We Already Know More About Potomac Crash Than About TWA 800

A New Age in Washington Has Begun

Amazing. We already know more about the collision between the American Airlines jet and the U.S. Army helicopter over the Potomac than we know “officially” about the crash of TWA Flight 800 off the Long Island coast in July 1996.

Unlike with TWA 800, no amateur videos have been confiscated, no radar data suppressed, no eyewitnesses silenced, and no NTSB officials shut out of the investigation. The NTSB is in charge as it should be, and the FBI will be called in only if a crime has been committed. As to the CIA, which stage managed the TWA 800 investigation, it will be kept back in Langley where it belongs.

While we wait for the facts to come in, a little historical reflection on TWA 800 is in order. After the downing of the 747 on July 17, 1996, New York Times reporters swarmed Long Island, producing as many as a half dozen articles a day. The Times’ first full article on July 18 leads with the fact that the FBI had taken over jurisdiction of the investigation. This was illegal, but no one questioned it.

On day one, “federal law enforcement authorities” were leading the Times away from a missile. In fact, the word “missile” does not appear in the article, and each of the eyewitnesses interviewed saw the plane only after it exploded.

Recently published CIA documents show that the White House had recruited the agency within a day of the crash, not to hunt for international terrorists but to suppress missile speculation. In a July 20 internal memo, a CIA analyst reported “no evidence of a missile” in the radar data.

By July 21, “experts” were telling the Times that the mystery blip seen on the radar screen was actually “an electronic phantom image.” They insisted too that TWA 800 was flying beyond the range of even the “most sophisticated shoulder-launched missiles.” It was not hard for the authorities to make the radar mean whatever they wanted.

On July 24, the Times’ Matthew Purdy reported that investigators had yet to find proof of an explosion. Speaking to reporters, President Clinton claimed to have learned nothing new about “the cause of the accident” (italics added). “We do not yet know what caused Flight 800 to crash, whether it was mechanical failure or sabotage,” Clinton insisted. “But we will find out.”

The possible bomb scenario enabled Clinton to appear presidential. On July 26, Times editors praised his decision to install bomb detection systems in advance of any NTSB findings, but investigators had every reason to believe the culprit was a missile.

In a July 30 internal memo, headlined “Hold the Press,” a CIA analyst warned of an impending FBI report on a likely missile strike. After interviewing 144 witnesses, the FBI was convinced there was a “high probability” of a missile strike. According to the reporting agents, the evidence was “overwhelming.” The witnesses were “excellent” and their testimony “too consistent” for the cause to be anything other than a missile.

The unnamed CIA analyst boasted of how he discouraged the FBI from pursuing this angle. Said the analyst of his FBI counterpart, “He had little to refute our concerns.” At this point, even internally, all missile talk revolved around terrorism, and no one dared talk about a US Navy misfire. The FBI agents appeared to be sincere in their beliefs; the CIA analysts not so much. In any case, the FBI never did go public with this report.

The White House could live with a bomb scenario. For the first two weeks of August, the bomb theory dominated the Times reporting. On August 17, reporter Andrew Revkin introduced Times readers to Witness 136, Michael Russell. On July 19, Russell told the FBI he was working on a survey vessel a mile off shore when “a white flash in the sky caught his eye.” Within seconds of that flash, Russell “observed a burst of fire forming a huge fireball.”

There were more than 250 witnesses to a likely missile strike. The FBI would share only Russell’s account. They judged his story credible because it fit with the Bureau’s already skewed plot line. He caught the “white flash” out of the corner of his eye. He did not happen to see the ascending object that caused it. That said, the white flash suggested a high explosive, meaning one that detonates at a high rate of speed, as in a bomb or a missile.

On Friday, August 23, the Times headline read, “Prime Evidence Found That Device Exploded in Cabin of TWA 800.” The article could scarcely have been more definitive. Investigators had found “scientific evidence” of an explosive device, specifically traces of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, a component found in bombs and missiles. The White House had apparently settled on a bomb as explanation.

But not for long. Despite Clinton’s lead over Republican Bob Dole in the polls, presidential advisor Dick Morris reminded the president that he had “a soft underbelly.” Too many voters did not trust this former draft-dodger in his role as commander in chief. As Morris well knew, a missile attack against America, by friend or foe, would have exposed that vulnerability. A bomb scenario was more manageable but still problematic.

So no more bomb. What followed in the next several weeks was the most ambitious and successful cover-up in American peacetime history. With the help of a complicit media, the Clinton White House transformed a transparent missile strike into a bombing and then finally into a mechanical failure of unknown origin.

And with Clinton’s reelection looming, the media were okay with that. They have been playing dumb ever since.