstorm in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. I suggested that he ought to show as much courage as she had. Kathleen Janoski retired and is drawing her pension.
Nothing I could say had any effect. He explained that he had lost his job, and although his wife was working, they would be in deep trouble if he lost his pension. I can sympathize with him, but there are whistleblowers in the government who risk their jobs by exposing wrongdoing. If we want to encourage more government employees to follow their example it would make sense to reward the whistleblowers and punish those who see the wrongdoing but seal their lips and close their eyes. I couldnt budge Randy Beers, but one of the significant things about that conversation was that he did not deny the truth of anything he had told me when we first talked.
When Pierre Salinger held a press conference in March 1997 and 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 in the media. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who had a friend whose son was in the Navy. The son was said to have called home and told his family that we shot down the airliner. Salinger said the father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy wanted to keep hidden. That, of course, was dismissed as hearsay.
We succeeded in verifying that Randy Beers was a chief petty officer on the Trepang and that he was the ships corpsman. We verified that Lt. Michael Leitner, with whom he drank Diet Pepsi on the Trepangs bridge on the evening of July 17, 1996, was also a member of the crew. What Beers said about the Navy ships in the area that night and the exercise that was being conducted confirmed what we already knew from the radar data obtained by the Flight 800 Independent Research Organization, FIRO, and what Jim Kallstrom had told me about the three Navy vessels on a classified maneuver.
I wrote a column about what Randy Beers had revealed, but I did not include in it his name or the name of his submarine. Finding someone in the Navy who was willing to talk as freely as he did was an important breakthrough. He was the answer to those who were sure that the Navy could not have been responsible for shooting down TWA 800 because it would have been impossible to keep a secret like that when so many Navy personnel would have known about it. In the five and a half years since TWA 800 was shot down we heard stories about Navy personnel who had told family or friends that the Navy did it, but we were never able to make contact with them.
The response to the column was encouraging even though it did not get the attention of the big media. I was persuaded by the e-mail I received that we should reveal Randy Beers name and the name of his submarine. The Navy had claimed that the Trepang was 117 miles from the TWA 800 crash site. The exposure of that lie and the fact that it took so long for someone on the sub to expose it should have shaken up those who have so confidently insisted that a secret like that could not remain hidden for long. However, I was surprised to get a few responses from individuals who completely missed this important lesson. The claim that the Navy couldnt have done anything wrong because someone would have revealed it, dies hard.
My last conversation with Randy Beers was on February 5. I wanted to tell him that I was going to reveal his name, and I left a message saying it was important that he call me. He did. He first asked me if I was recording the call. I wasnt and I said so. He then said that he was so upset that he had experienced trouble sleeping for two months. But he had found a solution to his problem. He told me that he was notorious for telling tall tales and that all that he had said about where the Trepang was and what he had seen was false. He claimed he just made it up.
He said the submarine was at its homeport in Groton, Connecticut that night, not beneath TWA Flight 800 when it was blown out of the sky. He said he didnt know anything about any exercise that was taking place and he had never heard of W-105, the large area off Long Island that is regularly used by the military for testing and training. He said at least twice that this was his story and he was sticking to it. That is a gag line that says, in effect, I am lying but dont expect me to admit it.
The transcripts of his conversations with his acquaintance and me have been printed out because they are the best evidence that he was not lying. He had no reason to lie to either one of us. What he says and the way he says it has the ring of truth. It is consistent with what we know from other sources. I asked him for references who would attest to his propensity to lie. He gave me one name, someone who had served on the Trepang. He doesnt know where he is now. The office manager of the firm where he worked for over a year attested to his honesty.
The fact that he was worried sick when we had our second conversation and was virtually begging me not to report what he said shows that the idea of claiming that he had told tall tales had not yet occurred to him. If he were a habitual liar, he would not lose a lot of sleep worrying about his lies. Unfortunately his stratagem casts a cloud over his credibility, giving the media an excuse for ignoring anything he says. We are printing a list of the officers and petty officers who were on the Trepang in 1996. We will try to locate and question them and FOIA their FBI 302s (interview reports). Your help is invited.
LEADING PETTY OFFICERS
One of the first things they teach you at Navy Boot Camp is that when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME ;-)
It is obvious that the Xlintoon administration did not want Flight 800 to be any kind of missile attack, friendly or terrorist, and that they went to great lengths to cover up the reports of those who saw the missile(s). I don't blame the guy for being scared.
There were many witnesses who saw a missile but the government and the press called them mistaken or liars when they referred to them at all. Many of the witnesses were told in an intimidating manner that they were mistaken and that was crazy to talk about it at all. It does not need great numbers of people keeping their lips sealed, only the cooperation of the press and the relentless repetition of the official story.
I've never believed the "official" TWA 800 story, but the official AA 587 explanation is much more plausible. There are a lot of questions regarding the mass of the composite rudder the French use on this model of Airbus. Boeing doesn't use composites in this area due to the tendency to flutter under certain conditions, such as what might have happened with AA 587.
I've heard that there might not have been enough separation between it and a 747(?) in front of it and maybe AA 587 encountered some vortices that contributed to the tail flutter. Tail flutter can be incredibly violent and quick and certainly could have caused AA587 to crash.
Oh, don't worry. Tiny Tom Puff Dasshole and Little Poco Loco Dickie Gephardt are doing the job for you.
On the other hand, the article has a few details that tend to confirm the story. I hope Beers doesn't get depressed and shoot himself five or six times while holding the gun in an oven mitt.
I don't know. But the Senator from So. Dakota seems to think the time has come. After all, there are elections to be won. To hell with the security of the United States and it's people. With people like little Tommy Dash Hole, God and country come far behind party and power.
There you go, again! ;-)
However, you forgot the part about not needing his car keys to drive his car to the park. And the part about how his car changes colors while it is parked in the lot. ;-)
And if we are to believe Irvine, his witness offers conclusive evidence the Navy was involved in a shootdown of TWA 800, although he offers no evidence to support the claim and not even his new witness would state such a thing. In fact, he didn't even claim to see a missile. Irvine manipulates his relatively uninformative interview to try and prove his other unfounded theories. His assumption that the unidentified surface radar tracks are Navy submarines that subsequently dive when TWA 800 blows up, falls apart when you consider the only contact that could match Beer's description of his boat is the "30 knot track". Do you ever recall making 30 knots while surfaced? And if you did, would the OOD be on the bridge accompanied by a bored corpsman sharing his Pepsi's. And then imagine converting that 30 knots into a crash dive. Bow planes or not, that would be a heck of a ride. If the 30 knot track isn't the Trepang, than either the Trepang doesn't show up on radar, or it isn't within 5 miles of the accident site. Either possiblity sinks Irvine's brilliant analysis.
Bottomline, Irvine is a fraud. His witness created a story that is almost impossible to believe, and Irvine bit off on it, hook line and sinker. So much for accuracy in the media.
Bottomline, you don't know what you're talking about.
But I agree with you on one thing..... Reed does overstate the sailor's statements. The sailor was not saying the Navy did it, and he didn't even say a missile did it. But the sailor did say there were other Navy vessels in the area and he said "Im uncomfortable with saying what we was actually doing." Why would that be if their activities were not classified?
From Reed Irvines partial transcript:
I: He said they were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. Thats interesting because he never said-- Oh, he said, Ive said that in public, but I had no record of him...
B: Oh shit. I dont think anything we did off Long Island was classified.
And the data that confirms this?
And by the way, we are not at war.