Video: Whistleblowers claim cover-up in mysterious TWA 800 crash

posted at 1:21 pm on June 19, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The explosion of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 prompted a lot of speculation at the time about terrorism, and not irrationally, either. Libyan intelligence took part in the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, for instance, and the Iranians were threatening retaliation after the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air 655 by mistake the same year. Later, the TWA 800 flight appeared to fit within the context of al-Qaeda operations against the US, although no claim of responsibility was made for it as a terrorist attack. The NTSB eventually ruled that it was a defect in the fuel tank that sparked the explosion, a ruling that witnesses and families of victims have resisted ever since.

Now, a new documentary argues that the US covered up the real cause of the explosion — and his case is bolstered by a number of whistleblowers who worked in the original investigation:

TWA Flight 800 exploded in mid-air on July 17, 1996 about 11 minutes after taking off from New York’s JFK airport on its way to Paris. Though theories abounded as to what happened to the plane — from a bomb on the aircraft to it being struck by a missile or even a meteorite — the National Transportation Safety Board concluded after a four-year investigation that the probable cause of the crash was an accidental fuel tank explosion. The NTSB said it could not be sure what exactly ignited the blast, but “of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the [fuel tank] that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring…”

But according to the new documentary, named TWA Flight 800 and premiering on Epix next month, six former members of the official crash investigation have stepped forward to refute the NTSB’s findings, saying the crash report was purposefully falsified, and to claim the investigation was “systematically undermined” by federal authorities.

“We didn’t find any part of the airplane that indicated a mechanical failure,” one of the whistleblowers says in a trailer for the film. The former officials allege the explosion came from outside the plane, though they don’t speculate any further on the original source.

Another of the whistleblowers, former senior accident investigator with the NTSB Hank Hughes, said in a preview of the documentary that FBI agents were spotted on surveillance cameras going through the hanger where the crash evidence was kept “in the wee hours of the morning… for purposes unknown.”

What does all this mean? Not even the whistleblowers want to jump to a conclusion; they just want the investigation re-opened, and the original investigation reviewed.  The NTSB, for its part, says that if presented with enough evidence it will reopen the probe, but that they stand by the results of their four-year investigation.  But with whistleblowers suddenly popping up all over the place in more recent contexts, it seems like open season on government efforts these days.  Expect to see a lot more about TWA 800 aired all over again, especially given the number and expertise of the whistleblowers.

Still, I think a healthy skepticism is the order of the day here.  A cover-up of the scale suggested by the whistleblowers would be, as the two ABC reporters note, one of the largest in American history, involving several agencies and scores of people.  It’s not impossible, but it’s not likely, either.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Whoever posted this article is going to get banned for discussing conspiracy theories.

slickwillie2001 on June 19, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Oh God… My co-blogger is going to have field day with this one. He still believes in the Illuminati and that 9/11 was an inside job.

I hate my life.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on June 19, 2013 at 1:27 PM

The simple fact is, the ease of bringing down an airliner with a shoulder launched surface to air missile, and how many of these weapons are in the wind, would bring commercial air traffic to an end.

Rebar on June 19, 2013 at 1:28 PM

We already knew this. I hope the investigation is re-opened soon.

missouriyankee on June 19, 2013 at 1:28 PM

An exploding fuel tank? Sounds fishy to me. When has that happened before or since? Of course, the 747 was old, so perhaps there could have been some degradation that might have caused the explosion, but that doesn’t reflect well on Boeing.

rickv404 on June 19, 2013 at 1:30 PM

I used to live in Connecticut and I saw on TV a guy from Long Island who is a commercial fisherman and was out that night on Long Island Sound and he swears he saw what looked like a missle trail that night. IIRC he wasn’t the only one who said they saw it either.

Johnnyreb on June 19, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Still, I think a healthy skepticism is the order of the day here. A cover-up of the scale suggested by the whistleblowers would be, as the two ABC reporters note, one of the largest in American history, involving several agencies and scores of people. It’s not impossible, but it’s not likely, either.

It doesn’t have to be large. The whistleblowers make it sound like the cause of the incident is still to be determined. Without smoking gun evidence of sabotage senior investigators can just simply make their claim of mechanical failure and expect all subordinates to fall in line behind the claim. But now it would appear all of these investigators are no longer employed by the NTSB so they feel comfortable publicly airing their doubts about the official conclusion.

NotCoach on June 19, 2013 at 1:32 PM

I’m no conspiracy theorist, but TWA 800 is one case where I’ve always had my doubts about the official conclusion that it was just an accident. There were so many eyewitnesses–including military pilots–who reported seeing a streak of light going upward, followed by an explosion. And, if I recall correctly, explosive residue was found on one part of the aircraft that was recovered from the ocean. The official explanation for the explosive residue was that the plane had been used for a K9 training exercise several weeks before. There was enough residue left from a training exercise weeks prior that it was still detectable after days or weeks submerged in salt water? Really?

I’m skeptical any time someone claims “coverup”, but there are a number of intriguing questions left about this case.

Hayabusa on June 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Anyone who spent any time in the industry knows that this never smelled right from the get-go. I wouldn’t be so dismissive of these whistleblowers.

CycloneCDB on June 19, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Conspiracy theories in my hot gas? Its more likely than you think!

A cover-up of the scale suggested by the whistleblowers would be, as the two ABC reporters note, one of the largest in American history, involving several agencies and scores of people.

Its called compartmentalization. That and I’m sure metadata/IRS/ etc. intimidation of potential whistle blowers, especially if you have no hard evidence it was a missile attack or bomb.

oryguncon on June 19, 2013 at 1:35 PM

IIRC, there were reports from either boats just offshore, or other pilots close in, of missle like sightings. This thing seemed fishy all the way through.

a capella on June 19, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Whoever posted this article is going to get banned for discussing conspiracy theories.

slickwillie2001 on June 19, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Next thing you know, we will be able to write about se(c)eding and se(c)ession.

MoreLiberty on June 19, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Oops.

a capella on June 19, 2013 at 1:37 PM

There was enough residue left from a training exercise weeks prior that it was still detectable after days or weeks submerged in salt water? Really?

Hayabusa on June 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM

What you really saw was swamp gas from a weather balloon reflecting off of the planet Venus. Nothing to see here.

Johnnyreb on June 19, 2013 at 1:37 PM

I think Flight 800 was blown-up by the man on the grassy knoll.

Bitter Clinger on June 19, 2013 at 1:38 PM

A Brian Ross story – and he didn’t blame the Tea Party? Geez Brian, you’re slipping.

Hill60 on June 19, 2013 at 1:38 PM

What difference does it make?

Hillary Clinton, 2016

RoadRunner on June 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Jack Cashill has been about the only one writing about this over the years. There’s lots of evidence that has been suppressed, and witnesses ignored or not interviewed. If this gets traction, the fit will hit the shan.

Dexter_Alarius on June 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Are they sure that those were FBI? Could they have been men in black suits wearing sunglasses claiming to be FBI?

RoadRunner on June 19, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I remember watching a documentary on this(Air Crash Investigation or Seconds from Disaster) where they went through the gas tank theory. Everything was set up but they admitted they had no clue what caused the spark that could have caused the explosion. This news is no surprise.

Cornell Conservative on June 19, 2013 at 1:41 PM

What military pilots claim this?

I know of testimony from military pilots that were directly above TWA 800 that didn’t report seeing this at all.

blink on June 19, 2013 at 1:36 PM

“Well, if you were directly above him, how could you see him?”

CycloneCDB on June 19, 2013 at 1:41 PM

This was one of a handful of things that turned me against the Democrats.

A blatant coverup at the time. Even the TV docu’s that have tried to show how the NTSB report is correct are illogical.

Look at the year. 1996.

Clinton wasn’t willing to go after UBL, AQ or Saddam, after everything they executed.

Why would this be any different?

Shoulder-fire pad from a boat in the harbor.

And at the same time?

We had AlGore watering down the airline safety bill because the industry lobby didn’t want to pay for the upgrades, like hardening the cockpit doors.

budfox on June 19, 2013 at 1:44 PM

The conclusion that this crash was caused by ignition of fuel turned out to be very costly for the aviation / airline industry. Large transport airplanes are now required to have on-board systems to generate nitrogen for inerting fuel tanks.

dont taze me bro on June 19, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Dexter_Alarius on June 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Maybe this was Glenn Beck’s big news last week.

esr1951 on June 19, 2013 at 1:47 PM

The big downer to this is that fact that no-one claimed bragging rights – the staple fare of terrorists.

However, a silent message from a belligerent govt is another thing altogether.

Just when did Clinton give the farm to the ChiComs?

OldEnglish on June 19, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Oh God… My co-blogger is going to have field day with this one. He still believes in the Illuminati and that 9/11 was an inside job.

I hate my life.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on June 19, 2013 at 1:27 PM

HA!

I sympathize…Prison Planet broadcasts in my hometown & I hate that guy.

workingclass artist on June 19, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Dexter_Alarius on June 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Maybe this was Glenn Beck’s big news last week.

esr1951 on June 19, 2013 at 1:47 PM

But he didn’t scoop this right?

That’s the problemo with many of his super secret big news stories…they kinda disappear.

workingclass artist on June 19, 2013 at 1:52 PM

If I remember correctly, isn’t this the flight that some alleged was shot down by a missile – and someone even had fuzzy picture of it exploding?

HondaV65 on June 19, 2013 at 1:52 PM

What, is Art bell thinking of coming out of retirement, again?

Jeff Weimer on June 19, 2013 at 1:54 PM

This was one of a handful of things that turned me against the Democrats.

A blatant coverup at the time. Even the TV docu’s that have tried to show how the NTSB report is correct are illogical.

Look at the year. 1996.

Clinton wasn’t willing to go after UBL, AQ or Saddam, after everything they executed.

Why would this be any different?

Shoulder-fire pad from a boat in the harbor.

And at the same time?

We had AlGore watering down the airline safety bill because the industry lobby didn’t want to pay for the upgrades, like hardening the cockpit doors.

budfox on June 19, 2013 at 1:44 PM

If it was AQ…wouldn’t they claim it by now?

Not sayin’ it wasn’t…just wonderin out loud.

workingclass artist on June 19, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Dexter_Alarius on June 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Maybe this was Glenn Beck’s big news last week.

esr1951 on June 19, 2013 at 1:47 PM

But he didn’t scoop this right?

That’s the problemo with many of his super secret big news stories…they kinda disappear.

workingclass artist on June 19, 2013 at 1:52 PM

The story about Glenn Beck’s super-enormous big scoop last week was a scam by a leftie site. They took two clips of Beck and spliced them together, etc.

slickwillie2001 on June 19, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Another Investigation? BWAHAHAHAAAA. Not gonna happen – at least not for real.

Look it would point to things the government does NOT want the public to know – I.E. that the SAUDI-FUNDED Al Qaeda / Muslim Brotherhood (yeah, they ARE the same) have been continually attacking the United States for nearly 3 decades – maybe more.

Were the public to become aware of this fact in all its implications, it would be a disaster for the economy and the efforts of the whole political class to maintain a stable economy and relation with the Islamic world.

Why? Has anyone forgotten what the term JAP meant after Pearl Harbor? This would be 10 times worse … as the public would demand revenge and an accounting from all the rich folks who have been making billions off commerce with the Islamic world.

The Saudi’s would pull all their money out of the stock market and cut off oil to ALL the West (not just the US). Muslims would be the target of lynch mobs around the country – the images sullying our reputation in Europe and elsewhere which would harm our businesses and international relations and drive the Muslim world both into Chinese and Russian arms AND likely spark a global war between the US and the Mideast/Iran/Pakistan with nukes involved.

The political class has done EVERYTHING to cover up this running guerrilla war since it started – they’d have buried the identity of 911′s authors if they could have, but that one was too obvious. Instead they got us onto Afghanistan and then Saddam – anything to keep us from targeting the Saudi’s and their agents (the Muslim Brotherhood) here in America.

babylonandon on June 19, 2013 at 1:56 PM

I can think of several things would cause an exploding fuel tank, among them a missile or a bomb…

Shay on June 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM

(“Pardon me. Excuse me”)

[Climbs up on soapbox]

HEY Ed! AP! Erika! MKH!

From down here in the trenches – a message!

You’ve BANNED annoyinglittletwerp for using an offensive phrase?

Is that a fair statement?

But day in and day out you tolerate filth like this which was a response to a conservative commenter whose mother is deceased:

You are an idiot. Everyone here knows you are an idiot hence the reason why they do not pay you any attention.

You are better off going back to your previous rants about how your mother loves servicing your trailer park buddies. At least you made some sense back then.

HotAirLib on June 16, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Is that because the commenter claims to be a black, homosexual professor in real life???

Or is that a DIFFERENT troll?

Maybe I am confused because as long as a commenter is taking a liberal/progressive/leftist position, there is NEVER any banning by any of you.

Liberal/progressive/leftist commenters can call people names?

Liberal/progressive/leftist commenters can call slander any conservative commenter without fear of getting banned?

Liberal/progressive/leftist commenters can post flat out LIES? Endlessly? Forever?

Are those the REAL rules of Hot Air?

The Hot Air staff gets page hits from people reading our comments.

All of the regular, non-troll commenters, INCLUDING ALT, always try to do their best.

This makes the comments worth reading and generates page hits for the staff and revenue for their owner, Townhall.

I am NOT saying offensive language should be tolerated without consequences.

Suspend ALT’s account for a week. Let her cool down. BE EQUITABLE.

Especially since the Hot Air staff are complete squishes when it comes to banning Liberal/progressive/leftist commenters who post ALL KINDS of offensive statements.

Many of your regular commenters find the situation so disturbing we even try our own form of policing called TROLL-COT!

Now, when one of the people who provides consistently positive commenting has a one-off melt down, the ban hammer falls ???

My proposal is it is time for the regular commenters to engage in an act of civil disobedience.

This does NOT mean calling people names or being offensive or violating the terms of use.

It DOES mean it is time for the commenters who provide significant comment, intelligent discussion and countless links to items of significant interest to the people who can only READ Hot Air to STOP providing vaulable content to Hot Air until such time as a reasonable resolution of the ALT situation and similar situations is put in place.

Personally, I think Hot Air would benefit from a lot more direct quotes of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bible and other sources solely of interest to a CONSERVATIVE readership.

No more links to other sites.

No inclusion of other source material which improves the value of the post by a member of the Hot Air staff.

And the people who are used to reading intelligent discussions on a variety of topics?

They will get bored REAL QUICK and page hits will DROP.

Perhaps, if we can provide an economic incentive, the staff of Hot Air may decide to put more EQUITABLE effort in towards the treatment of the conservative commenters and EQUALLY enforce standards on the liberal/progressive/leftist commenters who are generally given a FREE PASS regardless of HOW OFFENSIVE their comments may be.

PolAgnostic on June 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Was there something last week that indicated that terrorists weren’t trying to board planes anymore and that there was going to be a trend toward missiles? I thought I heard that somewhere.
I have always thought that Flight 800 was shot out of the sky. I could see a Clintoon era coverup. Hell, there was no terrorism during Clinton because he was another beloved Democrat.
I would love to see this investigation reopened, although I doubt it. The truth doesn’t seem to be a goal of those in charge.

ORconservative on June 19, 2013 at 1:58 PM

If there’s new evidence, I’d like to see it, but it doesn’t sound like there is any.

BohicaTwentyTwo on June 19, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Just got in from 24 hrs of traveling this morning. Non-revved from SF to DFW to BOS to JFK. This morning, coming across Long Island (it was cool I saw my friends houses and my old HS hehehe), I told my girlfriend we would most likely take a southern bank and head along the southern coast of LI.

We did, and as we did, I began thinking of TWA 800. 20 minutes later I accessed Drudge and saw the headline about it. Weird.

Anyway, I know a former Suffolk County PD guy who helped do interviews with coastal residents. Tons of people reported the SAME thing, seeing something go UP towards the aircraft. Who knows.

blatantblue on June 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM

What difference does it make?

Hillary Clinton, 2016

RoadRunner on June 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM

+1

The splash zone on this can’t miss the former first lady.

STL_Vet on June 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM

A cover-up of the scale suggested by the whistleblowers would be, as the two ABC reporters note, one of the largest in American history, involving several agencies and scores of people.

You mean, kind of like, say, Benghazi?

Tenwheeler on June 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM

First, lets find out if these whistleblowers have any connection to the airline or aircraft industries.

Second, are any wrongful death suits as a result of TWA 800 still in play? If so, is there any connection of these whistleblowers to those bringing the suits?

BobMbx on June 19, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Squirrel?

catsandbooks on June 19, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Nelson DeMille’s novel based on the TWA 800 crash called Nightfall is a MUST READ!

Pub. 2005.

wyntre9 on June 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM

It was shot down with a dark matter torpedo when it came too close to a Reptilian diplomatic transport.

DarkCurrent on June 19, 2013 at 2:08 PM

HondaV65 on June 19, 2013 at 1:52 PM
Yes, all explained by NTSB report.
blink on June 19, 2013 at 1:56 PM

“Shut up”, he explained.

Cleombrotus on June 19, 2013 at 2:08 PM

It was shot down with a dark matter torpedo when it came too close to a Reptilian diplomatic transport.

DarkCurrent on June 19, 2013 at 2:08 PM

You were warned about discussing this. Prepare for trans-galactic parabolic transport.

BobMbx on June 19, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Speaking of 1990s conspiracies, I always saw the death of Diana to have happened something like Clancy’s Patriot Games. They were able to sweep up the whole group who did it, and because they were way far off the reservation as far as their own side went, the Provos went along with the coverup (both in the book and IMHO with Diana)Maybe something similar happened here. The collapse of the USSR was bringing a whole lot of conflicting ethnicities across negotiating tables. And it would not be out of character for someone to commit an act in hopes of sabotaging the talks

Sekhmet on June 19, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I think this is pretty easy to explain, actually (DoJ withholding findings from NTSB, I mean.)

1996 was of course Clinton’s re-election year. At the time of the TWA 800 downing, the WTC bombing by Al Qaeda was less than three years old—on the Clinton DoJ and CIA watch. Also in 1993—the Branch Davidian massacre in Waco, the result of gross overreach by the BATF with support from DoJ.

1995—the Murrah building bombing in OKC, retribution by domestic terror on the second anniversary of Waco. In 1996, less than three weeks before TWA 800, Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed by Al Qaeda, targeting American military personnel.

So at the height of an election season, literally months/weeks before the election (the NTSB investigation), the last thing a Clinton executive and DoJ needed was a media hailstorm regarding terror, domestic (a la McVeigh) or foreign (a la bin Laden). CIA and FBI held back their findings from NTSB.

Makes perfect sense to me.

hungrymongo on June 19, 2013 at 2:13 PM

The reasons I have major doubt is because there was zero noticeable change in travel security after the crash. If authorities knew all along that the plane was downed by a missile, they knew that there could be 100 more afterward. In fact, why weren’t there? Ran outta missiles?

Shy Guy on June 19, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Remember, it was the TWA 800 explosion that help to propel MSNBC in their first days on the air.

J_Crater on June 19, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Prepare for trans-galactic parabolic transport.

BobMbx on June 19, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Damn

DarkCurrent on June 19, 2013 at 2:14 PM

nope, don’t believe it. if it were a shoulder fired missile the terrorists would’ve struck again and again. they would never abandon a successful tactic that an official investigation covered up for them.

chasdal on June 19, 2013 at 2:15 PM

An exploding fuel tank? Sounds fishy to me. When has that happened before or since?

rickv404 on June 19, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Actually, it happened in 1989 in the traffic pattern at Loring AFB with a KC-135 (essentially a Boeing 707). I flew over the airplane-shaped burn on the hill it impacted for the more than two years I flew there. A fuel pump heated up and made the fuel vapor in an otherwise empty main tank explode.

One at Altus AFB in 1987 landed on fire. It was a compromised coax cable that arced, causing fuel vapor to ignite (it obviously had an exit from the tank, and didn’t explode, though the airplane burned totally in the infield once it landed).

One exploded in 1982 on approach to O’Hare airport. In 1971, one crashed as the #1 main tank exploded. Chafing of boost pump wires in conduits was determined to be a possible ignition source. And, in 1959, a main fuel tank explosion on the ramp destroyed another.

Yes, it has happened before.

GWB on June 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM

You’ve BANNED annoyinglittletwerp for using an offensive phrase?

PolAgnostic on June 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM

When did that happen? It’s a shame.

Gelsomina on June 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM

I think Flight 800 was blown-up by the man on the grassy knoll.

Bitter Clinger on June 19, 2013 at 1:38 PM

I know. The same kind of garbage like government computers scanning all of our phone and internet communications, a President that can’t remember how old he is or his birthday, and the IRS targeting conservative non-profit groups.

I’d say that some still think Eisenhower is president and everything is just grand…but then we’d be stuck again with an FBI chief that says organized crime doesn’t exist, and that U.S. Communists and KGB spies in the U.S. don’t exist.

Yes, the government never lies to us and planes blow up in the sky quite often actually.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM

nope, don’t believe it. if it were a shoulder fired missile the terrorists would’ve struck again and again. they would never abandon a successful tactic that an official investigation covered up for them.

chasdal on June 19, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Which is why the other theory floated at the time was that the US Navy, which had assets in the area, accidentally shot down the plane.

That fits the “one-off” nature of the disaster.

CurtZHP on June 19, 2013 at 2:19 PM

You’ve BANNED annoyinglittletwerp for using an offensive phrase?

PolAgnostic on June 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM

You gotta be kidding! Bring her back!

Shy Guy on June 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM

OT/ Ted Cruz speaking at the Audit the IRS rally.

MontanaMmmm on June 19, 2013 at 2:11 PM

This cant be real. It’s not on any of the networks.

faraway on June 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM

No, the Clintons wouldn’t cover anything up. We have got to get it through our heads that Democrats get away with stuff and it doesn’t matter how many people are involved. These are the people who put up the wall between our intelligence agencies. Go ahead and dismiss this along with Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Castle Grande, Beef futures, Monique Lewinsky, Weiner’s wife and Benghazi. I am sure I am missing all sorts of others but the fact is, you can’t have this much smoke without a fire.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Which is why the other theory floated at the time was that the US Navy, which had assets in the area, accidentally shot down the plane.

CurtZHP on June 19, 2013 at 2:19 PM

I heard the entire ship’s staff was threatened with IRS audits.

Shy Guy on June 19, 2013 at 2:22 PM

An exploding fuel tank? Sounds fishy to me. When has that happened before or since?

rickv404 on June 19, 2013 at 1:30 PM

So things that only happen once aren’t real?

Statistically, they’re insignificant. In reality, they’re the scariest events to a safety engineer. It would be nice if they could re-create the flight in a controlled manner and induce a fuel tank explosion simply to produce a templar but the power of the aircraft manufacturers over the FAA and NTSB keeps that sort of thing from happening.

They don’t want any objective evidence that concludes that it is possible. They’d never stop writing wrongful death compensation checks.

BobMbx on June 19, 2013 at 2:23 PM

CurtZHP on June 19, 2013 at 2:19 PM

that is much more plausible than a terrorist attack. also, I noticed the flight was at approx. 16,000 ft altitude. that’s about a mile at least beyond a stinger’s range. not sure about foreign shoulder fired missiles.

chasdal on June 19, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Still, I think a healthy skepticism is the order of the day here. A cover-up of the scale suggested by the whistleblowers would be, as the two ABC reporters note, one of the largest in American history, involving several agencies and scores of people. It’s not impossible, but it’s not likely, either.

And what would be the purpose of such a cover-up?

Happy Nomad on June 19, 2013 at 2:26 PM

PolAgnostic on June 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM

i didn’t know annoyinglittletwerp was banned. that’s sad- her comments were interesting. i hope she is allowed back. what did she say? (well don’t repeat it word-for-word…)

it’s not fair that ALT is banned while the stupid liberal idiots are still allowed here to spread their bullcrap talking points.

Sachiko on June 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Lizard People.

If they could get Al Franken into the Senate, why not this?

Bruno Strozek on June 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM

And what would be the purpose of such a cover-up?

Happy Nomad on June 19, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Coverup is a strong blanket term. I would suggest compartmentalization and withholding information, or at the least not being forthcoming.

Motivation in my 2:13 post. Certainly consistent with other Clinton-era actions.

hungrymongo on June 19, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Whoever these whistleblowers are, we should find out about their work history, what their women look like, and what kind of embarrassing pictures of them exist.

And if you’re against that, then you’re a TRAITORRRRRRRRRRRRBAWWWWRRRRRRR.

MadisonConservative on June 19, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I heard the entire ship’s staff was threatened with IRS audits.

Shy Guy on June 19, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I think the word you’re looking for is crew. About the only staff you’ll find on a Navy ship is the jackstaff at the bow where the flag known as the jack is flown.

Happy Nomad on June 19, 2013 at 2:30 PM

CurtZHP on June 19, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Now that’s the one place I couldn’t believe that that many mouths could be kept shut.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2013 at 2:31 PM

And what would be the purpose of such a cover-up?

Happy Nomad on June 19, 2013 at 2:26 PM

usually its not a very good or valid reason at all. Watergate is the prime example. if the WH had just cut those guys lose. said they had gone off the reservation by committing the burglary and encouraged the DC police and courts to crucify them people would’ve just shrugged and it would’ve been over.

but paranoid narcissists always assume the worst when there is a chance for them to be touched on in a scandal so they try to do everything they can to uphold the appearance of saintliness. did we have a paranoid narcissist in the WH when this happened??

chasdal on June 19, 2013 at 2:31 PM

HondaV65 on June 19, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Yes, all explained by NTSB report.

blink on June 19, 2013 at 1:56 PM

“Shut up”, he explained.

Cleombrotus on June 19, 2013 at 2:08 PM

It’s curious to watch blink here trying to sweep this new report under the rug, totally unwilling to accept any possible new evidence, and unquestioningly accepting the version generated by Clinton’s NTSB.

Could blink really be James Kallstrom?

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Still, I think a healthy skepticism is the order of the day here. A cover-up of the scale suggested by the whistleblowers would be, as the two ABC reporters note, one of the largest in American history, involving several agencies and scores of people. It’s not impossible, but it’s not likely, either.

And what would be the purpose of such a cover-up?

Happy Nomad on June 19, 2013 at 2:26 PM

To get Bill Clinton re-erected as pResident comes to mind.

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2013 at 2:35 PM

The US Navy had an aircraft flying south at a higher altitude. The aircraft had a torpedo onboard when they took off from Maine, and it had a torpedo onboard when they landed. It never had any missiles at any time during its flight, and, again, it was higher than TWA 800 at the time.

blink on June 19, 2013 at 2:32 PM

But what about surface ships?

I’m not saying that’s what happened. I just remember that was suggested at the time.

CurtZHP on June 19, 2013 at 2:38 PM

But with whistleblowers suddenly popping up all over the place in more recent contexts, it seems like open season on government efforts these days.

Perhaps the most significant consequence of scandalpalooza is the general loss of confidence in the government. Eveything the government says, and has said in the past is now questionable. And that is good.

novaculus on June 19, 2013 at 2:38 PM

PolAgnostic on June 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Dude, you should have learned a while ago that Salem Communications and Ed Morrissey make the rules up as they go along, whenever they feel like it, and Allah and the rest have little to no say in it.

I remember when I got a personal warning for hyperlinking a picture of Jesus Christ giving the finger. You would have to click on it to see what it was, and I believe it was in a post that was dozens of pages.

Ever since Ed and Salem showed up, they’ve turned it into PiousCatholicLoveSomeSantorumAir.com. The topics have become boring, certain topics are never explored in posts anymore, the edginess has been sanitized away, and now certain topics aren’t even up for discussion. They’ll ban people for bringing up conspiracy theories but leave untouched the foulest smears against the entire community.

Not that they’ve given a damn about the community since Ed showed up. He never seemed to pay attention to the Green Room. He was too busy inviting Tina Korbe and other people nobody has ever heard of to write mediocre, dry posts barely distinguishable from his apart from the lower writing quality…when he wasn’t boosting his show for the eight millionth time. Then they turned the Green Room into nothing but a redundancy. I never cared that I couldn’t write anymore, but there were many good writers whose content was helping sustain this husk of a site, like JE Dyer and others. They kicked them to the curb with nothing more than a short email from Ed saying “Thanks, now f**k off”(paraphrased).

And it’s only been going downhill ever since. What a waste of one of the greatest conservative blogs.

MadisonConservative on June 19, 2013 at 2:40 PM

So at the height of an election season, literally months/weeks before the election (the NTSB investigation), the last thing a Clinton executive and DoJ needed was a media hailstorm regarding terror, domestic (a la McVeigh) or foreign (a la bin Laden). CIA and FBI held back their findings from NTSB.

Makes perfect sense to me.

hungrymongo on June 19, 2013 at 2:13 PM

This 1000+

Btw it seems to be a Clinton Trademark this cover up tactic.

JimBob on June 19, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Happy Nomad on June 19, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Must’ve had Love Boat on my mind.

Shy Guy on June 19, 2013 at 2:41 PM

CurtZHP on June 19, 2013 at 2:38 PM

There was no report of any US Navy surface ships in the area at the time.

blink on June 19, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Could have sworn there was. I stand corrected.

CurtZHP on June 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM

I remember hearing lots of reports soon after TWA 800 went down about the possibility that it might have been struck by a heat-seeking missile. There WERE Navy exercises in the area that evening, which would have been a major blunder if a missile fired by the Navy hit an unarmed passenger jet. If a terrorist shot it down with a shoulder-fired Stinger, where would the terrorist be standing? New York City? Long Island? The plane had taken off from JFK Airport flying east, just south of Long Island, but could it have gained enough speed to outrun a Stinger?

I’m not sure whether it’s worth re-opening an investigation 17 years after the event, but there are some similarities…Summer in a Presidential election year, Democrat President running for re-election, possible terrorist attack, need to cover it up, does this remind anyone of Benghazi?

Let’s see…who was President in 1996, yeah, right, and his wife will probably be running in 2016. She was Secretary of State when Ambassador Stevens was killed, and she claims she was shot at while flying out of Tuzla. Maybe we SHOULD look into what happened to TWA 800, as long as we don’t get distracted from Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the NSA tapping our phones and e-mails, and, and, and, …

Steve Z on June 19, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Transcript of Last Moments of EgyptAir Flight 990

Seven Percent Solution on June 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM

One exploded in 1982 on approach to O’Hare airport. In 1971, one crashed as the #1 main tank exploded. Chafing of boost pump wires in conduits was determined to be a possible ignition source. And, in 1959, a main fuel tank explosion on the ramp destroyed another.

Yes, it has happened before.

GWB on June 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM

I’m familiar with a lot of planes crashes, but until TWA 800, I’d never heard of exploding tanks. Glad I gave up flying.

rickv404 on June 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM

A cover-up of the scale suggested by the whistleblowers would be, as the two ABC reporters note, one of the largest in American history, involving several agencies and scores of people. It’s not impossible, but it’s not likely, either.

About as likely as the govt claiming that a known Muslim radical killing 13 soldiers on a US military base whilst screaming “Allahu Akbar!” was “workplace violence”.

rvastar on June 19, 2013 at 2:53 PM

There was no report of any US Navy surface ships in the area at the time.

blink on June 19, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Could have sworn there was. I stand corrected.

CurtZHP on June 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM

There seems to have been an unidentified ship that the FBI couldn’t (or wouldn’t) identify.

http://flight800.org/schiliro.htm

Despite extensive efforts, the FBI has been unable to identify this vessel.

sharrukin on June 19, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3