By: Phil Brennan

We are, in the eyes of the federal government, a bunch of imbeciles who can be expected to
swallow whatever garbage they choose to feed us. That is especially true in the case of the
ill-fated TWA Flight 800 where a top figure in the probe simply cancelled the law of gravity in trying to explain inconvenient facts, and fully expected all of us imbeciles to believe him. He got his wish,  by the way, with those gullible imbeciles known as the mainstream media.

Witnesses can be a severe pain in investigator's hind quarters, especially when there are a whole slew of them contradicting the prober's  pre-conceived notions. When that happens it becomes very important tothe probers to discount the testimony of the inconvenient witnesses by cobbling together all sorts of theories that explain away what the eyewitnesses insist they saw.

That's very much the case of the people investigating the downing of TWA Flight 800. Hundreds of eyewitnesses to the tragedy all say they saw  what appeared to be a missile arcing through the sky, a sudden small explosion followed by a huge blast. The majority of eyewitness accounts are
 in remarkable agreement on the major points.

But the idea that the plane was shot down by a missile is not the conclusion the government people want to reach - for reasons  known only to  them - they insist that the plane went down as a result of a fuel tank explosion. It is therefor necessary for them either to totally ignore the  eyewitness testimony, or find other explanations for what the witnesses say they saw.

For a long while government investigators did ignore the witness's testimony. When that began to create a problem, they then set out to find alternative explanations for what the witnesses agree they saw. In other words what they thought they saw was something else entirely that only  appeared to be what they thought they saw.

In the most recent effort to discount the testimony of hundreds of witnesses to the 1996 downing of TWA flight 800 government investigators launched Stinger missiles from Florida’s Eglin Air Force base and then leaked the story of the secret tests to the administration-friendly  Washington Post.

Moreover, unnamed government sources used a thoroughly discredited theory to explain away the missile sightings reported by eyewitnesses. insisting that what the witnesses saw was not the fiery trail of a missile heading for the ill-fated plane, but the tail half of the aircraft miraculously
rising 3000 feet after being blown apart from the front section.

The Post reported that the government investigators fired the Stinger missiles in an alleged effort to learn if the streaks of light seen by witnesses  could have been a missile streaking toward a target.

Sources familiar with the tests told the newspaper that while final results of their tests were still weeks away "initial observations have turned up nothing to cast doubt on the National Transportation Safety Board's preliminary determination that no missile hit the plane." 

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, their preliminary determination was that no missile hit the plane and TWA 800 went down after the aircraft’s nearly empty center fuel tank exploded, although the cause of the alleged fuel tank explosion has never been determined.

Most inconvenient for the Board has been the dogged insistence by eyewitnesses that they indeed saw a missile heading for the plane. Accounts of the witnesses were long ignored by the FBI and Board investigators, and their persistence in claiming they saw what they saw has been a thorn in the side of the government which for some mysterious reason is almost desperate to prove that the downing was an accident, and not caused by a missile.

As the Post  put it, "Board investigators ... decided that their probe could not be considered complete unless they made a detailed scientific comparison between what the witnesses said in their first interviews with FBI agents and the sights and sounds a missile would make in exactly
 the same atmospheric conditions and lighting as that evening on the Long Island coast. 

 " ‘This was a dotting of the i's and a crossing of the t's,’" a source told the paper. ‘Some concluded it would be very nice to know for certain what you would see. What would a missile look like?" 

Most egregious, was the newspaper’s rehashing of the absurd theory that half the plane flew up about 3,000 feet after the alleged explosion - a suggestion aerodynamic experts scoff at as being absolutely impossible.

"Computerized simulations by the board and the Central Intelligence Agency in December 1997 indicated the streaks could be the flaming fuel tank," the Post    reported.

In the simulations, "The light appeared to be rising because the front of the airplane had broken away and the rest of the aircraft, including the wings, shot upward because it was no longer weighed down by the forward part of the fuselage."

No kidding, that's what they expect us imbeciles to believe. And that's what the FBI's James Kallstrom, the Bureau's top man in the investigation told everybody who would listen. It is an alibi designed for ingestion by imbeciles.

But he wasn't finished. It appears that there was a verified report from another aircraft which said they saw what looked like a missile streaking towards them in the same area where the TWO 800 downing took place. Nobody disputed it because the evidence that something had shot up
 towards the plane was overwhelming and confirmed by radio traffic between the plane's pilots and ground control during the moments it was happening.

So what does Kallstrom do to get rid of this inconvenient fact. Why he tells the imbeciles that there were meteor showers in the area at the time, and that's what the pilots probably saw streaking up and over thee aircraft.

Remember, the object was going up - while in meteor showers the meteors go down. Showers,  rain or meteor do tend to go in a downward direction or we'd all have to carry umbrellas upside down.

To heck with the law of gravity. In Kallstrom's strange world everything apparently goes up. Call it Kallstrom's New Law of Aerodynamics.

In a May 26th statement by Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media, the dead-plane-rising theory was further exploded by the revelation that the CIA’s computerized simulations were based on what a key eyewitness said he saw. The problem is that the witness never said any such thing.

Here’s what Accuracy in Media's courageous Reed Irvine wrote last week:

"The recently released FBI reports of their interviews of eyewitnesses to the downing of TWA Flight 800 contain enough dynamite to blow the lid off the FBI-NTSB-CIA-DOD cover-up of the cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996. The FBI wouldn't even let the NTSB investigators  see these reports for a long time. When they finally sent copies of 756 eyewitness reports to the NTSB, they were in great disarray, causing a further delay in their release to the public. The NTSB recently made them available, together with related documents, on a CD-ROM. These can now be found on Cmdr. William S. Donaldson's web site, www.TWA800.com. This is a treasure trove for anyone interested in getting the truth about the TWA 800 crash.

"Hundreds of eyewitnesses saw TWA Flight 800 crash off the southern coast of Long Island, and what they saw was widely reported by the print and electronic media at the time. The FBI took control of the investigation and refused to let the NTSB interview eyewitnesses. No eyewitnesses were permitted to testify at the NTSB public hearing on the TWA crash in Dec. 1997, and the FBI would not permit any discussion of the 244 eyewitness reports it had shared with the CIA. The CIA used them to produce a video simulation of the crash. James Kallstrom, who headed the FBI investigation, said the questioning of eyewitnesses "would have the unintentional effect of undermining the CIA's work." [In other words, don't let the facts interfere with their conclusions.]

"Now the CIA's work is undermined by the FBI eyewitness reports, together with appendix FF, a transcript of an NTSB witness group discussion on how the CIA decided that all the eyewitnesses who said they saw anything resembling a missile were wrong. 

"An unidentified CIA analyst said they had been trying to figure out what source there could be for the streak of light that 260 eyewitnesses said they had seen. At 10 p.m. on Dec. 30, 1996, he got the idea "that you can explain what the eyewitnesses are seeing with only the burning aircraft."
 Eureka! Claim that everyone mistook the burning aircraft for a missile that caused it to blow up, and that gets rid of the problem created by those 260 eyewitnesses who saw a streak of light. "Analyst" based his great idea on the FBI reports on their interviews of one eyewitness, who, he said, "may be one eyewitness" who saw the entire incident.

"That one eyewitness is Michael Wire, a machinery expert who was working on a new drawbridge on Beach Lane, a road running from Westhampton, Long Island, to the beach. Wire's FBI report says that standing on the bridge, looking toward the beach, he saw a white light just above the rooftop of a house about 900 feet away, ascending from the ground at about a 40 degree angle. It "sparkled" and he thought it was fireworks. It "zig zagged" as it traveled upward and was going south-southeast when it "arched over" and disappeared from view. Two or three seconds later he saw an orange light that appeared to be a fireball in the sky about half a mile away. It was falling at about a 30-degree angle, with a fire trail burning behind it. According to Wire, the fireball disappeared behind a house two houses away from the one where he saw the white light. 

He then heard the first and loudest of four explosions. It shook the bridge. Eight or nine seconds later he heard two more explosions followed by a fourth a second later.

"‘Analyst’ says that Wire was one of the few eyewitnesses who saw TWA 800, minus its nose, climbing 3000 feet. That does not appear in Wire's interview, and he told me that is not true. He said he saw the plane blow up and immediately go down. He believes that what he saw was a missile and that the theory that a fuel explosion initiated the crash is false. 

"‘Analyst’ said that CIA's analysis was driven largely by Wire, "who gave us reference points," the house behind which he had seen "a white light for about 15 seconds" and the other house behind which "a small fireball" disappeared from view. "He was an important eyewitness to us," he said.  The CIA never showed Michael Wise the video they claim he inspired and asked if it portrays what he saw. They have never spoken to him. If they ever do, he will tell them what he told me."

A government source told the Post that it was extremely unfortunate that word of the tests began leaking out because it is possible that the data "will in the end conclude it [a missile] is extremely unlikely" and investigators did not want people to conclude that the tests were prompted by any
 new information. 

In looking into the evidence painstakingly gathered  by retired Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, an experienced crash investigator, Wednesday on the Web has found the eyewitness accounts to be prima facie ecodence that TWA 800 went down after being hit by at least one missile. The
 conclusion is inescapable. The mass of evidence contained on Cmdr. Donaldson's Web Site - the Associated Retired Aviation Professionals is so great that we can only begin to scratch the surface of what he and other dedicated researchers have compiled. We simply have to refer you to that website for the complete story, especially the accounts of over 700 eyewitnesses.

Among the more revealing eyewitness reports were those that clearly contradicted the government's belief that the plane was destroyed at an altitude of 13,000 feet when its fuel tank exploded. 

In his tabulation of witness accounts, found on the Donaldson Website and at  http://hometown.aol.com/bardonia/eyewitn.htm, analyst Michael Hull reports the testimony of three witnesses all aboard aircraft and all flying at altitudes above the second, violent explosion. One plane was flying at 11,000 feet, and a second at 8,500 feet. All three saw the explosion take place below their altitudes. The third plane's pilot estimated that the explosion took place at about 5,000 to 6,000 feet.

What must be concluded from this testimony of three experienced pilots are the facts that the huge explosion the many eyewitnesses observed, took place far below 13,000 feet when the plane began to go down, indicating that it was struck by something at 13,000 feet, and it's fuel tank exploded thousands of feet below the maximum altitude the plane had reached. 

Hull's analysis also has the full radio traffic and story of the other suspected missile attack on a plane flying in the same area as TWA 800 was flying when it went down. It includes Kallstrom's upward-meteor-shower absurdity.

 Go to www.TWA800.com for a summary of the eyewitness testimony.