Posted on 05/21/2002 11:52:48 AM PDT by Asmodeus
"8...[The] streak of light reported by most of [the streak-of-light] witnesses was burning fuel from the accident airplane in crippled flight during some portion of the postexplosion preimpact breakup sequence...[1]
"A careful review of all available witness documents has shown that most witnesses who observed the streak of light said that it ascended.[2] And a large majority of the witnesses who described the origin and/or trajectory of the rising streak of light gave accounts that were inconsistent with every stage of Flight 800’s radar-recorded breakup. sequence and its trail of burning fuel. Many said the streak rose straight up from the surface, and others said it impacted with the accident airplane (see item nine below)."
Even if Stalcup was qualified by experience and training to expertly analyze the Flight 800 witness reports [does anyone including Stalcup himself contend that he is - he couldn't possibly know what most of them actually saw because most of them were interviewed by FBI agents using the unprofessioanl & untenable "302" interview procedure.
The "Missile Witnesses" Myth is a detailed and documented rebuttal of the allegations that there were any"missile witnesses". None of those alleging there were "missile witnesses", including Tom Stalcup, have been able todate to provide anything remotely resembling a meaningful rebuttal of it.
Similarly, none of those making the "missile(s) shootdown" or "bomb" allegations, including Tom Stalcup, have been able todate to publicly present any physical evidence that a missile or bomb was involved in the disaster, much less anything remotely resembling a meaningful rebuttal of The Sworn Testimony of FBI Chief Metallurgist William Tobin that there was no physical evidence of either a missile or bomb in the wreckage.
They KNOW and we KNOW.
Slick willie didn't want to jeopardize the Olympics, which turned out to be the worst Olympics in history anyway.
Look, I know people can be expert surgeons, and expert mechanics on particular cars, and experts at designing electronic circuits, or even experts at Pre-Raphaelite art. In all those cases we can make some factually based measure of expertise.
But "expert" at analyzing witness reports? To me that sure seems a far more subjective art, rather than a hard expertise than can be reliably and repeatedly demonstrated by nonsubjective, factual measures. Subjective enough that criticism leveled on the basis of being "a witness report expert" comes off as a whine, and discounts the rest.
What Clinton Knew, by Dick Morris
Look for the line where he refers to the "downing" of Flight 800.
Mrs Kus
My daughter went to college near Montoursville and some students from that town were also students at her college. The kids were shell shocked and I can imagine the families.
So many kids take school trips abroad, for a few weeks, a semester, etc. and then we have such a tragedy as Pan Am #103 and this coverup.........HEARTBREAKING
Sorry my OldFriend, you are wrong. Clinton didn't care about the olympics. He just wanted to hide the murder of two more of his enemies.
God Save America (Please)
Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization (FIRO) sponsored the first public hearing on the crash of TWA Flight 800 that included eyewitnesses. Eight witnesses testified before a five member panel of FIRO representatives at the July 14, 2001 hearing. The witnesses described their observations and answered questions from the panel. The media and public questioned the witnesses after the panel, followed by a summary of an independent study of 670 official FBI eyewitness documents...
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) planned to discuss these and other witness observations at the first of two public hearings on the crash within a month of the animation's broadcast. But the FBI intervened...
Five days before the NTSB hearing, FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom wrote a letter requesting that all witness testimony and related discussion be banned from the hearing...
Brumley: "No, the CIA never contacted me. The FBI never re-contacted me...nobody with any aviation expertise...went through it with me to try to really understand, you know, to get down in black and white--a diagram or whatever--what I had seen."...
Wire: "I never knew that the CIA was involved in anything about the case at all. No, they did not contact [me] at all...or the NTSB for that matter." ...
There is no record of any CIA interview with Mike Wire or Dwight Brumley. In fact, Congressional investigators reported that the CIA "did not interview any of the eyewitnesses"[6] in connection with the Flight 800 animation. Instead, the CIA relied upon scant notes and summaries from 244 preliminary FBI witness interviews. ..
Here is a link to FIRO:
There were two gentlemen on the plane who in clintons eyes would have been enemies. One was named Hank Gray, who was involved in preventing an insurance company takeover by a clinton associate and the other was named Samir Ferrat who was a close associate of Ron Browns who missed the flight that Brown was killed on. Mr Ferrat also bought a large insurance policy when he heard that Browns plane went down.
Both men are covered in the linked thread. You'll have to read through it to find them though. The parts about them are about 1/3rd of the way down the thread.
Warning, the thread is from the old days and is long. however it has tons of good info and an explanation of the shoot down that satisfies all the evidence and witness accounts.
GSA(P)
[quote]On the fourth anniversary of the crash of TWA Flight 800, two witnesses criticized investigators Monday for doing too little to determine the source of a light they say they saw in the sky near the doomed plane. [end quote] [quote]Dwight Brumley, who watched as a passenger on another flight 5,000 feet above Flight 800, said he told his story to the FBI but felt it wasn't taken seriously. "I could not positively say that what I saw was a missile. What I saw was a very bright flame of light moving parallel to my aircraft", Brumley said at a news conference. [end quote]
The same clickable reference source includes the transcript of a recorded inept interview of witness Brumley. It isn't clear if it was at that press conference. Note the elapsed time between the fiery streak and the Massive Fireball explosion in the falling wreckage at 5500-7500 feet was only 1-2 seconds.
If you have a report of Michael Wire you want to post, do so. The following is from the Archives of the LSoft Flight 800 Forum: [excerpt][quote]That one eyewitness is Michael Wire, a machinery expert who was working on a new drawbridge on Beach Lane, a road running from Westhampton, Long Island, to the beach. Wire's FBI report says that standing on the bridge, looking toward the beach, he saw a white light just above the rooftop of a house about 900 feet away, ascending from the ground at about a 40 degree angle. It "sparkled" and he thought it was fireworks. It "zig zagged" as it traveled upward and was going south-southeast when it "arched over" and disappeared from view. Two or three seconds later he saw an orange light that appeared to be a fireball in the sky about half a mile away. It was falling at about a 30-degree angle, with a fire trail burning behind it. According to Wire, the fireball disappeared behind a house two houses away from the one where he saw the white light. He then heard the first and loudest of four explosions. It shook the bridge. Eight or nine seconds later he heard two more explosions followed by a fourth a second later. [end quote] Note that the elapsed time between the fiery streak and the Massive Fireball explosion in the falling wreckage at 5500-7500 feet is two or three seconds.
Neither Brumley nor Wire could have possibly seen a "missile shootdown" of Flight 800 at 13,800 feet and the explosion of the Massive Fireball in the falling wreckage at 5500-7500 feet only 1-3 seconds later.
The timeline and location of the major events of the disaster was approximately as follows:
8:31:11 Intact and climbing 747 approaches 13,800 feet.
8:31:12 Initiating Event at 13,800 feet followed immediately by the commencement of the decapitation process.
8:31:47 explosion of Massive Fireball in the falling wreckage at 5500-7500 feet.
8:31:55-8:31:57 splashdown of the Massive Fireball flames.
Source.
None of the fiery events seen by the witnesses commenced until 30+ seconds after the Initiating Event at 13,800 feet. By then, the wreckage clearly must been falling for quite some time.
Washington - As investigators have sifted dozens of eyewitness accounts of the destruction of TWA Flight 800, they have had to keep in mind a growing scientific literature on the fallibility of first-hand descriptions.
In the immediate aftermath of the July 17 disaster, FBI agents interviewed several hundred people who had claimed to see the breakup of the airliner.
Some of them also described streaks of light, suggesting the possibility of a missile attack on the doomed plane.
But specialists say eyewitness accounts - no matter how credible those giving them - can be distressingly unreliable, particularly those gathered days after the fact.
"In general, memory researchers recommend that the most fruitful interview is the first interview,'' said Stephen Ceci, a Cornell University psychologist.
"And that's if the person hasn't been tainted or biased in some way by being given a theory or expectancy by the media or the interviewer or a friend."
In highly publicized incidents such as the TWA crash, investigators must be especially wary, Ceci said, since there is so much information - and misinformation - available from media reports and word-of-mouth.
A law enforcement source familar with the TWA investigation said FBI agents use interview methods intended to assess the consistency and reliability of witness accounts. They look for any signs that the witnesses may be repeating news accounts or seeking to give interviewers what they believe they want to hear.
"There is a science to interviewing people", the source said. But even witnesses who have been carefully interviewed and are reporting what they sincerely believe they saw can make mistakes, Ceci said.
"There is not a snapshot in the brain of that fireball in the sky or a streak of light prior to the explosion", he said.
Memories are stored in neurons distributed throughout the brain, he said, and the information stored in those brain cells "must be rounded up and put back together to tell a story . . . many things can go wrong in reconstructing it.''
Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist who has written extensively about eyewitness testimony, said people tend to fill in gaps in their recollection with information they get from other sources.
"I don't mean to belittle the crash witnesses", Loftus said. But in some cases, particularly traumatic events, the perceived memories can be both vivid and incorrect. "People have claimed to see things a lot more bizarre than flashes of light," Loftus said.
Loftus has studied accounts of serious auto accidents. "You have cases where a witness says the blue car was traveling south and the yellow car was traveling north,'' Loftus said, and the witness will stick to that account even after it has been proved that just the opposite was the case.
There are ways to improve the reliability of accounts, Loftus said. "Some banks train tellers in anticipation of a bank robbery,'' she said. "You are to sit down, don't talk to anybody else and write out your own version of the event". Loftus said that professional training or expertise can affect the reliability of eyewitness accounts. She has done experiments in which she shows arson investigators a video of a fire scene, with fire officials giving orders to their personnel on how to fight the blaze. The arson investigators remember how many hose teams the chief is ordering into the building and other details that untrained viewers disregard, Loftus said.
But experts caution that trained professionals also can make mistakes. Howard Egeth, head of the psychology department at Johns Hopkins University, said studies have found that police officers often do no better than lay persons when trying to identify suspects.
And even when witness testimony is carefully couched, it can be misinterpreted by others.
Investigators in the TWA case have been interested in the accounts of National Guard air crews who were doing search-and-rescue training on the night of the disaster. One pilot reported seeing a "streak of light'' on the same trajectory as a shooting star. His remark was viewed by some as supporting the missile scenario.
But the pilot, a Vietnam veteran who has seen missiles fired in combat, dismissed that notion. He said the orange-red streak was descending across the sky and, as he followed it, eventually erupted into the large fireball described by other witnesses.
Experts also say it is understandable why some witnesses hold strongly to their accounts even as contradictory information comes to light.
As Loftus and a co-author have written, "We want to believe . . . that our minds work in an orderly, efficient way, taking in information, sorting it, filing it, and calling it back later in full and vivid detail. In a chaotic world, where so much is out of control, we need to believe that our minds, at least, are under our command.'' [emphasis added]
You indicate your reference source is long so why not extend the readers the courtesy of quoting exactly what you're referring to.
< /sarcasm>
After reading all the various material I could handle in one evening, I'm of the mind that the plane was definitely shot down...but I don't know if it was by one of our own or by the group that threatened to make a statement earlier that day, claiming jihad...
The most compelling graphic was seeing the eye-witness sketches "animated" and the map that showed the positions of the witnesses relative to each other (and the trajectory they each saw from these positions). This and the analysis of the seat cover residue compared to analysis of the adhesive the NTSB claimed the residue was made up of...
Z.O.B. in reply to Capitalist Eric's #20: "I think he's a CIA lawyer who left the agency - eternally frustrated at failing to convince anyone 800 spontaneously exploded. Maybe he's the producer of failed CIA cartoon #1 which required the sequel, CIA cartoon #2."
Perhaps Z.O.B. will post the 2 CIA "cartoons" for the readers. And, of course, since he has now made his own credibility an issue, any evidence he thinks will support his "CIA lawyer" speculations - which he won't do because there is none.
The readers will also note, of course, that neither of them has been able to present a rebuttal of either The "Missile Witnesses" Myth or The Sworn Testimony of FBI Whistleblower William Tobin during The Grassley Hearing. They won't because they can't. None of the others alleging a "shootdown" have ever been able to do it either.
Just as taking one gem out of the crown jewels collection would deprive the viewer of the full effect, taking one small paragraph out of the whole discussion would deprive the reader of the reams of information in the discussion.
Since the thread includes discussions of the witnesses (yes I've read ALL the witness statements) and links some of them to specific locations (particularly Mr Lisle), and includes calculations of what they could see from where as well as a host of other info (such as various ships known to be in those waters etc) I won't rob the interested observer of an opportunity to read the info.
Those who are interested and not afraid of the truth will read the thread. Those who aren't, won't. I've already received some thanks for the link so obviously people are interested.
GSA(P)
And especially those that disagree with the governments preferred explanation.
Observe in the rest of your post the clinton strategy of discredit the witnesses. This event is not going away. It's not just another bimbo eruption. TWA800 was shot down and people saw it.
GSA(P)
There were tons of our forces in those waters, a terrorist would have been caught instantly.
As described in the thread I linked, TWA800 was shot down accidently (from the shooters viewpoint) as part of a navy exercise. There was a target drone behind it (from the shooter) and the planes identifier was disabled. I believe that the situation was set up for a possible accidental shoot down and clinton got lucky because his set up worked.
GSA(P)
I take it that you are referring to the transponder being disabled. This is not correct. The transponder must function in order for the plane to enter European airspace. For that matter, the transponder must function for the flight to take place at all. It cannot be tracked by Flight Controllers without it. All Commercial flights of this nature use transponders. If it fails, the plane is grounded.
Even the radar tracks show the "tag" that accompanies the blip associated with TWA 800. This "tag" is from the transponder "squawking" i.e. emitting. No squawk, no tag.
GSA(P)
The Wall Street Journal had a brief article some months ago. Some entity had determined that they expected one fuel tank explosion to occur over the next twenty years. Therefore, they did not recommend changing fuel tank design. I don't recall whether this was all of this particular plane/fuel tank or all of them, but either way, it's a lot of planes and not a lot of explosions.
Again, no rebuttal, just the allegation that it has no credibility. It continues to be obvious to objective readers that if you could have presented a meaningful rebuttal, you would have. As for your allegation:
"And especially those that disagree with the governments preferred explanation. Observe in the rest of your post [#18] the clinton strategy of discredit the witnesses."
Again, no rebuttal, just the shotgun allegation that all those that disagree with the mantra of the "missile shootdown" promoters are government agents spreading disinformation but, of course, no supporting evidence for that either. Bill Donaldson was asked about the government coverup conspiracy accusations during his testimony before a congressional committee and here are a couple of excerpts from the transcript that the objective readers might find interesting:
Mr. LIPINSKI. Let me ask you-you already stated here that the Navy is in on this conspiracy and the National Transportation Safety Board is in on this conspiracy--
Commander DONALDSON. I am not saying-I don't have proof that anybody is in on the conspiracy. What I am saying is people are following orders. There is a chain of command that comes down from the White House.
Mr. LIPINSKI. If there is conspiracy, there is more than two people saying that it was a missile so it is a conspiracy. I am just trying to establish how many people you think might be in the conspiracy.
Commander DONALDSON. I am not an attorney. I tell you what, I would duck the conspiracy question.
____________
Mr. TRAFICANT. Now, my last question to you is this: at some point we sort of parted ways, when you maintained that the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board was so off base, he was acting as a traitor.
Commander DONALDSON. I don't think I used those words, Mr. Traficant.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I think we advised you to not use those words. You were prepared to send them in a letter. That bothered us. And that is one of the areas why maybe we didn't go much further with you.
Source.
As you are well aware, every member of congress, past and present, has since turned their backs on the untenable "missile(s) shootdown" allegations. Why do you think that was? Or would you prefer to duck the question?
I see you're now saying much the same thing in other threads not related to Flight 800. Such comments simply dramatize that you are popping off without the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. Since you're so eager to strut your non-existent stuff, why don't you give the readers here your analysis of the following, keeping in mind that some of the "shootdown" promoters are still trying to cherrypick some of the FBI 302 interviews of Flight 800 witnesses that they think support their "case" and represent them to the public as "witness reports".
The FBI 302 Form Interview Procedure
Routinely, two agents conduct the interview, usually one asking the questions while the other takes notes on a pocket pad and sometime later dictates a summary of the interview which dictation is sometime later transcribed on a 302 form which is eventually returned to the agent for review and signature (or any corrections, additions or deletions he might consider appropriate). It's not evidence of what the agents or the person interviewed actually said. At best, it's the agent's recollection of what was said. At worst, it's an invitation to skullduggery and - keeping in mind the information is Intelligence - potentially horrendous peril for all Americans as the obvious Intelligence breakdown prior to the events of 11 September 2001 dramatized.
The 302 procedure guarantees that even the interviewing agents' Supervisors have no way of knowing what was actually said - and not said - by any of those present, much less whether the interview was thorough and complete.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/Transcript_8_23_3.htm
[excerpt][quote] " . . . . . the FBI did not make any transcripts or recordings of these interviews. Documents are written in the words of the FBI agents who prepared them. Some of the documents contain incomplete information or are vaguely worded. In other words, the documents may not always say what the witness said." [end quote]
http://www.law.emory.edu/4circuit/june96/945902.p.html
[excerpt][quote] "Thus, when a government agent interviews a witness and takes contemporaneous notes of the witness' responses, the notes do not become the witness' statement- - despite the agent's best efforts to be accurate- - if the agent "does not read back, or the witness does not read, what the [agent] has written." Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94, 110- 11 n.19 (1976). And a government agent's interview notes that "merely select portions, albeit accurately, from a lengthy oral recital" do not satisfy the Jencks Act's requirement of a "substantially verbatim recital." Palermo, 360 U.S. at 352. [end quote]
In short, the FBI 302 form interview summaries are not "witness reports" or "witness statements" or "witness declarations" and don't document anything said during the interviews.
Why does the FBI cling to the 302 interview procedure?
To tilt the playing field in the prosecutions' favor in the event of an arrest by avoiding the documentation of any suggestive "leading" questions by the agents and any exculpatory statements that might be made by those being interviewed or even the agents themselves.
Trial lawyers dealing with cases involving FBI 302 form interview summaries instead of recorded interviews and the transcripts of those recorded interviews routinely raise hell about it not just those reasons but also for the the obvious reason that they can neither hear for themselves everything both the witness and the interviewer actually said nor read everything both the witness and the interviewer actually said.
The press is well aware of the problem, as the following documents, but have done a poor job of bringing it to the attention of the public.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/1998/jan1598.htm
[quote]
QUESTION: After the Nichols trial, there was some concern on the part of some of the jurors there about the fact -- and this comes up from time to time -- that the FBI does not transcribe interviews, it does this form 302. And every once in a while somebody says, you know, that it is not the best evidence, 302's are summaries of what something thinks somebody said. And people, every once in a while, look at whether the FBI should change that.
Is that anything that is being looked at? During the time you have been Attorney General, has anyone ever suggested that the FBI ought to change that practice?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I have heard it on occasions and have discussed it with Director Freeh. I cannot discuss it in the context of this particular case.
QUESTION: But as a general matter, is that something that is pretty much a dead letter now?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: As always, we continue to review each issues, the circumstances of the issue in the context it arises, to see what is appropriate. But, again, with respect to this matter, in this case, I cannot discuss it.
QUESTION: Yes, but as a general matter, does it strike you as a good idea, the way the FBI does the 302's? Do you see any need to change that?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I think, each case, you have got to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and I think that is what the Bureau does.
QUESTION: Are you saying that they sometimes use a tape recorder?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, I think you have to look at the specific examples of each case and make the best judgment of what is right in that case.
QUESTION: (Off microphone) -- some have suggested the FBI should no longer use this form 302, and should go to a transcription of interviews. Would that be a good idea, in your view?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, you are going to have to look at the whole matter: each case, when you interview, who you interview, what the circumstances are.
QUESTION: But the FBI has a policy that applies to all cases all the time, that they do not tape record their interviews.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I will be happy to check with Director Freeh and clarify anything that I have said. But, again, I cannot comment on this particular case. And I think you have got to look at the larger picture. [end quote]
__________
Janet Reno obviously chose to engage in wiggleworming when publicly confronted with the indefensible FBI 302 form interview procedure.
Los Angeles Times 7-31-2001 Hearings Open on Mueller
Senate: Bush's pick to head the FBI tells panel his "highest priority" is to restore public's trust in the battle-weary bureau. [excerpt] " . . . . . he said he would consider expanded tape-recording of FBI interviews to give its investigations greater credibility--another idea the bureau has resisted through the years." [end excerpt]
'Nuff said.
After you've read everything in the linked thread and all the witness accounts we can talk. Until then don't bother
GSA(P)
Here's a direct question for you. What is your opinion about Kallstrom's action?
If so, it should be a piece of cake for you to provide the readers with a meaningful rebuttal to The "Missile Witnesses" Myth. But you haven't and you won't because you can't. However, you can perhaps take at least some comfort in the fact that none of the rapidly dwindling number of others still publicly promoting the "shootdown" notion have been able to do so either because you're all purveyors of the impossible.
GSA(P)
Besides, when are they going to ground the 747-400's? Or are they going to gamble with lives? Remember, if it is a real defect, it needs to be 'fixed' or they are gambling with lives, which they will inevitably lose.
"Thank you. I will revise the petition appropriately. I guess the main point was that it was heading away from Long Island, the nearest land mass. But still your point is well taken and I thank you. Tom Stalcup"
Tom: I appreciate your response.........Just 2 points to ponder............BEFORE you complete your revisions.........and a question............Did you get my addendum re: the aircraft which NTSB flatly stated it was unable to identify?.............Did you pick up on the fact that the pilot radioed Gabreski and informed them that there was a "boat leaving from it".....(the crash scene) in a Westerly direction?......(Your 30-knot track, most likely)..........Did you pick up on the fact that I have ID'd this plane, which NTSB said they couldn't.......in 2 years and with several millions of dollars?..........It took me about $12.00 and 2 DAYS!!!!!!!
This IS SIGNIFICANT..........and that's why the heading info. I gave you is so significant. Maybe you think I'm just another Fl.800 nutball, I can assure you I'm not."
____________
Fiorientino says he hasn't been convinced Flight 800 was a "missile(s) shootdown" victim after 6 years of looking at all the evidence and that witness Meyer did not see the Initiating Event. He also says he's an author and an experienced paralegal. He seems to think he's hot on the trail of a suitcase bomb having caused the disaster with a Kabofavic name tag on the remains of the suitcase. He's made pathetically sleazy attacks on FBI Whistleblower William Tobin, a glaringly obvious obstacle in his thinly disguised efforts to try to prove his suitcase bomb theory. Tobin's testimony during the Grassley Hearing is, of course, also one of the many problems the still dwindling number of present "missile(s) shootdown" promoters have yet to come to grips with.
Until then, it's appropriate to keep in mind that he was more interested in his own Flight 800 personal agenda than in objectively looking for the cause of the crash - as documented in considerable detail here. Aren't you doing the same thing?
And one from your personal playbook: What is your area of expertise? What are your credentials?
Now a new one. What about your bias?
If so, it should be really easy for you to provide the readers with a meaningful rebuttal. But the readers know you won't because they've watched so many like you over the years who jumped in with that same sort of bluster and then crept away after being unable to do it.
Try this one, it's lots easier.
While we wait, here's a reminder for the dwindling handful still making the "missile(s) shootdown" and "government coverup" allegations and accusations where they stand in the view of congress, the public and the press.
NTSB Board Meeting on TWA 800
August 22, 2000
JIM HALL
[excerpt][quote] I know that at the outset many believed that the crash of Flight 800 was caused by a criminal act. And for many the events of the times - the ongoing court trials in the aftermath of the World Trade Center bombings in New York, and the heightened concern about terrorism at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta - seemed to lend a certain credence to the notion. Certainly, the nature of the event and its rarity led some to question whether the crash of Flight 800 was really an accident.
As many of you know, a substantial law enforcement investigation was conducted in parallel with the Safety Board's investigation. After conducting a thorough investigation, the FBI suspended its investigation in November 1997, indicating that no evidence had been found to indicate that a criminal act was the cause of the tragedy of TWA Flight 800.
Despite this finding by our nation's law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some have urged the Safety Board to assume, in effect, a law enforcement role to prove or disprove their assertion that the crash of Flight 800 was the result of a bomb or a missile. That is beyond this agency's mandate and authority. Our focus is safety. Our people are aviators, engineers, and scientists - I believe, some of the best in the world - but they are not criminal investigators.
However, even though our employees are not law enforcement personnel, they examined every piece of wreckage for any physical evidence that the crash of Flight 800 had been caused by a bomb or missile. Had we found such evidence, we would have immediately referred the matter back to the appropriate law enforcement agencies for their action. Let me state unequivocally, the Safety Board has found no evidence.
To the families of Flight 800, I would like to add this comment: It is unfortunate that a small number of people, assuming their own agendas, have persisted in making unfounded charges of a government cover-up in this investigation. These people do a grievous injustice to the many dedicated individuals, civilian and military, who have been involved in this investigation. Some 75 NTSB members have participated in this investigation. I pause while their names are listed on the screens in front of you.
These individuals, collectively, have more than 1,000 years of government and aviation industry experience. Many of them have served in the military, including service in Vietnam and the Gulf War. These men and women, in my opinion, represent the very best in United States government service. They are public servants all of us can be proud of.
I recognize that this TWA 800 investigation is technically complex, and that knowledgeable people can disagree over some substantive matters. But I take exception to those who consistently distort the record and persist in making unfounded charges of a cover-up. They do a disservice to all of us - but most especially to you, the families of the TWA 800 victims, who have suffered so much in this tragedy. And for that I am very sorry. [emphasis added][end quote]
Spource.
Accusations "reckless and a mistake," says co-author
by JOCS(AW) Gwyneth J. Schultz, USN Navy News Service
[excerpt]
A Navy diver cleans off the mask of fellow diver as he prepared to resume his dive from on board USS Grapple (ARS 53) in August 1996 during search and recovery operations on the ill-fated TWA Flight 800 crash site. Navy divers conducted nearly 700 dives assisting the NTSB and FBI in their investigations into the crash. U.S. Navy photograph by Journalist Second Class Ronald S. Flanders. WASHINGTON (NNS) — In a written statement to CNN, Ian Goddard, co-author of the report accusing the Navy of shooting down TWA Flight 800, claims those charges were "reckless and a mistake."
Goddard shared the responsibility for that report with former ABC newsman Pierre Salinger and another individual, Mike Sommers. Together, they described an intricate conspiracy theory centered on a government cover-up following the crash. Goddard also maintained a web site which helped to sustain the conspiracy theory on the Internet. After learning about the apology, National Transportation Safety Board spokesman Peter Goelz said Goddard had done real damage to many people, especially to the families, by charging that the Navy caused the deaths of their relatives through "friendly fire".
Goddard stated that he only used the conspiracy theory because he "wanted to give the government a black eye by any means that looked opportune. TWA 800 was just a vehicle for my larger agenda."
He apologized for wrongly accusing the Navy and "to those who believed in all my efforts and who are now upset with me for my change of mind." Goddard wanted to encourage distrust of the government and promote libertarian ideology. [end excerpt][emphasis added]
Source.
4 Oct 1997
From: Ian Goddard
Subject: Getting over TWA 800
[excerpt]
After taking time off to cool down from my TWA 800 fever, I've realized that I should look at things from the other side, make the other case, and then test the logic. Too much I was piling up anything I could to support the F-Fire theory with anything that felt like evidence, but which, upon a more objective analysis, might not even be evidence at all.
It's fun and even addictive to kick around the government, that big faceless establishment that your allowed to pummel with words; but that does not necessarily ensure logical conclusions.
Could the FF theory simply be a house of cards built upon a base of wishful yet errant analysis? It's not wrong to propose a theory. When I proposed the FF theory over a year ago (not the first to do so) I was viciously attacked, my reputation smeared and called insane 10 million times. That will cause the meek to quickly disappear, it caused me to go to war, to prove I was not wrong, it was an ego battle. So as a matter of fact, I started off on the wrong footing. The people who attacked me did everyone on all "sides" a disservice.
If no one had attacked me, I probably would have wandered off onto other things. Instead I had to prove my case by any means short of the unethical. I don't consider listing all the reasons to believe X unethical,even if the reasons not to believe it are omitted, so long as those for are true.
While not unethical, it's not objective, it is biased. The need to defend my reputation against such base assault compelled be to be as biased as ethics would allow. If I had to run everyone in the Navy into jail in the process, so be it. Which is not to say I did not induce belief in my case in myself. I was 99% sure.
Taking several weeks off my TWA 800 fixation has been the best thing I've done in over a year! I don't care to ever get involved in the case again and will ignore replies to this, which I'm sure will accuse me of becoming a govt agent and therefore as more evidence that the Navy shotdown TWA 800... yawn. I've had enough of all that paranoia.
I think we all need to get over TWA 800 and let the families pursue the case in the fashion that they see fit. [end excerpt][emphasis added]
Source.
LSoft Flight 800 Forum Fri, 13 Oct 2000
Subject: List is closing
This message is to announce the closing of this list to further postings effective last Friday. We apologize for the delay in posting it.
The FLIGHT-800 mailing list was started as a public service on July 19, 1996, to serve as a clearinghouse for information related to the crash of TWA Flight 800. The original mission statement for the list was:
This is a list for discussing the flight 800 disaster and the steps needed to prevent further incidents of this kind. These discussions could include current airport safety standards, future prevention methods, and so forth.
Since that time it has performed that service well, but has also become a clearinghouse for speculation and conspiracy theories related to the crash (and other air disasters). L-Soft international finds it no longer in its interest to continue to support the discussion in the direction it has taken.
While posting has been curtailed, the archives of the list will remain open as a historical record.
We thank all those who have participated over the years on this list.
Nathan Brindle
Sr Technical Support Engineer
L-Soft international, Inc.
Postmaster, HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
[emphasis added] Source.
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.