Investigators from the first probe of doomed TWA Flight 800 called Wednesday for a new examination of the tragedy, resurrecting old claims that a missile downed the plane.

A half-dozen people involved in the original inquiry into the July 17, 1996, blast that killed 230 people on a Paris-bound flight out of JFK Airport claimed new evidence supports the oft-suggested missile theory…

The investigators – in a conference call promoting an upcoming documentary, “Flight 800” – charged the original probe ignored testimony from nearly 700 eyewitnesses and included evidence tampering…

New evidence suggests there were more than 100 traces of explosives found in the plane’s wreckage, and internal CIA documents suggest a cover-up, they charge…

And they referenced FAA radar evidence that reportedly pointed to a missile hit – although they declined to speculate if it was a terrorist attack or friendly fire…

Tom Stalcup, joined Wednesday by former NTSB investigator Hank Hughes and former TWA investigator Bob Young, said they had no doubt that a missile was responsible for the plane’s demise…

Skeptics and conspiracy theorists have long argued that TWA 800 was shot down by the U.S. Navy or hit with a terrorist rocket.

It’s easy to understand why these folks didn’t want to speak up while still on the payroll of the NTSB. How often do whistleblowers actually get the protection they’re promised?

  1. MarioWario says:

    Could it be a drone, too ? Impact speed (vs. rocket) ?
    Usually they find physical evidence when they hit something.

    • dusanmal says:

      Read their evidence… Evidence of high explosive bursting some distance away from the plane. Eyewitness (many, credible, with perfect view) evidence of “rocket like” thing going toward the plane from the surface. Combined: 9:1:0 for terrorist attack (imprecise surface to air missile which still did the job) : accidental US military shooting (one would expect easy hit on such slow and big target) : current theory.

  2. deowll says:

    Okay, if they haven’t destroyed all the evidence a second look would seem like a good idea.

  3. Mr Diesel says:

    Whistleblowers get the protection they need from China. All they had to do was move to Hong Kong.

  4. Dallas says:

    I’m thinking a crash with a Flying Saucer. I wish the gubment would come clean on this.

    • Tim says:

      I would sooner expect this lying gubment to certify that it was a flying saucer instead of owning up to the fact that they did it {probably to neutralize a couple bankers gonna tell about the CIA poison drugs for u.s. citizens}.

  5. So What? says:

    When did this site become conspiracy idiot central?

    • dusanmal says:

      I know one of eyewitnesses (lived on Long Island) personally. Clear view. Perfect weather. Sitting next to the beach. Seeing “rocket like” thing from ocean horizon. Seeing explosion of the plane. There are conspiracies and there is hushed-up evidence. Many other eyewitness testimonies to the same. All ignored as “stupid people”. Physical evidence of high explosives bursting away from the plane – worth rechecking (as they found it originally, than dismissed it for no clear reason). That’s what these people are asking to be re-done. Reasonable.

      • So What? says:

        There is also the difference between evidence and supposition. The I know someone who… is neither it’s gossip.

        Everyone screams about government waste but lets open up a closed case because someone doesn’t agree with the conclusion the evidence points to.

        If, and it’s a damn big if, it was someone other than a “filmmaker” who had actual evidence. Then maybe it might be worth a revisit.

        This guys sole purpose is advertise his “film” nothing more.

        Next someone will claim that 9/11 was an inside job and there was a gunman on the grassy knoll.

        • Tim says:

          911 was an inside job. If we’d ever get access to that big data the psycopaths have put together then just search for the people not included therewith — that’s your culprits.

          Still, even if it would show that mr. dick chain did it, I say destroy the data. All of it.

  6. Hugo Smedlap says:

    Let me google that for you.

  7. Wrigsted the Dane says:

    Rumsfeld say it was shot down on television a few years ago. Maybe not a Freudian slip, but talked before he thought the it out through. It must be difficult when you have so many lies to keep track of. F. .. evil kid killer. I hope he gets a long and painful death!

    • Tim says:

      I think he was talking about flt 93… You know, the heroes that said “lets roll” when what was really said was “roll it”.

  8. Hugo Smedlap says:

    quick follow up

    compare the upper deck windows of the reconstruction to the actual plane that crashed.

    • The Pirate says:

      When TWA ordered its 747-131s, most were built with the three-window upper deck. The last few, however, were built when Boeing switched to the standard ten-window upper deck. To maintain uniform appearance of their Jumbos, TWA had Boeing modify these ships to the old three-window configuration by plugging seven of the ten widows (a reversal from most airlines, such as KLM, BA, and United, which switched from three to ten).

      N98109, the aircraft involved in the tragic Flight 800 crash, was one of the latter: pictures of the salvaged remains show ten openings in the upper deck, which gives a good indicator of the force with which the aircraft hit the water, thus popping the plugs out.

      Occam’s Razor.

  9. /T. says:

    ” … although they declined to speculate if it was a terrorist attack or friendly fire …”

    There’s no such thing as friendly fire …


  10. bobbo, we think with words and flower with ideas says:

    Seems to me the best case outcome of any do-over is that we have another example of our gubment either lying to us or being incompetent.

    Since we all already know that, why not save the money? Keep the UMBRAGE for Bradley Manning, Assange, and Snowden. Gee–might reality be of a continuous warp and weave with the same lying/incompetence we already know ….. simply shown again?

    Its all about CONFLATING security with secrecy, patriotism with passivity, treason with the truth.

    Yea, verily.

  11. B. Dog says:

    The sooner they get to the bottom of this, the sooner the magik cellphone technology from those cellphones can be put in Obamaphones by the Chiners.

  12. Captain Obvious says:

    It was shot down with secret military lasers to hide Hoffa’s body which was in the baggage compartment. Because that’s the easiest way to dispose of a body.

  13. Lee Harvey Oddball says:

    Ooh! The Seagrassy Knoll!

  14. Tim says:

    It probably was just a coincidence that there was an Aeagis class ship near by testing their new super-secret “sensor-weapon” where the point was a powerful radar beam to cause arcing and sparking — shorting out power supplies and heating up resistive elements in fuel tanks.

  15. JD more says:

    High ordnance explosion, with nitrate deposits on exterior of aircraft indicate a outside explosion. No evidence points to anything on board. They have evidence to substantiate that.

    • Tim says:

      Yea. Like most things with government contractors; When the new super-secret shit didn’t work they faked it with a missile.

  16. Hoochie MA MA says:

    most likely security forces screwed up.. it is was a terrorist attack there would have been widespread decimation of the constitution to avoid something like this happening again.
    since there isnt any of that, i’d think it is just a coverup…^_^

  17. NewFormatSux says:

    MSNBC had a tape, and it was seized by the FBI.
    Has the radar been declassified? Why should it have been classified if it was a fuel tank explosion?

    Why did the government arrest a reporter who had some samples tested and reported that explosive residue was on the seats?

    Why did Dick Morris, John Kerry, and George Stephanopoulos refer to it as a bombing or terrorist attack on TV, well after the fuel tank explosion story was settled?

    Why did the CIA make up a second interview with Mike Wire to sell their fuel tank and upward slide theory?

  18. laxdude says:

    Shit happens on military ships. They were probably running a tracking practice and “oh shit” someone didn’t tell the system it was a practice. Something similar happened with a Canadian ship in Victoria Harbour, they lobbed a practice (non explosive round) into someone’s garage.

    So it is a possibility. It is also possible people were not seeing what they think they did. Such as hearing an explosion (which is delayed because of the slower speed of sound) and looking up to see a flame trail that was actually falling from the plane but looked like the final trail of a missile going in.

    Radar tracks might help, but I doubt anything civilian would have an adequate resolution to pick up a missile- and that close to a civilian population the military might not be heated up – but no one would trust them anyway.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      There is the possibility that the Navy shot it down while trying to shoot down a smaller plane that was going after TWA 800 kamikaze style. This was Iraqi Independence Day, and a statement was issued by the government that took responsibility. Unfortunately it was a bit vague, along the lines of ‘we wake up to a new day’.

    • Tim says:

      “Shit happens on military ships…”

      Yes. And *they* were doing a drill that day there with the same systems and ships that had a pretty big ‘uh-oh’ moment in 1988 –

  19. NewFormatSux says:

    Jamie Gorelick was the primary person to keep the official story under control and keep out alternate stories. Rewarded with a job at Fannie Mae paying millions. Later put on 9/11 commission to make sure no connections to TWA 800 and attacks on aircraft. Sandy Berger even walked out with documents from National Archives to protect Bill Clinton. The Congressman asking questions about what Sandy stole, had a high ranking person recruited to run against him and ended up being the only person named by Bill Clinton in his rant with Chris Wallace who had the audacity to ask why he didn’t do enough to get Bin Laden.

    Then John Kerry quietly slips in to the Boston Globe a news story about aviation safety, and how Al Gore chaired the commission after TWA 800. A week later, Gore announces he is not running for reelection.

  20. keaneo says:

    I’m surprised Uncle Sugar didn’t try to shoot down the Aeroflot plane carrying Edward Snowden to Moscow, this morning. Maybe they’ll try on the connection to Cuba – or Venezuela.

  21. MikeN says:

    And why did the government feel the need to lie about a drug training exercise on the same plane earlier in the day?

    Why did they make up a second interview with Mike Wire, only discovered because he had a name that didn’t get blacked out in documents?

  22. MikeN says:

    “Let me say something else about this eyewitness [Wire] because I think this is interesting. He was an important eyewitness to us. And we asked the FBI to talk to him again, and they did. In his original description, he thought he had seen a firework and that perhaps that firework had originated on the beach behind the house. We went to that location and realized that if he was only seeing the airplane, that he would not see a light appear from behind the rooftop of that house. The light would actually appear in the sky. It’s high enough in the sky that that would have to happen.

    When he was reinterviewed, he said that is indeed what happened. The light did appear in the sky. Now, when the FBI told us that, we got even more comfortable with our theory.

    The italics are mine. There was no second FBI interview. The government also recorded a second FBI interview with Witness #73, the witness about whom I spoke briefly on CNN. In her second interview #73 confessed to drinking several “Long Ice Teas,” and these impaired her judgment. In real life, she doesn’t drink, did not even know what a Long Island Ice Tea was. As in Wire’s case, there was no second interview. To make its theory that a mechanical failure brought down TWA 800 work, the CIA manufactured interviews for two essential eyewitnesses and ignored McClaine. ”

    McClaine was piloting another aircraft, and according to the CIA scenario, part of the plane went right up into his path. McClaine insists this did not happen. He also would have been unable to see a missile, so using him to argue against it is weird.

    Plus, why was the CIA involved?

  23. JimD says:

    Pierre Salinger was telling us this at the time, and they called him a crackpot !!!


Bad Behavior has blocked 3740 access attempts in the last 7 days.