OT-Another Reason NOT To Trust Anything The Government Says

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Government Deception II:
TWA 800?

Plus: Waco's missing evidence

© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

In case you didn't know it, there is one man who probably knows more about the TWA Flight 800 disaster, which occurred on July 17, 1996, than any other -- save for a few cowardly government officials who are too scared, too selfish, or too corrupt to talk.

His name is William Donaldson, a former navy pilot, aircraft carrier flight controller, crash investigator, and nuclear weapons ordnance officer. In short, Cdr. Donaldson has "been there and done that" when it comes to aviation.

Sometime ago, Cdr. Donaldson held a press conference to reveal his newest findings in the 800 case. Not many from the press or from the anointed Ivory Tower on Capitol Hill bothered to show up. What a shame; it's possible Cdr. Donaldson's investigation may turn out to be what Waco is turning out to be -- a series of revelations about government abuse, corruption and cover-up. Had any of the anointed few bothered to show up at Donaldson's press conference, perhaps they would not be blindsided now by the facts he has uncovered thus far.

For instance, if anyone in Congress was interested in what really happened to TWA Flight 800, they would already know that Donaldson has convincing evidence that the flight was shot down by a shoulder-fired Stinger missile fired by Islamic terrorists in response to the Clinton administration's approval of sanctions against Iran and Libya for their continued terrorist sponsorship. Congressmen would know that the government -- and particularly the White House -- knew some three or four Stingers had made it into the U.S. via Afghanistan several months prior to the shootdown because they admitted as much in a 1996 London Times article. And they'd know that hundreds of eyewitnesses saw the missile streak toward the beleaguered plane moments after it was fired from a small boat -- a boat that showed up on newly released radar images of the area off New York that fateful night.

Regarding witnesses -- if Congress had been showing an interest in this case -- Capitol Hill (and the American people as a whole) would already know that the prime witness was a guy in a USAir flight directly above -- about 100 feet -- Flight 800 when it blew up. They would know that this witness saw the missile being launched, then guided, toward the huge airliner. And they'd know that neither the National Traffic Safety Board nor the FBI was ever really interested in his testimony.

Lawmakers would know that right after the sanctions bill was signed against them, Iran called a conference and brought in Mideastern terrorists from nine countries, with the motive of planning attacks against U.S. targets. They'd know that one of the attacks from that conference was the bombing of the U.S. Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia, as Iran's way of trying to replicate the 1983 Beirut bombing that forced President Reagan to remove U.S. troops from Lebanon.

Cdr. Donaldson claims to have some 140 eyewitnesses to the attack who were in some 60 different locations. But nobody -- even the vaunted Republican "opposition" -- seems interested in hearing this story.

Congress needs to put two-and-two together. The same administration, the same Justice Department and the same FBI that brought them the embarrassment of Waco was also in charge during the so-called TWA Flight 800 "investigation." Why is any lawmaker (or American for that matter) expected to believe these professional liars when the subject changes to TWA Flight 800? Because officials are "above" lying about that? Sure, and I'm Orville Wright.

I've heard many variations of the story blaming the U.S. Navy for the shootdown, but I don't buy them. There is no way to keep hundreds of sailors and naval officers quiet. Besides, three months before the 1996 attack, I had a source tell me that "an airliner is going to be shot down over the U.S." The source also told me who was going to do the shooting (Mideast terrorists).

And, according to Cdr. Donaldson, a number of U.S. warships and support aircraft were in the vicinity of TWA 800's flight path that night precisely because U.S. intelligence sources expected something to happen. They were warned and, as it turns out, something did happen. In fact, the White House, he says, was completely aghast and in a panic when they heard the news. You see, they thought the attack would involve an airliner flying into Atlanta for the Olympic Games, for maximum effect.

But instead, the cowards on the Hill and the butchers in the White House would prefer to let TWA, Boeing, and the families who lost loved ones take the heat.

If Congress really wants to know what happened over the skies near New York that night, they sure as hell don't need to let the FBI reopen this investigation. In fact, lawmakers ought to keep it as far away from the Clinton Justice Department as possible.

If they really want to know, they should invite -- and then listen to -- Cdr. Donaldson. Then, in the words of Sen. Robert Torricelli -- who spoke about Waco this past weekend -- we can all "let the chips fall where they may."

Waco's missing evidence

And speaking of government corruption, anybody seen where all the "missing" Waco evidence has gone? Now we hear that the Justice Department, ever in the "CYA" mode, was so convinced the military played an improper role in assaulting the Davidian community that federal lawyers couldn't even tell Congress. So they left out the last page -- containing damning references to military action -- when they submitted their report to Capitol Hill so many years ago.

Oh, man. Somebody wake me up from this nightmare.

OK -- so Americans have come to expect that agencies like the CIA and the FBI lie to us on a regular basis. Even though this Waco ordeal goes way beyond even customary chicanery, surely there aren't two members of Congress who take these criminals at their word, are there? I mean, there can't be -- after all, the FBI is the agency that let the Clinton administration steal 900 Republican files. And this is the same Justice Department that has either denied it happened or tacitly admitted it happened but it was "no big deal."

Surely there aren't two members of Congress who believe anything this administration, or its bureaucratic minions, tell them?

So why did they? Or did they not believe the administration because they knew the awful truth about Waco all along but preferred to go along to get along -- you know, to keep their own files "secret?"

If the latter is the case, that is cowardice to the "nth" degree.

God admonishes Christians who "know the truth" to shout it from the treetops -- to never remain silent -- because silence is a sin equal to the commission of another's sinful act. As many so-called "Bible thumpers" as there profess to be in "born-again" D.C., I would think that those who know would be more brave. But that is obviously expecting too much, especially these days.

In regards to the "missing" last page of the Justice Department's original Waco report, the excuse given was that it "may have contained classified military information." What kind of BS is that? There shouldn't even have been any domestic military involvement at Waco to begin with. It's against the law -- unless that military genius Bill Clinton provided a presidential waiver.

Besides -- even if Americans cannot know all of the nation's genuine military secrets -- isn't the federal government's bureaucracy duty-bound to provide that information to Congress anyway? After all it is Congress that supposedly funds these agencies, using our tax dollars.

Then again, only guilty SOBs have something to hide. Only those too ashamed of their actions and too scared to own up to them hide things they are supposed to report.

The air is beginning to smell a lot like a massive hog lot inside the Washington Beltway. That is, if it ever did smell clean.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), September 14, 1999


The author is Jon Dougherty, a reglar contributor/editor at WorldNet Daily. (Complete attributions are good.)

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 15, 1999.

Quite right, Mara. The author's name somehow didn't get transferred in my cut and paste job (but do I get points for hotlinking back to the original article?).

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), September 15, 1999.

Nabi- Thanks for the article. It seemed clear to me even back then that TPTB didn't want this to be considered a terrorist act. Couldn't have people afraid to attend the Olympics now could we? And the whole farce with the framing of Richard Jewel for the nail bomb turned my stomach as well. There were people in my dental office watching the news saying "They wouldn't search his home like that unless the guy's guilty". Find a suspect at any cost,turn murder into a tragic accident, and rake those tourist dollars in.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

Imagine what might have happened to the airline industry if this had been a known terrorist attack. It makes me curious about the enormous number of explosions and 'accidents' we've witnessed around the country (and world) in various refineries and plants. Y2K will be a terrorist dream come true.........

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), September 15, 1999.

Thank you Nabi.

Keep 'em coming.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 15, 1999.

Oh, one more thing. Bin Laden is rumoured to be manufacturing suitcase nukes. 100 plus/minus older Russian suitcase nukes are awol. America has huge borders, which are very lax to both Canada and Mexico.

I'm expecting one or more "incidents" sooner rather than later.

And what's with all the aircraft spraying all over the country? It's happening in England too - Englans being the USA's master with regard to foreign policy. Innoculation?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 15, 1999.

I have heard things from people involved inthe investigation of flight 800 that would lead me to consider that it was hit by a missle.

However the follwong sounds mistaken or false:

"Regarding witnesses -- if Congress had been showing an interest in this case -- Capitol Hill (and the American people as a whole) would already know that the prime witness was a guy in a USAir flight directly above -- about 100 feet -- Flight 800 when it blew up. They would know that this witness saw the missile being launched, then guided, toward the huge airliner. And they'd know that neither the National Traffic Safety Board nor the FBI was ever really interested in his testimony. "

A USAir flight was 100 FEET above another airliner?!? There really must be serious problems with the FAA rader then because the people who direct air traffic would have been all over the USAir pilot like ugly on Janet Reno for being that close to another airliner. 100 feet is a near miss, the next step up from a mid air collision.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), September 15, 1999.

William S. Donaldson, III - USN, Ret.
39175 Cobrums Wharf Road
Avenue, Maryland 20609

TWA Flight 800 Investigation:

After Three Years, No Answers, Many More Questions!

Transworld Airlines Flight 800 was the 27th Air Transport worldwide to be lost to Man Portable Anti-Aircraft Missiles. At 8:31 p.m. EDT, 17 July 1996, a shoulder-launched missile was fired from a small boat less than 3 nautical miles southeast of the aircraft. It punched through the Boeing 747-100s left wing root and detonated in the six-foot deep fuel of its inboard number 2 main wing tank. The warhead caused a massive Ram hydraulic over-pressurization of all three left wing tanks, blowing the top skin open on the left wing and blasting into the empty center tank. The fuel stopped warhead fragments inside the massive #2 tank. Secondary fuel/air explosions under and in the center tank were followed by nose, tail and left wing catastrophic failures.

The above paragraph is not just a theory. Its the way a non-political National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) final report should start. It is based on overwhelming forensic evidence of left wing damage and over a hundred eyewitnesses surrounding the missile engagement. Flight 800 was the 27th air transport aircraft lost to these weapons in the last 20 years. The 28th was a 727 downed in Africa in a civil war last year.

The American people will not read such a report because a political decision was taken immediately in the White House in deference to 1996 election goals. It appears the President or senior staff imposed an information blackout. Public officials in three departments suppressed witnesses, real evidence and intelligence linking the event to expected terrorist responses to severe economic sanctions imposed on Iran. Iran's Supreme Council considered the Iran/Libya Sanctions Act, signed into law by Mr. Clinton that spring, an act of war. Representatives from terrorist organizations in nine countries were called to Tehran the first week of June. The U.S. Air Force Khobar Towers barracks complex in Saudi Arabia was attacked on 25 June 1996, killing 19 service members. The attempt partly thwarted by alert Air Force police was an effort to replicate the Beirut mass casualties in the Marine barracks bombing that forced Reagan out of Lebanon. Three weeks later TWA was shot down. The FBI immediately blanketed both events and began a Justice Department stonewall. Not until August 1998, when two Embassies were blown up simultaneously in Africa, was the administration forced to admit a terrorist problem. Even then, they only scapegoated the operation's leader, Osama Bin Laden, instead of laying the blame on a sponsor state.

In historical perspective, the shoot down of Flight 800 was but one in a long series of murderous attacks on U.S. interests fomented by the Iranian revolution and carried out by surrogates since the 1979 fall of the Shah of Iran.

In August of 1996, 5 weeks after the event, the Times of London broke the Flight 800 story. They named an Iranian sponsored terrorist group, identified the route the missiles took to get here, had quotes from senior Iranian officials taking credit and even a statement from the White House staff admitting they were aware of intelligence reports of terrorists smuggling Stingers into the U.S.

The Media 
Failure of Due Diligence

Most adults understand that if they fill their car with Kerosene, similar to Flight 800's fuel, it won't run. That's because, even with today's hot auto spark plugs, kerosene vapors can't be made to light. Yet the media willingly accepts the government theory of a kerosene explosion in a spark free aviation fuel tank. Furthermore, they bought the idea that this unexplained phenomena, that supposedly occurred for the first time in 12 million takeoffs, was concurrent with hundreds of witness reports of streaks of light rising from the surface to the aircraft, which is also an event never seen before in America. The media's acceptance that the identity of hundreds of eyewitnesses should still be held as "top secret", even after the FBI officially declared that no foul play was involved, is equally mystifying.

The apathy and gullibility of the American media, willing to repeat as fact anything spun by this administration, together with a handful of presidential appointees following orders in the White House, the CIA, the Justice Department and the NTSB are collectively responsible for the biggest political deception in American history.

The White House
If the truth is not being covered-up: 

  1. Why has the White House physical visitor log for 17July 1996 been secret for so long? White House staff stonewalled a FOIA request for over 11 months. They recently released a computer generated partial list and anti-terrorism personnel who met at 9:30 P.M. were not included.
  2. If Mr. Clinton wasn't anticipating such an attack, why was the US Military in the highest state of alert since the Cuban missile crisis?
  3. Immediately after the shootdown, hundreds of miles away, sailors aboard ship reported the captain of the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy told his crew the airliner was downed by shoulder-fired missiles, inferring the ship may be called to action. If not informed by the chain of command, how could he know those facts?
  4. Why did the President call the FBI command post supporting the 1996 Olympic games in Hoover Alabama and tell them the aircraft was downed by a shoulder fired missile?
  5. Why did the President express great anxiety in a call to a civil servant on 18 July 1996 that Governor Pataki's New York State Police divers would recover TWA Flight 800's black boxes before the Navy could take over?
  6. Why did the President sign Executive Order 13039 on 11 March 1997 taking away the Whistle Blower protection act for Navy units participating in the Flight 800 recovery?
  7. Why did Presidential spokesperson, Mike McCurry, say, "Anyone in government who says this was a missile only has half a brain!", at the same time the administration was dredging for missile parts?
  8. Why did the administration breech a verbal agreement with Weeks Marine, Inc., properly contracted by the Coast Guard and the FAA the night of 17 July to begin a massive salvage effort the morning after the crash, only to wait 6 days for the Navy to arrive with far less capability?
  9. Why did the administration publicly empathize with surviving family members then excoriate the Suffolk County medical examiner at public hearings for not providing death certificates when the White House decision to delay underwater salvage 6 days for the Navy was the probable cause that forced 20 families to wait a year to have their loved ones remains recovered and identified by DNA testing?
If the truth is not being covered-up: 
  1. Why did the CIA, who has no role in air crash investigation or practicing aeronautical engineers, and failed to check their data with Boeing, produce a slick but impossible computer simulation video of a noseless 747 zoom climbing 3,000 feet? 
  2. Why did they ignore computer ballistic curves done aboard the NOAA ship Rude that found all the major debris the next day, 18 July 1996? The Rudes computer proved the aircraft never climbed or flew, as alleged by the CIA, but fell on a normal ballistic curve from its last radar transponder point. When Rude went to that predicted impact point she found the main fuselage with her side-scan sonar.
  3. The CIA computer simulation of the wing and fuselage flight path varies radically, as much as 150 kts slower than its actual horizontal velocity vector captured on radar? Why did the CIA ignore the radar?
  4. Why didnt the CIA interview a single witness before producing this video used by the FBI on National television to slander hundreds of highly credible witnesses?
The Justice Department
Considering the NTSB had the only qualified air crash investigators, if not a cover-up:
  1. Why did the Justice Department violate Title 49 of the US Code by ordering NTSB investigators to stay clear of all the witnesses and any evidence developed by the FBI?
  2. Why are the names, positions and testimony of witnesses still being held secret by the Justice Department three years later and after the FBI dropped the case?
  3. Why did the Justice Department write off a dozen or more high explosive residue hits on Flight 800 debris as being contaminated from a dog handling exercise done 10 June 1996 in St. Louis when no written record of such training exists?
  4. Why would the FBI find the recollection of the dog trainer credible when his first two guesses as to the date of his training, the aircraft wasn't in St. Louis, and in the third guess the aircraft's recorded departure time was in conflict with his testimony?
  5. Why would the deputy Director of the FBI lie about identifying every boat when they failed to identify the one boat captured on radar almost underneath Flight 800 when it exploded? That boat was within Stinger missile range when it sped away? 
  6. Why would he compound that cover-up by telling journalists it was a helicopter?
  7. Why would the FBI run a covert Stinger missile recovery effort for six months, replete with an operational order, drawings of missile parts and maps?
  8. Why would those maps be altered deleting stinger range rings before being published in the Navy's Supervisor of Salvage report?
  9. Why would the administration lie about the aircraft being outside the Stinger's range and altitude reach when the FBI had military computer modeling proving Flight 800 was well within range?
  10. Why would the FBI show a video to military experts of a missile shot in the same area a few weeks earlier, but not share that information with congress or other investigators?
  11. Why would the Justice Department publicly seek to arrest and begin to prosecute Captain Terrell Stacey, TWA's disgruntled Flight 800 investigator on trumped up theft of government property charges the day before the NTSB's December 1997 public hearings?
  12. Why did they do the same to James Sanders, author of the "Downing of Flight 800" and his wife Elizabeth, a TWA training supervisor.
  13. Why would the Justice Department publicly release multiple affidavits from Mob figures during the week of the NTSB hearings tying the district manager of the only Congressman questioning the FBIs TWA investigation to organized crime? After the manager pled guilty to two felonies, why is Justice holding his affidavit secret?
  14. Why would the FBI contract the Navys China Lake Naval Air Weapons facility experts to study the debris for a year then ignore the engineering report that recommended detonating shoulder fired missile warheads in full 747 inboard fuel tanks and firing missiles at those tanks to replicate missile damage found on Flight 800? 
  15. Why would the FBI deputy director assure the American public there was no evidence of a missile impact on TWA Flight 800? There is a 45 square foot hole in the front wall of the number 2 main tank and the wing root fairing in front of that tank was shattered and fell first into the debris field?
  16. Why make that statement when the massive left wing damage can only be explained by a high explosive detonation in or near the number 2 tank?
  17. Why did the Deputy FBI Director shut down the investigation when he received the China Lake report?
  18. Why were the seven recommendations in the China Lake military report ( all intended to more easily detect shoulder-fired missile attacks and reduce the threat), ignored?
  19. Why did the FBI conceal from congress and the parties to the crash the reported discovery of shoulder-fired missile components only 2 miles from Flight 800s explosion point by the scallop boat Alpha Omega, in October of 1996?
  20. Why are the high explosive tests done by the FBI on a 747, front wall #2 main tank, at Bruntingthorpe England, secret?
  21. Why is the FBI keeping the identity of commercial and military ships secret?
If the truth is not being covered-up: 
  1. Why does the NTSB insist a spontaneous explosion in the center wing tank caused the loss, when there is no source of ignition and they havent even done the preliminary microscopic edge metal analysis to determine whether the center tank or its next door neighbor, the more damaged number two main tank, exploded first.
  2. Why does the NTSB continue to insist jet fuel vapors spontaneously exploded the center tank @ 13,700 feet when their own Flight test showed flammable aviation kerosene vapors (six times heavier than air) dont even form well enough on the surface of the liquid fuel to be lit by a match until the aircraft climbs above 14,000 feet?
  3. Why did the chairman of the NTSB publish an article in the Wall Street Journal titled "Its wasnt a missile" at the very time he was funding a multimillion dollar covert FBI dredging operation to recover missile parts. The maps show that ¾ of the dredging was outside of the aircraft debris field?
  4. Why did the NTSB feign difficulty in finding underwater debris for weeks when the research vessel Rude, using its side-scan sonar, radioed them the dimensions of the debris field and locations of all large under sea objects the first day and provided detailed maps the second day?
  5. Why is there a 30-hour discrepancy between when the Navy recovered the black boxes and when the NTSB said they were found?
  6. Why is the NTSB mute about the strange 7-day failure of both black box Dukane underwater pinger locators that were later found to be operating normally when checked in the LAB?
  7. Divers assured this investigator that neither undamaged pinger was operating when they found the boxes. These failures are extremely unlikely and demand a formal explanation from the NTSB. Where is it?
  8. Why has the administration failed to mention the large number of surface vessels captured on radar on the Ambrose/Nantucket traffic lane, 10 miles south of the shoot down?
  9. Why has the NTSB stalled in completing a final report for over 3 years? Is it because the parties to the crash are prohibited by law from making independent statements or investigations until after the Final Report?
  10. Why did the NTSB produce fraudulent videos of exploding center wing tanks they filled with propane and highly explosive hydrogen gas, instead of aviation kerosene that won't even burn and release them to the media?
  11. Why did Dr. Loeb of the NTSB go on national television in June of 1997 and tell the American people 747's center wing tanks were dangerously hot?
  12. Why didn't they retract that statement when I showed them a simple, no cost, 2-minute procedure that proved them wrong?
  13. Why weren't the black boxes "officially found" on 18 July 1996 and when they weren't, why was there no urgency to do so?
  14. Why didn't the urgency to recover victim's bodies quickly, using the professional salvage crews of Weeks Marine, Inc. who were already on hand, override waiting six days for the Navy? Who made that decision?
  15. Why can't the NTSB explain the last data line on the Flight Data Recorder?
  16. Why is the NTSB holding results of cockpit voice recorder tests done in Bruntingthorpe England secret from NTSB and Party analysts?
On 6 May 1999, in testimony before the House Aviation Subcommittee, in the presence of the Chairman and senior staff of the NTSB, I recommended the NTSB be reorganized and the current leadership be replaced without political appointees. We brought forth proof of the administration's covert missile recovery operation and pointed out the deceptive role played by the NTSB Chairman. We also pointed out incredibly, the protocol to determine which aircraft fuel tank exploded first had not yet been done. I further stated if an NTSB final report comes out without these minimum, common sense tests and the missile tests recommended by China Lake Naval Air Weapons Systems Command, I would file the appropriate criminal complaints. Refusal to do these tests is an admission of cover-up, for the results would either confirm or irreversibly refute the administration's theory.

No public official, including the President of the United States, has the authority to conceal a fatal attack by terrorists on the American people. Such an act would be misprision of felony homicide and misprision of treason. The ball is still in the NTSB's court. After stalling for more than three years, protecting administration officials, it is well past time they do their duty or resign.

Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, III - USN Ret.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), September 15, 1999.

Why don't you ask TWA and Boeing why they are allowing everyone to think that their planes blow up unexpectedly, thus contributing to a very negative image on the part of Boeing and TWA, as opposed to the "true" explanation.

-- (sometimes@planes.go.boom), September 15, 1999.


Have you looked at the data compiled at the TWA800 Web site which supports the theory that a missile brought down the 747?

Or are you one of the millions of Americans that apparently believes our government always tells them the truth?

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), September 15, 1999.

--sometimes, you couldn't have read the entire post and still write the inane response, could you? Don't you think that officials at TWA and Boeing are as fearful as many others who see our Congress and all officialdom keeping the lid on the truth?

-- Everyone's Scared (sometimes@govt.lies), September 15, 1999.

"..like ugly on Janet Reno..." LOL!!

-- lisa (lisa@vacation.day), September 15, 1999.


Easy answer! Of course, you have to think like the big boys do. Honor, integrity, and above all, truth does not stand a chance against profits. You see, thats the way the game is played, nowadays.

Boeing is part of the military industrial complex. They make billions upon billions of dollars in government contracts, and if that means they have to take the fall once in awhile, well, the bucks are worth it.

TWA's reputation is no more and no less sullied by a single plane going down. Most of the major airlines have suffered the same at some point in time. It's the price you pay to play with the big boys, and they will show their gratitude at some point down the line, count on it.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), September 15, 1999.

sometimes, Have you looked at the data compiled at the TWA800 Web site which supports the theory that a missile brought down the 747?

Yes. However that doesn't answer my question, since the site you mentioned isn't sponsored by TWA.

Or are you one of the millions of Americans that apparently believes our government always tells them the truth?

I don't believe they always tell the truth. But I do believe that you still haven't answered my question.

--sometimes, you couldn't have read the entire post and still write the inane response, could you? Don't you think that officials at TWA and Boeing are as fearful as many others who see our Congress and all officialdom keeping the lid on the truth?

Apparently fearful enough to let their respective companies go under because people will mistakenly think they make shoddy aircraft? As opposed to what Congress could do to them which is... um... well... I give up. What could Congress do that would be worse than their companies going under???

-- (sometimes@planes.go.boom), September 15, 1999.

Easy answer! Of course, you have to think like the big boys do. Honor, integrity, and above all, truth does not stand a chance against profits. You see, thats the way the game is played, nowadays.


Boeing is part of the military industrial complex. They make billions upon billions of dollars in government contracts, and if that means they have to take the fall once in awhile, well, the bucks are worth it.

They could have come up with something better, though, that would absolve even Boeing of wrongdoing. Now the govt's contracted aircraft manufacturer is accused of doing shoddy workmanship on their planes. How will that look in the defense arena?

TWA's reputation is no more and no less sullied by a single plane going down. Most of the major airlines have suffered the same at some point in time.

Very few have had this much press and so much attention. The govt. is much better at spin control than this. Why did it take them so long to concoct this story? People remember it as the "TWA 800" crash, and you don't think TWA is feeling any of the effects of this?

It's the price you pay to play with the big boys, and they will show their gratitude at some point down the line, count on it.

LOL, you must not know the govt. as well as you think. They never show their "gratitude" about anything!! TWA will hang in the wind for all they care.

-- (sometimes@planes.go.boom), September 15, 1999.

MY, my. Our current administration has shown their gratitude to China over and over again. Let's not be naive. They show their gratitude by allowing you to exist or by leaving your reputation in tact. It's a strong arm defense that has worked beautifully to date.

I live near the Wichita area. Believe me when I say that Boeing could take a big hit to their 'reputation' and keep on keeping on. It's not as if they are competing with hundreds of other comparable companies, sheese. Even the big three auto makers produce an occasional 'lemon'. Your theory doesn't hold water, 'sometimes'.

You ask, "How would that look in the defense arena?"

Ever hear of the Bradley? The 'defense arena' is full of similar stories. If the public allows it, it will continue. As long as the sheeple are willing to swallow 'spin', hook, line and sinker, they will keep feeding it to us.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), September 16, 1999.

TWA800 certainly didn't blow up because of a wiring fault in the main fuel tank, (as claimed by NTSB, FBI etc), if the evidence on the above linked website (and others similar) are to be believed.

Whether, as suggested, the missile source was hand-held, (and of terrorist nature), or military, (and fired during an exercise), is the more interesting area of debate.

Radar traces seem to suggest there may have been 2 missiles fired, and the evidence from the FDR (last line), suggests a large EXTERNAL blast, concurrent with a warhead detonation outside the aircraft.

However, the entry and exit holes as seen on the photo of the reconstructed aircraft clearly shows impact. So how can these two items of evidence be reconciled ?

Either a single missile penetrated the airframe and passed straight through, only to detonate outside the aircraft on the starboard side, or one missile penetrated (and detonated inside), while another exploded in the air nearby.

I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation how both effects (FDR data and wreckage evidence) could have been caused by a single missile. This unless Donaldson is wrong and the event followed the first scenario, thus creating the FDR data. But then where did the residue come from ?

It would be interesting to know just how a missile behaves during (and after) impacting a 747 fuselage.

So if it was 2 missiles, these terrorists must have been very well equipped, and extraordinarily confident. More likely (IMHO) the TWA 747 was unlucky enough to be below it's planned altitude, while passing over an active military exercise area, while live-firing tests were taking place.

I also choose to believe that had terrorists been responsible, the authorities would have been MORE likely to say so, as it would be a clear reinforcement of their harsh anti-terrorist and anti-islamic foreign policies.

If it was the US Military who fired the missile, thats EVERY reason to mount a huge cover up.

And there is precedent after all. A US warship destroyed a civilian Airbus A300 over the Gulf some years ago, and whilst they confessed openly to the mistake at that time, one must suspect that the total destruction of an american aircraft filled with american citizens off the Eastern Seaboard would be quite a different kettle of fish.

In any case, if those interested to post here would like to read about a scandalous situation in air safety which IS STILL THREATENING LIVES TODAY, perhaps I might suggest a visit to the following site. .


Kindest Regards



-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), September 16, 1999.

Please ignore stray "however"

Thanks :)

-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), September 16, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ