On the Other Hand...
by Jim Davies
TWA Flight 800: Some Qs and As
Unlike normal Editions of this column, this one comes without any guarantee of veracity. We see in a glass darkly, and there must, alas, be much speculation in the remarks below. But I've been so sickened recently at the way the Establishment media have so vigorously denounced any and all who dare question the non-theory about why Flight 800 fell out of the sky last summer, that I thought to offer an idea of what alternative explanations are out there.
For a long time, I've been puzzled by a number of questions:
1. Reportedly, 150 witnesses on the South shore of Long Island last July 17th saw a flare-like object streak towards the aircraft just before it blew up. At the time, the FBI described 34 them as "credible." Question: Why have some of them not been extensively interviewed on TV for us all to see and judge for ourselves whether they are flakes or reliable observers?
2. Several snapshots happened to be taken at around 8.30 pm that day in that area, and some of them reportedly show either the flare or a mysterious cylindrical object flying low over the Dockers Cafe in East Quogue, NY. Question: Why have not these photos been given wider publication?
3. A retired crash investigator for the Airline Pilots' Association, Dick Russell, has obtained a copy of an FAA radar tape showing mysterious blips apparently approaching the doomed plane. Again, why has not a very interested public been taken through those images step by step on TV and in the mainstream press, so that we can hear both interpretations of what they mean? Why must we download "Paris-Match" from the Internet in order to see them in print?
The Establishment media belittle such questions as the ravings of conspiracy buffs, and that poses another question: since they are quite obviously not ravings from anyone, but pertinent and reasonable, why have those media so miserably failed to do what they are supposed to do, ie critically to examine everything that comes out of the mouths of government officials in case We the People are being deceived by the very bureaucrats whose salaries we pay?
Here's the speculation; I don't know the answers, any more than anyone else outside the inner circle of government officials who may know. But it's a possible theory that does fit the facts and does answer those questions.
First event, last July 17th: about 185 miles South of Long Island, the Navy fired off an unarmed cruise missile to be used for target practice, heading North. The plan was to have it shot down way out at sea, by one of the well computerized missile defense sytems that the Navy was testing.
Alas, something went wrong and that didn't happen. Instead another Navy vessel took over the task, again under computer control; this was much nearer Long Island but no one person "fired" it knowingly; the triggering was automatic.
The anti-missile missile detected the cruise target, but unhappily locked on instead to a more prominent flying object on the same heading: TWA 800. This it hit, while witness Tom Dougherty watched, with others; and the rest is history. Now for how that scenario answers my questions, above.
The cylindrical object which was photographed would be the cruise target. The bangs Dougherty heard just prior to the attack-missile launch were sonic booms from the target, as it passed over the shore at supersonic speed. The cruiser may have continued on North, to be recovered later after a parachute landing.
The flare that several witnesses saw was of course the attack missile, and which brought down the airliner. The radar blips that Russell has obtained were its tracks as it closed in on TW800.
Those blips occurred at 4-second intervals, all in one direction or path. It seems that random, scattered radar blips do show up routinely, but these were all in one path. And the FAA radar tape reached the White House BEFORE the FBI.
Why the vigorous ridiculing of all this, the reluctance to part with the photos and put the witnesses on TV? - because (if this theory is true) every high government official from Clinton on down had committed himself from July 18th onwards to the lie that no Navy missile could possibly have been involved, and therefore they absolutely must keep the lid on this thing and cover it up; or else these Big-Liars would be exposed and government would collapse. Delicious thought. So the witnesses would be intimidated, the radar concealed, the photos confiscated, etc., etc.
This account explains also why the Navy was able to cover it up. Whatever the malfeasance of their seniors, it's hard indeed to see how hundreds of Navy personnel could be intimidated to stay silent. The answer would be that they didn't know; for the firing was automatic! Yes, a few would know; but to stop the leaks, the plumbers would have only to deal those few, not with hundreds.
This theory does leave open the question of why no trace of a missile hit has been found aboard the wreckage, if indeed that's the case. An explanation is that the attack missile was not armed; that is was never intended to explode but merely to hit its target. When it hit the 747, it passed through and its hot tip or exhaust ignited the fuel in the central tank, but continued and fell into the sea with other wreckage, later to be recovered and secreted. The holes it left in the fuselage would have to be in pieces either still lost or hidden.
Seven months ago I wrote here that if the crash was caused by terrorists then the blame lies squarely with the authors of US foreign policy for all of this Century. That's still valid. But if it was instead an accidental shoot-down, by "friendly fire", we have here a coverup ten times as massive as Watergate and, hopefully, ten times as destructive of what remains of public confidence in the bloated and destructive appendage we call "government".
Back to Subject Index