How the New York Times blew its biggest story

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, February 15, 2003 | Jack Cashill

[harpseal]

This is an excellent reprise of the facts of flight 800. The FBI was actively pursuing a particular boat at many of the marina's in range of this incident (source of missle) then they sudenly stopped.

[Marie Antoinette]

I also wanted to mention that I don't understand how so many people could be kept to secrecy if it were a major conspiratorial hush job. That alone seems to rule out the military shoot-down theory. But there seems to be more evidence of missile theory that makes sense than any other, so I'm still leaning to the terrorist shoot-down. Especially since 9-11.

Mr. M

[coloradan]

Just to kick my 2 cents worth in, another FBI source ( in the Joint Terrorisn Taskforce ) stated unequivocally there was no explosive residue found on this aircraft.

Like so many other things to come from the Clinton era FBI, that is a lie. Lots of parts got positive hits for explosives when tested in NY, and those parts were sent to the main FBI lab in Washington "for further testing." For some reason, without exception, all of those parts turned up negative in the later tests. (And now the FBI had physical possession of all of those parts, too.) Then the FBI turns around and states that there is zero evidence of any explosive! What happened to the seat backs with "red residue" on them? The FBI removed it. Furthermore, “A significant amount of debris was pressure-washed by NTSB personnel when it was brought ashore prior to chemical screening for explosive residue at the Calverton hanger by FBI agents.”. Source.

[surrey]

My uncle was one of the head mechanics for TWA and that was his shift. He had that night off(don't think he wasn't thoroughly questioned) Normally, I think he can be a little flaky but he does know his stuff. He says NO WAY was it mechanical.

[coloradan]

Futhermore, they can't even keep their stories straight. They have "explained" that what explosives they did find on the plane came from a "dog training exercise," a story with several significant holes in and of itself, even if it didn't flatly contradict the "zero evidence of explosives" story.

[MHGinTN]

No.

[genefromjersey]

That story clearly fails the smell test ; however,there was a terrorist who was doing "tests" on mini-bombs in aircraft at about the same time. In one of his little "experiments", a mini- bomb he planted under a passenger's seat blasted some hapless, picked-at-random passenger into mush, and forced the emergency landing of the plane. He was using nitroglycerine (!!!) in his shoe bomb sized charges, but could have switched to something more stable.

Source: THE CELL by Miller, Stone, and Mitchell

[gaucho]

What about Chinese made surface to air? Do they have anything capable?

Most "man portable" SAM's have a relatively limited range of approx 2 miles or so. TWA800 was well out of range of any man portable SAM. The US SA1 and SA2 SAMS are capable of going much further and have sophisticated guidance systems but they are huge and require a launching platform. Anything equivalent from the ground would need a vehicle capable of launching it, and such a vehicle would have attracted a lot of attention (plus there was no plume from land going up to the plane).