I checked my AOL account ([email protected]) Sunday morning to discover a rush of new, high-level leads, all of them generated by a single WND article and all of them supportive of the thesis that missiles destroyed TWA Flight 800 off the Long Island Coast on July 17, 1996.
Admittedly, some of these accounts are secondhand, but several of the contributors volunteered to follow up with their sources. The number of leads from this one article and the level of sophistication of the contributors suggest that this story is capable of breaking open.
Those responding included:
- A current Boeing 777 pilot, whose close friend, a diver, retrieved parts of the plane from the ocean bottom. The parts “showed evidence of an explosive device such as a missile impact,” and he was “convinced that the plane was shot down by a SAM [surface-to-air missile].”
- A retired Continental Airline pilot who recounted several instances of associates sharing their TWA 800 stories, all of them pointing to a missile attack.
- A retired Delta Airlines pilot whose plane on July 17, 1996, left JFK about a half hour or so after TWA 800. Sitting in the jump seat on this flight and monitoring the frenzied chatter after TWA 800 went down, he was struck by the warning from air traffic control to watch out for a Navy P-3 Orion. He asked himself, “What is a Navy P-3 doing out here?” Had the New York Times asked this question, the truth might have come out 20 years ago.
- A New York area air traffic controller whose close friend was involved in the investigation. The friend grew increasingly paranoid and close mouthed as the investigation wore on. Said the controller, “I believe that what happened was a missile.”
- A Boeing engineer who worked with fellow in charge of the investigation at the Boeing end and was admittedly “leery of the Democrat party and their willingness to protect at any cost.” This conversation continues.
- A government employee working at the Naval Support base at Souda Bay, Greece, spoke with a Navy commander about TWA 800. The commander claimed to have been “a participant in a U.S. Navy exercise off the coast of N.J.” Said this fellow, “He informed me he knew missiles took down the flight, and that the missiles were U.S. and from one of our surface ships participating in the Naval exercise.”
- A former Navy chief who saw an amateur video shown on the news the night of the crash before being quickly pulled. “YES, it was exactly like missiles I’ve seen test fired at sea. No doubt in my mind at all.” He continued, “We fired them at remotely-controlled drones in the ’70s and ’80s. You weren’t supposed to actually hit the drone, but we did sometimes. You can clearly see the missile in this video.”
- Another Navy veteran who was in the exercise command headquarters when the U.S. Navy shot a missile at a Turkish vessel “around 1991.” In fact, the year was 1992 when two live Sea Sparrow missiles were accidentally fired from the USS Saratoga during a NATO exercise off Turkey. The missiles killed five and wounded 22 Turkish sailors.From that experience, the veteran knew how national security imperatives ensured silence. Still, a member of the TWA 800 dive team told him just two years ago, “There were clear signs the seats were burned at unusual angles, the fuselages had entry holes and many other indications and evidence/markings inconsistent with a regular crash.”
- A retired Navy captain, who was CO on two “destroyer type ships” on the East Coast and served as executive officer of the Navy missile technical center. “You are right that the only thing to take down the plane at that altitude in the U.S. arsenal is the Standard II missile,” he wrote. “It had to be a ‘war shot’ to have an explosive warhead.” This captain has followed the case from the beginning and volunteered to dig up new information.
- An ordnance expert, who “shot at more aircraft than any other person alive” while test firing missiles at the Navy’s Air Weapons Station at China Lake. After TWA 800’s destruction, he contacted the FBI and volunteered his assistance. “I called them during the time when the wreckage was being recovered. In any event, there was no response after my initial contact.” A bombardier in World War II, he believes that “all the facts should be laid out on the table.”
A certified aircraft maintenance technician with more than 35 years experience maintaining transport category aircraft of various sizes struck a theme that I have heard from no fewer than 20 knowledgeable individuals in the month since the release of my book, “TWA Flight 800: The Crash, The Cover-Up, The Conspiracy.”
Like so many others, the technician was appalled by the final explanation the NTSB provided for TWA 800’s demise: namely, a center fuel tank explosion “most likely” caused by a spark in its vapor-filled center tank. Said the technician, “If it were a spark that really caused the accident and knowing the FAA, all 747s would have immediately been grounded, including Air Force One.”
The technician spoke of his experience working inside a fume-filled DC 10 fuel tank when he struck a steel bolt with a steel punch and generated a spark. No explosion resulted, “but I never ever used a steel punch again!”
“As an airline pilot I laugh at the notion of a spark igniting an intact center fuel tank,” wrote the 777 pilot. “Can’t happen. Fuel vapor mixture, especially Jet A-1, is too rich.”
In a follow-up call, the Continental pilot told me of an NTSB-produced video on firefighting she and her colleagues were compelled to watch some time after TWA 800 went down. She believes it was late 1997, three years before the NTSB reached its final conclusions.
Throughout the video, the pilot distinctly remembers the narrator stressing over and over “the convoluted nonsense” that a spontaneous fuel tank explosion caused the 747 to explode. “Pure propaganda,” said the pilot. “No way a spark in the center tank caused this to happen.”
One 747 pilot told me that when the NTSB advanced its final analysis, “I was sick to my stomach. It cannot happen. It is impossible. There is nothing else to be said.”
Media wishing to interview Jack Cashill, please contact [email protected].