May I also suggest you view the YouTube presentation I produced on the 25th anniversary of the crash. It provides additional information. As ALPA Council #024 Chairman, I represented all the pilots killed that night, and had flown that airplane many times, including several weeks before it went down. I have worked ever since to have the NTSB investigation reopened.. Perhaps the Krick lawsuit will force that issue. My wife and I attended Oliver Kricks funeral as a representative of ALPA. I told his parents at that time that I would do all in my power to see that the real cause of their son's death would be revealed. A link to that video is:
Thank you for your efforts in producing the presentation. I'll make sure to review it. This incident was the start of a slow realization for me about 25 years ago that I had been naive about many things the government told us.
I was part of the Trauma Team and know the heartache this has caused so many. Each family still suffers.
We employees who worked so hard to right our airline after Icahn’s departure have also felt great pain and loss. So many lives upturned…so sad, so demoralizing and so disappointing to realize the source of this—a sucker punch to the gut we’ll
The lawsuit filed in Federal Court in Massachusetts by family members of the TWA 800 victims will finally come to trial this Fall or early next year. When that happens, suppressed information will be exposed in the discovery process. The Biden administration DOJ slow-walked this case, but the Trump DOJ has ended that. It is my fervent hope that 2026 will finally bring justice to the victims of TWA 800 when the NTSB investigation is reopened and the true cause of the crash is revealed.
I strongly urge everyone to watch Jack's C-Span presentation listed in this article. It is free and if you still have any respect for the government you won't until they finally are truthful about this horrible incident. Those who perished included fifty-three employees of TWA and a class of high schoolers on a trip to Paris. The cover-up will make you mad and the loss of life will make you sad.
Researchers at the Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground in the UK were unable to induce an explosion of a 747 center fuel tank. After duplicating the approximate fuel level and temperature of TWA 800’s tank, they found it wouldn’t explode even when using ignition sources of far higher energy than were present inside the TWA 800 tank.
As the great physicist Richard Feynman once said, "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong."
The center tank explosion was all they could come up with, particularly in the wake of the damage to the lower center section of the nose, and the substantial shrapnel damage to the left wing (and, to a lesser extent, the right wing). To the uninformed layman, that explanation seems credible, but nothing is farther from the truth.
First of all, the center fuel tank almost never has fuel in it except for flights 6,000 miles or more. Chances are, TWA hadn’t used the center tank except possibly to “tanker” cheaper fuel to areas that don’t have Jet-A or JP4 available, or, the fuel is significantly more expensive. This fuel is considered “ballast” and can’t be used in the cases cited above as the weight and balance would be altered in flight (it can be transferred on the ground to tanks 2 and 3 (inboards), or to 1 and 4 (outboards) — but not in flight. Chances are that there was little fuel in the center tank at all, but to be very honest, I don’t know: my best friend was a retired TWA 747 pilot, and we long discussed their Operations Manual which stipulates their policies, practices, and procedures.
Most people aren’t aware of how 747s were operated: cargo versions (that I flew) were almost always at Max Gross Takeoff Weight of 750,000 pounds or 830,000 pounds: we could fly 6 hours and land with required fuel “reserves.” Most passenger flights were considerably lighter (600k to 640k) and could, with a lower zero fuel weight, fly longer legs. We could fly 14+ hours (non-revenue reposition) which did require center tank fuel; undoubtedly, some of the longer passenger flights would, as well, particularly as passenger flights without a lot of cargo could load 6-8 hours of additional fuel to give them a 12-14 hour range.
Second: like all other tanks, the center fuel tank is vented so that any fuel in the tank that has evaporated would safely be vented away.
Third: heating the center fuel tank, paradoxically, makes the fuel-air mix so dense, a spark can’t ignite the mixture; the fuel-laden air cools inside the tank and forms a layer, and as the heating process continues, that layer becomes thicker as the mixture cools.
The final theory sold to the Press concerns the electrical wire inside the tank, which is used to enable the fuel pumps (2) switch to operate the pumps, runs at very low voltage — not enough to cause a spark: someone came up with the explanation that this specific wire was super-energized by a malfunctioning generator, causing the explosion, without a single shred of proof as to why the generator malfunctioned (despite all of Boeing’s built-in designs of generator safety features). We’re to believe that this massive jolt of electrical energy (high voltage, high amps, and high coulombs) caused the wire to set off the explosion. A bit of physics truth here: such a strong surge of electrical power would cause this very thin wire to vaporize before any electrical current could travel for than a few millimeters, and would be confined to the equipment inside the engine nacelle or the aircraft’s E&E (Electrical and Electronics) bay, located in the belly of the 747’s forward fuselage. There are NO wires running from any generator directly to any fuel tank. Of course, the NTSB chairman knew so little about aircraft, systems, engineering, physics… and using common sense. In other words, he was a carefully selected political hack.
Excellent article. Stalcup’s findings is the glue showing how all the pieces fit together just as described in your book. If someone exercised even the slightest bit of logic, those tests would not have been carried out in that area, and those lives would not have been lost. While any compensation would be insufficient to the families, I would pray those responsible will be made to pay dearly for their incompetence and ignorance, and those involved in the coverup are dealt with severely.
I was on a flight to Cancun, Mexico, when Flight 800 happened. Arrived at the resort to find everyone glued to a lobby television screen. There was more truth available immediately after the plane was blown up than forever after. I have read everything Cashill has published on this. The U.S. Navy blew up this plane. The FBI fabricated false witness statements out of thin air, suppressed truth, gaslighted families and the public, and they have done so ever since.
No, the US Navy had nothing to do with this. My brother was a Sgt who investigated this issue. There were two middle eastern men who rented a boat (cash) which was recovered after the fact in a LI cove. There was evidence of residue of a SAM (surface to air missles) being fired from it. That is why they changed the original coverage that Flight 800 was at 12,000 ft changed to14,000 ft. SAMs are ineffective at 14,000 ft. I know because I work on weapon systems.
I also have a friend who is an NTSB investigator, he would discuss this for years. He knew I was right. Sorry, this was terrorism they wanted a flight to Egypt, but that flight was delayed. The Navy had nothing to do with this. USCG info proved this, this was also pulled by the FBI. My wife was there.
Sorry sir, my brother was there on LI as he is a Sgt for NY Sheriff's department, and my ex-wife wasn't in that command center but was aware everything we taken. My NTBS contacts conversation were always in person. Above are facts as I would take a polygraph and pass. There may be links to these facts, I trust my circle of knowledge and do not doubt their accounts.
I have heard murmurs about this over the years. It is possible, though remotely, that both scenarios occurred. Still, I have zero doubt about the U.S. Navy involvement. There were some reports of 2-4 missile-like objects in the air. Perhaps from Navy and from terrorist.
In answer to your first question, probably USS Cape St. George Guided Missile Carrier. The Navy admitted to, and subsequently denied, engaging in Aegis missile testing off the East Coast concomitant with commercial flights taking off and landing. Witness testimony described seeing a military type vessel speeding away after the plane broke up.
I can only conjecture that various incentives and/or threats were made to witnesses to cause maintenance of silence. There are second and third hand accounts of sailors telling relatives that brass disappeared suddenly into emergency conferences immediately after the event.
Ditto. Too scared.
I have not investigated every individual who might have been aboard that day, but I have read about FBI interviews of witnesses, which, when read to same, were completely denied by the witnesses. Characters assassinated. Witnesses told they did not see what they said they saw. FBI taking control of what the NTSB should have had control over. Missile residue on the backs of seats in the reassembled plane. Investigators being imprisoned.
Are you related to Jack Cashill?
I do not know why my numbering of responses disappeared.
I have spoken with two sailors involved with that exercise and heard a hundred second hand accounts. I spoke once to a group of Navy veterans and asked why no one would come forward. They laughed.
Statisticians have constructed mathematical models, based on real incidents, that estimate how long a secret can be kept based on the number of people involved. Given that any coverup would have required a least a few hundred people, the chances of all of them remaining quiet for 30 years are so low as to be effectively zero.
The command history of USS Cape St. George (CG-71) does not exclude the possibility that she may have also been present or in the vicinity. She left homeport Norfolk on 11 July, ostensibly to avoid Hurricane Bertha, then began training exercises on 18 July.
Witnesses could not have seen what they thought they saw. Most of them weren't even looking in the right direction until at least a minute after the plane had already exploded.
There was no residue compatible with a missile. There was some explosive residue found, but the damage was utterly unlike what would have been caused by an exploding missile warhead. The residue was most likely contamination from a bomb-sniffing dog exercise which was known to have been held on the plane previously.
The NTSB was completely transparent through the entire four year investigation and their report remains readily available on their website.
Your information about explosive residue and a bomb-sniffing dog, allegedly done on the aircraft in St. Louis, was actually done on a different aircraft. The 747 that went on to fly as TWA 800 wasn’t even in St. Louis when those tests done and concluded.
Jack, just several years ago I saw a video where a black US Navy sailor came forward in an act of conscience and shared some details of the incident. I recall him saying he was working in the ship’s Combat Information Center (CIC) and that they knew immediately what took place. Those in the know were given strict gag orders by the DoD, but this man said he could not live with that anymore.
Rick, yes, this fellow did come forward. His name is William Teele .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hJZOQYof18 He knows what he is talking about. One of his colleagues called and confirmed his testimony just a few weeks ago. He claims to have been on the USS Carr, not the ship that fired the missiles. The captain says the Carr was in for repairs at the time of the crash. Needs further confirmation.
In comments made on another video, William Teele identifies the ship which actually fired the missile(s) as a cruiser, the same one which later crashed into USS Theodore Roosevelt.
From there, the puzzle is easy to solve using the Navy’s own command histories: the ship which rammed into CVN 71 was CG 55, the cruiser USS Leyte Gulf.
Mr Teele is speaking from a crew member perspective aboard USS Carr, and he mentions the ship’s captain (Commander) Wray as being present for discussions after the shoot-down of TWA 800. Teele’s interview suggests that it was another ship, not the Carr, which fired the missile(s).
As I recall, the ship was USS Carr (FFG-52), and this missile exercise also involved the nuclear submarine USS Seawolf (SSN-21) and Navy P-3 patrol aircraft. This info is in the video linked above by Captain Al Francis.
In answer to your first question, probably USS Cape St. George Guided Missile Carrier. The Navy admitted to, and subsequently denied, engaging in Aegis missile testing off the East Coast concomitant with commercial flights taking off and landing. Witness testimony described seeing a military type vessel speeding away after the plane broke up.
I can only conjecture that various incentives and/or threats were made to witnesses to cause maintenance of silence. There are second and third hand accounts of sailors telling relatives that brass disappeared suddenly into emergency conferences immediately after the event.
Ditto. Too scared.
I have not investigated every individual who might have been aboard that day, but I have read about FBI interviews of witnesses, which, when read to same, were completely denied by the witnesses. Characters assassinated. Witnesses told they did not see what they said they saw. FBI taking control of what the NTSB should have had control over. Missile residue on the backs of seats in the reassembled plane. Investigators being imprisoned.
If you are in favor of an honest investigation of TWA 800, please write to President Trump and request he revoke (or modify) Executive Order 13039, signed by Bill Clinton, the existence of which poses a significant obstacle to potential witnesses within the Navy Special Weapons Development Group by removing their Federal whistleblower protections.
Except most of those people weren't even looking at the plane until at least a minute after it had already exploded. It was the sound that attracted their attention, and anybody who's ever watched an electrical storm knows that unless a strike is incredibly close there's a noticeable delay between the flash of lightning and the sound of thunder.
There's a woman who claims to have been an eyewitness who claims she saw the missile hit the 747, with the explosion sound heard by her at the exact same time. She is supposedly the person closest to the event. If the 747 was directly above her (it wasn't), it would have taken about 12 seconds for the sound of an explosion to reach her. Since the 747 was south of Long Island, the delay would have been longer. If she heard an explosion exactly when she saw the explosion, the sound she heard HAD TO BE from something else. Sound takes about 5 seconds to travel a mile. Most people don't really realize this, probably because of movies. About the only movie I can recall that got the time delay of an explosion's sound after it appearing on screen correct is the original Red Dawn. Most movies that I can think of the sound is simultaneous with the explosion, no matter the distance between the camera and the explosion.
If it was hit by a missile whose warhead detonated, there would be evidence of high speed impacts on the 747's skin (they recovered almost all of it). High speed impacts caused by shrapnel accelerated by the missiles high-explosive warhead are distinctive. There'd be a hole the shape of the shrapnel in the skin, and the edges of it would look melted (because it was). The impact of something moving that fast causes the atoms in the airplane skin to move so fast within the metal's atomic matrix that friction causes the temperature to rise above the melting point. You can see this in photos of tanks that have been penetrated by a kinetic penetration round. The hole's edges look like a frozen splash, because that's what they are. The same would be true of the 747's skin. Back when the investigation was initially reported on, one of the things claimed was that no such high speed impacts were present. IIRC, at that time, the recovered aircraft wreckage was made available to interested parties, including the press. No photos of high speed impacts were published.
It might not have been lost for the reason the report gave, but until I see photos of high speed shrapnel damage, I'm not going the believe the missile hypothesis either.
Sorry, but it wasn't. Here's the paragraph I got from search.brave.com's AI when you ask "are there any photos of high speed shrapnel damage on TWA-800?"
"No, there are no photos or evidence of high-speed shrapnel damage on TWA Flight 800. Autopsies of the victims revealed that none had been penetrated by high-speed shrapnel, with all deaths attributed to blunt force trauma. Pathologists found no shards of debris deep in the bodies, a finding that contrasts with other crashes involving explosive devices, such as Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, where shrapnel was used to identify the missile type. While some witnesses claimed to see a missile, official investigations and physical evidence did not support the presence of an external explosive device or its resulting shrapnel."
No system is 100.0% safe. Given enough time, every thing that can go wrong will. The 747 fleet has over 118,000,000 flight hours. How many 1 in a billion things can go wrong with a 747? This is the one that did.
Glad to see there's an ongoing concerted effort on this. Thank you. When it happened I was in the area where it was eyewitnessed and knew 2 of them, as well as a reporter who had access, for a short while, to where the reassembly operation was happening.
This saga of government cover up tought me an awful lot about an awful lot. A rude awakening.
Jack Cashill's book "TWA 800: The Crash, the Cover-Up, and the Conspiracy" ...was absolutely fascinating and made a very persuasive and credible case. Highly recommend it.
President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13039 in March 1997, which exempted members of the Navy Special Warfare Development Group from Federal whistleblower protections.
Kash Patel has his hands full explaining why Jeffrey Epstein was in police custody and his former girlfriend or wife, Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison today, when there is zero evidence of any crime committed by either. I think Jack Cashill has the skills to expose this government cover-up, and also he could expose the Israeli government cover up of its awareness of the October 7 attack well before it happened, and its "stand down order" to make certain enough harm was done to justify a series of regime change wars that PM Netanyahu had been lobbying the US for for decades. And which only one country remains to be toppled.
hmm, what wore a blue dress, and had the main stream media all in an uproar back in the late 90's ? the party of the KKK is more than criminal, its evil. And its opposition are cowards
An interesting explanation I encountered went beyond the missile. It also went beyond the black prison threat they used on the Long Island family they expropriated the pictures from of the rising missile in the same frame as flight 800. The missile was an acquired Silkworm missile launched by boat in the Long Island Sound. A weapon test of a particle beam technology to shoot the missile down was planned that evening. The beam unintentionally passed through the fuel tank of Flight 800 and it was this rather than the missile itself that took it down. The most I can say was that my sources were a no bullshit law enforcement officer and a relative of those being unable to tell or keep copies of the pictures who told me the FBI threats in disgusting detail. The missile was seen by military pilots who also learned to be silent. Hope this helps,
I still have a few newspaper clipping of the TWA 800 incident. I was working at a major defense contractor out on the West Coast when it happened. The initial reports and even some photos were in the next day's papers. One clearly showed a missile flying toward the plane. Later that photo disappeared and the papers said it was a hobby rocket. People at a wedding party on the docks, or near the ocean, took pictures and watched it happen. All that testimony, as the article states, was not allowed. But it was in the initial newspaper stories.
There were two theories as to what happened. The U.S. Navy missile test was one, the other was that missile, was launched from the hold of a 'mysterious tanker ship' off the coast of NYC, that hurriedly left the scene. This incident, I believe, without going to Google, happened after our U.S. Navy had mistakenly shot down a commercial jet airliner with a couple hundred Iranian citizens aboard. The theory was this was payback from the Iranians.
At the end, it didn't matter which of those two theories was correct as the whole 'missile' part of it was discredited by the miltary/industrial/newz complex. They simply said there was no missile and that the fuel tank had exploded. A wire running through the fuel tank.
As someone who has historical memory and a relatively intact brain, and who thinks about things instead of just accepting what some character says, I KNEW it couldn't have been the fuel tanks.
How did I know that? Well, a couple months or so before the 800 incident, one of my co-workers came in late as he had to have his car serviced, a relatively new Buick, forget which model. Turns out the car needed a new fuel pump. We asked Vince, how much the repair had set him back. I can't remember how much, but it was extensive. He said that the whole gas tank had to be replaced, as the fuel pump was INSIDE the gas tank. (Well, when I was a young guy working on my own car, a 1952 Ford Mainliner, the fuel pump was mounted on the OUTSIDE of the engine.)
Some of you are already scratching your heads. A electrically powered pump bathed in gasoline? That sounds insane. And gasoline is way more volatile than aviation fuel.
Hans, you will likely know more about this than I, but this was the case.
So, why weren't cars blowing up on occasion because sparks from fuel pumps 'in their gas tanks?'
I'll leave that part out. The point is, it could not have been the gas tank. Further proof: There were hundreds of 747s flying at that time. If that were the cause they all would have been grounded. That grounding never happened.
So, I and many others, who had some technical know how, knew that the government was lying to us.
One further thought about this. There was at that time terroristic attacks on U.S. interests at home and abroad. People were searched before getting on flights, although not as thoroughly as today. But the government knew that if people believed that getting on a jet airliner would make you a sitting duck to terrorists with missiles or U.S. Navy personnel 'screwing up' and letting one get away, they would never fly. The airline industry would collapse, taking the economy with it.
May I also suggest you view the YouTube presentation I produced on the 25th anniversary of the crash. It provides additional information. As ALPA Council #024 Chairman, I represented all the pilots killed that night, and had flown that airplane many times, including several weeks before it went down. I have worked ever since to have the NTSB investigation reopened.. Perhaps the Krick lawsuit will force that issue. My wife and I attended Oliver Kricks funeral as a representative of ALPA. I told his parents at that time that I would do all in my power to see that the real cause of their son's death would be revealed. A link to that video is:
https://youtu.be/4gEoyRLLb_Y?si=QJlOY__U4JvZwcr5&t=1
Captain Al Francis
TWA - Retired
I have met scores of TWA veterans, and they all agree with Captain Al.
Thank you for your efforts in producing the presentation. I'll make sure to review it. This incident was the start of a slow realization for me about 25 years ago that I had been naive about many things the government told us.
400+ eyewitnesses reports banned/deleted in the original investigation findings. What a disgrace.
Remember, NONE of the eyewitness testimonies were included in the Baltimore hearing OR the final NTSB Probable Cause report!
Thank you, Captain Francis
I was part of the Trauma Team and know the heartache this has caused so many. Each family still suffers.
We employees who worked so hard to right our airline after Icahn’s departure have also felt great pain and loss. So many lives upturned…so sad, so demoralizing and so disappointing to realize the source of this—a sucker punch to the gut we’ll
never forget
Thank you and may God bless you always
The lawsuit filed in Federal Court in Massachusetts by family members of the TWA 800 victims will finally come to trial this Fall or early next year. When that happens, suppressed information will be exposed in the discovery process. The Biden administration DOJ slow-walked this case, but the Trump DOJ has ended that. It is my fervent hope that 2026 will finally bring justice to the victims of TWA 800 when the NTSB investigation is reopened and the true cause of the crash is revealed.
I strongly urge everyone to watch Jack's C-Span presentation listed in this article. It is free and if you still have any respect for the government you won't until they finally are truthful about this horrible incident. Those who perished included fifty-three employees of TWA and a class of high schoolers on a trip to Paris. The cover-up will make you mad and the loss of life will make you sad.
It was the most egregious, in-your-face example of cover-up I can think of, because the public itself was mocked and silenced in hearings!
Federal Bureau of Intimidation
I loathe gubermint!!!!!!
In my, view, Flight 800 was shot down to give the govenment the feeling that the
effort and funds that were sxent in inventing this new weaxon, would function
during a war, similar to how the U.S. Government was resxonsible for Sextember 11,
2001, not xerformed by Saudi terrorists.
Researchers at the Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground in the UK were unable to induce an explosion of a 747 center fuel tank. After duplicating the approximate fuel level and temperature of TWA 800’s tank, they found it wouldn’t explode even when using ignition sources of far higher energy than were present inside the TWA 800 tank.
As the great physicist Richard Feynman once said, "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong."
The center tank explosion was all they could come up with, particularly in the wake of the damage to the lower center section of the nose, and the substantial shrapnel damage to the left wing (and, to a lesser extent, the right wing). To the uninformed layman, that explanation seems credible, but nothing is farther from the truth.
First of all, the center fuel tank almost never has fuel in it except for flights 6,000 miles or more. Chances are, TWA hadn’t used the center tank except possibly to “tanker” cheaper fuel to areas that don’t have Jet-A or JP4 available, or, the fuel is significantly more expensive. This fuel is considered “ballast” and can’t be used in the cases cited above as the weight and balance would be altered in flight (it can be transferred on the ground to tanks 2 and 3 (inboards), or to 1 and 4 (outboards) — but not in flight. Chances are that there was little fuel in the center tank at all, but to be very honest, I don’t know: my best friend was a retired TWA 747 pilot, and we long discussed their Operations Manual which stipulates their policies, practices, and procedures.
Most people aren’t aware of how 747s were operated: cargo versions (that I flew) were almost always at Max Gross Takeoff Weight of 750,000 pounds or 830,000 pounds: we could fly 6 hours and land with required fuel “reserves.” Most passenger flights were considerably lighter (600k to 640k) and could, with a lower zero fuel weight, fly longer legs. We could fly 14+ hours (non-revenue reposition) which did require center tank fuel; undoubtedly, some of the longer passenger flights would, as well, particularly as passenger flights without a lot of cargo could load 6-8 hours of additional fuel to give them a 12-14 hour range.
Second: like all other tanks, the center fuel tank is vented so that any fuel in the tank that has evaporated would safely be vented away.
Third: heating the center fuel tank, paradoxically, makes the fuel-air mix so dense, a spark can’t ignite the mixture; the fuel-laden air cools inside the tank and forms a layer, and as the heating process continues, that layer becomes thicker as the mixture cools.
The final theory sold to the Press concerns the electrical wire inside the tank, which is used to enable the fuel pumps (2) switch to operate the pumps, runs at very low voltage — not enough to cause a spark: someone came up with the explanation that this specific wire was super-energized by a malfunctioning generator, causing the explosion, without a single shred of proof as to why the generator malfunctioned (despite all of Boeing’s built-in designs of generator safety features). We’re to believe that this massive jolt of electrical energy (high voltage, high amps, and high coulombs) caused the wire to set off the explosion. A bit of physics truth here: such a strong surge of electrical power would cause this very thin wire to vaporize before any electrical current could travel for than a few millimeters, and would be confined to the equipment inside the engine nacelle or the aircraft’s E&E (Electrical and Electronics) bay, located in the belly of the 747’s forward fuselage. There are NO wires running from any generator directly to any fuel tank. Of course, the NTSB chairman knew so little about aircraft, systems, engineering, physics… and using common sense. In other words, he was a carefully selected political hack.
In the closing paragraph UDRI spells out its conflicts of interest as a major DoD contractor that does "sponsored” research.
Excellent article. Stalcup’s findings is the glue showing how all the pieces fit together just as described in your book. If someone exercised even the slightest bit of logic, those tests would not have been carried out in that area, and those lives would not have been lost. While any compensation would be insufficient to the families, I would pray those responsible will be made to pay dearly for their incompetence and ignorance, and those involved in the coverup are dealt with severely.
I was on a flight to Cancun, Mexico, when Flight 800 happened. Arrived at the resort to find everyone glued to a lobby television screen. There was more truth available immediately after the plane was blown up than forever after. I have read everything Cashill has published on this. The U.S. Navy blew up this plane. The FBI fabricated false witness statements out of thin air, suppressed truth, gaslighted families and the public, and they have done so ever since.
No, the US Navy had nothing to do with this. My brother was a Sgt who investigated this issue. There were two middle eastern men who rented a boat (cash) which was recovered after the fact in a LI cove. There was evidence of residue of a SAM (surface to air missles) being fired from it. That is why they changed the original coverage that Flight 800 was at 12,000 ft changed to14,000 ft. SAMs are ineffective at 14,000 ft. I know because I work on weapon systems.
I also have a friend who is an NTSB investigator, he would discuss this for years. He knew I was right. Sorry, this was terrorism they wanted a flight to Egypt, but that flight was delayed. The Navy had nothing to do with this. USCG info proved this, this was also pulled by the FBI. My wife was there.
Are you able to share any links that would have more information about this?
I believe boats involved and heard El Al was a target
Sorry sir, my brother was there on LI as he is a Sgt for NY Sheriff's department, and my ex-wife wasn't in that command center but was aware everything we taken. My NTBS contacts conversation were always in person. Above are facts as I would take a polygraph and pass. There may be links to these facts, I trust my circle of knowledge and do not doubt their accounts.
I have heard murmurs about this over the years. It is possible, though remotely, that both scenarios occurred. Still, I have zero doubt about the U.S. Navy involvement. There were some reports of 2-4 missile-like objects in the air. Perhaps from Navy and from terrorist.
In answer to your first question, probably USS Cape St. George Guided Missile Carrier. The Navy admitted to, and subsequently denied, engaging in Aegis missile testing off the East Coast concomitant with commercial flights taking off and landing. Witness testimony described seeing a military type vessel speeding away after the plane broke up.
I can only conjecture that various incentives and/or threats were made to witnesses to cause maintenance of silence. There are second and third hand accounts of sailors telling relatives that brass disappeared suddenly into emergency conferences immediately after the event.
Ditto. Too scared.
I have not investigated every individual who might have been aboard that day, but I have read about FBI interviews of witnesses, which, when read to same, were completely denied by the witnesses. Characters assassinated. Witnesses told they did not see what they said they saw. FBI taking control of what the NTSB should have had control over. Missile residue on the backs of seats in the reassembled plane. Investigators being imprisoned.
Are you related to Jack Cashill?
I do not know why my numbering of responses disappeared.
I have spoken with two sailors involved with that exercise and heard a hundred second hand accounts. I spoke once to a group of Navy veterans and asked why no one would come forward. They laughed.
Explain. They laughed why? Because they would have violence done to them or their families? How many crew kept such a secret?
Statisticians have constructed mathematical models, based on real incidents, that estimate how long a secret can be kept based on the number of people involved. Given that any coverup would have required a least a few hundred people, the chances of all of them remaining quiet for 30 years are so low as to be effectively zero.
The command history of USS Cape St. George (CG-71) does not exclude the possibility that she may have also been present or in the vicinity. She left homeport Norfolk on 11 July, ostensibly to avoid Hurricane Bertha, then began training exercises on 18 July.
Witnesses could not have seen what they thought they saw. Most of them weren't even looking in the right direction until at least a minute after the plane had already exploded.
There was no residue compatible with a missile. There was some explosive residue found, but the damage was utterly unlike what would have been caused by an exploding missile warhead. The residue was most likely contamination from a bomb-sniffing dog exercise which was known to have been held on the plane previously.
The NTSB was completely transparent through the entire four year investigation and their report remains readily available on their website.
Your information about explosive residue and a bomb-sniffing dog, allegedly done on the aircraft in St. Louis, was actually done on a different aircraft. The 747 that went on to fly as TWA 800 wasn’t even in St. Louis when those tests done and concluded.
Jack, just several years ago I saw a video where a black US Navy sailor came forward in an act of conscience and shared some details of the incident. I recall him saying he was working in the ship’s Combat Information Center (CIC) and that they knew immediately what took place. Those in the know were given strict gag orders by the DoD, but this man said he could not live with that anymore.
Rick, yes, this fellow did come forward. His name is William Teele .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hJZOQYof18 He knows what he is talking about. One of his colleagues called and confirmed his testimony just a few weeks ago. He claims to have been on the USS Carr, not the ship that fired the missiles. The captain says the Carr was in for repairs at the time of the crash. Needs further confirmation.
In comments made on another video, William Teele identifies the ship which actually fired the missile(s) as a cruiser, the same one which later crashed into USS Theodore Roosevelt.
From there, the puzzle is easy to solve using the Navy’s own command histories: the ship which rammed into CVN 71 was CG 55, the cruiser USS Leyte Gulf.
Mr Teele is speaking from a crew member perspective aboard USS Carr, and he mentions the ship’s captain (Commander) Wray as being present for discussions after the shoot-down of TWA 800. Teele’s interview suggests that it was another ship, not the Carr, which fired the missile(s).
Heard similar from a navy captain. Could this also be misdirection?
Google, among other search engines, manipulates and suppresses content.
Truth is the first victim of coverups.
As I recall, the ship was USS Carr (FFG-52), and this missile exercise also involved the nuclear submarine USS Seawolf (SSN-21) and Navy P-3 patrol aircraft. This info is in the video linked above by Captain Al Francis.
The P3 is a sub hunter and doesn't even carry air-to-air missiles.
Nobody said the P-3 or submarine launched missiles at TWA 800.
Likewise, the Seawolf carries torpedoes, cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles, but has no anti-air capability.
That’s what I heard—an exercise
I was on FFG-45 from 1987-1989. We did not have the Aegis SPY-1 radar system.That was a CG system.
I was on FFG-45 from 1987-1989. We did not have the Aegis SPY-1 radar system.That was a CG system.
I was on FFG-45 from 1987-1989. We did not have the Aegis SPY-1 radar system.That was a CG system.
According to the Carr’s command history, she did not deploy to the Mediterranean until November of 1996. TWA 800 was shot down on July 17, 1996.
In answer to your first question, probably USS Cape St. George Guided Missile Carrier. The Navy admitted to, and subsequently denied, engaging in Aegis missile testing off the East Coast concomitant with commercial flights taking off and landing. Witness testimony described seeing a military type vessel speeding away after the plane broke up.
I can only conjecture that various incentives and/or threats were made to witnesses to cause maintenance of silence. There are second and third hand accounts of sailors telling relatives that brass disappeared suddenly into emergency conferences immediately after the event.
Ditto. Too scared.
I have not investigated every individual who might have been aboard that day, but I have read about FBI interviews of witnesses, which, when read to same, were completely denied by the witnesses. Characters assassinated. Witnesses told they did not see what they said they saw. FBI taking control of what the NTSB should have had control over. Missile residue on the backs of seats in the reassembled plane. Investigators being imprisoned.
Are you related to Jack Cahill?
Sanders
If you are in favor of an honest investigation of TWA 800, please write to President Trump and request he revoke (or modify) Executive Order 13039, signed by Bill Clinton, the existence of which poses a significant obstacle to potential witnesses within the Navy Special Weapons Development Group by removing their Federal whistleblower protections.
Trump is more concerned with the reflecting pool and too busy filling his diapers with warm crap to do anything like that 😂
Another coverup by the Bureaucracy that runs. D. C !
Clinton Administration. It would not be surprising if Hillary drove the cover-up.
Seems more likely the missile was the cause. Too many eyewitnesses reported seeing a rocket headed up to the plane.
Except most of those people weren't even looking at the plane until at least a minute after it had already exploded. It was the sound that attracted their attention, and anybody who's ever watched an electrical storm knows that unless a strike is incredibly close there's a noticeable delay between the flash of lightning and the sound of thunder.
There's a woman who claims to have been an eyewitness who claims she saw the missile hit the 747, with the explosion sound heard by her at the exact same time. She is supposedly the person closest to the event. If the 747 was directly above her (it wasn't), it would have taken about 12 seconds for the sound of an explosion to reach her. Since the 747 was south of Long Island, the delay would have been longer. If she heard an explosion exactly when she saw the explosion, the sound she heard HAD TO BE from something else. Sound takes about 5 seconds to travel a mile. Most people don't really realize this, probably because of movies. About the only movie I can recall that got the time delay of an explosion's sound after it appearing on screen correct is the original Red Dawn. Most movies that I can think of the sound is simultaneous with the explosion, no matter the distance between the camera and the explosion.
If it was hit by a missile whose warhead detonated, there would be evidence of high speed impacts on the 747's skin (they recovered almost all of it). High speed impacts caused by shrapnel accelerated by the missiles high-explosive warhead are distinctive. There'd be a hole the shape of the shrapnel in the skin, and the edges of it would look melted (because it was). The impact of something moving that fast causes the atoms in the airplane skin to move so fast within the metal's atomic matrix that friction causes the temperature to rise above the melting point. You can see this in photos of tanks that have been penetrated by a kinetic penetration round. The hole's edges look like a frozen splash, because that's what they are. The same would be true of the 747's skin. Back when the investigation was initially reported on, one of the things claimed was that no such high speed impacts were present. IIRC, at that time, the recovered aircraft wreckage was made available to interested parties, including the press. No photos of high speed impacts were published.
It might not have been lost for the reason the report gave, but until I see photos of high speed shrapnel damage, I'm not going the believe the missile hypothesis either.
The damage you describe was found on the underside of the right wing, wing box, and on a portion of the right wing root.
Sorry, but it wasn't. Here's the paragraph I got from search.brave.com's AI when you ask "are there any photos of high speed shrapnel damage on TWA-800?"
"No, there are no photos or evidence of high-speed shrapnel damage on TWA Flight 800. Autopsies of the victims revealed that none had been penetrated by high-speed shrapnel, with all deaths attributed to blunt force trauma. Pathologists found no shards of debris deep in the bodies, a finding that contrasts with other crashes involving explosive devices, such as Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, where shrapnel was used to identify the missile type. While some witnesses claimed to see a missile, official investigations and physical evidence did not support the presence of an external explosive device or its resulting shrapnel."
Read this for an excellent but lengthy summary: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/memories-of-flame-the-crash-of-twa-flight-800-fecfd651a157
You can read the 341 page NTSB report here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/reports/aar0003.pdf
No system is 100.0% safe. Given enough time, every thing that can go wrong will. The 747 fleet has over 118,000,000 flight hours. How many 1 in a billion things can go wrong with a 747? This is the one that did.
The evidence is provided in photos and videos. As you haven’t looked for them, any further responses are unlikely to resonate with you.
Glad to see there's an ongoing concerted effort on this. Thank you. When it happened I was in the area where it was eyewitnessed and knew 2 of them, as well as a reporter who had access, for a short while, to where the reassembly operation was happening.
This saga of government cover up tought me an awful lot about an awful lot. A rude awakening.
Jack Cashill's book "TWA 800: The Crash, the Cover-Up, and the Conspiracy" ...was absolutely fascinating and made a very persuasive and credible case. Highly recommend it.
President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13039 in March 1997, which exempted members of the Navy Special Warfare Development Group from Federal whistleblower protections.
Kash Patel has his hands full explaining why Jeffrey Epstein was in police custody and his former girlfriend or wife, Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison today, when there is zero evidence of any crime committed by either. I think Jack Cashill has the skills to expose this government cover-up, and also he could expose the Israeli government cover up of its awareness of the October 7 attack well before it happened, and its "stand down order" to make certain enough harm was done to justify a series of regime change wars that PM Netanyahu had been lobbying the US for for decades. And which only one country remains to be toppled.
hmm, what wore a blue dress, and had the main stream media all in an uproar back in the late 90's ? the party of the KKK is more than criminal, its evil. And its opposition are cowards
So true!
An interesting explanation I encountered went beyond the missile. It also went beyond the black prison threat they used on the Long Island family they expropriated the pictures from of the rising missile in the same frame as flight 800. The missile was an acquired Silkworm missile launched by boat in the Long Island Sound. A weapon test of a particle beam technology to shoot the missile down was planned that evening. The beam unintentionally passed through the fuel tank of Flight 800 and it was this rather than the missile itself that took it down. The most I can say was that my sources were a no bullshit law enforcement officer and a relative of those being unable to tell or keep copies of the pictures who told me the FBI threats in disgusting detail. The missile was seen by military pilots who also learned to be silent. Hope this helps,
I still have a few newspaper clipping of the TWA 800 incident. I was working at a major defense contractor out on the West Coast when it happened. The initial reports and even some photos were in the next day's papers. One clearly showed a missile flying toward the plane. Later that photo disappeared and the papers said it was a hobby rocket. People at a wedding party on the docks, or near the ocean, took pictures and watched it happen. All that testimony, as the article states, was not allowed. But it was in the initial newspaper stories.
There were two theories as to what happened. The U.S. Navy missile test was one, the other was that missile, was launched from the hold of a 'mysterious tanker ship' off the coast of NYC, that hurriedly left the scene. This incident, I believe, without going to Google, happened after our U.S. Navy had mistakenly shot down a commercial jet airliner with a couple hundred Iranian citizens aboard. The theory was this was payback from the Iranians.
At the end, it didn't matter which of those two theories was correct as the whole 'missile' part of it was discredited by the miltary/industrial/newz complex. They simply said there was no missile and that the fuel tank had exploded. A wire running through the fuel tank.
As someone who has historical memory and a relatively intact brain, and who thinks about things instead of just accepting what some character says, I KNEW it couldn't have been the fuel tanks.
How did I know that? Well, a couple months or so before the 800 incident, one of my co-workers came in late as he had to have his car serviced, a relatively new Buick, forget which model. Turns out the car needed a new fuel pump. We asked Vince, how much the repair had set him back. I can't remember how much, but it was extensive. He said that the whole gas tank had to be replaced, as the fuel pump was INSIDE the gas tank. (Well, when I was a young guy working on my own car, a 1952 Ford Mainliner, the fuel pump was mounted on the OUTSIDE of the engine.)
Some of you are already scratching your heads. A electrically powered pump bathed in gasoline? That sounds insane. And gasoline is way more volatile than aviation fuel.
Hans, you will likely know more about this than I, but this was the case.
So, why weren't cars blowing up on occasion because sparks from fuel pumps 'in their gas tanks?'
I'll leave that part out. The point is, it could not have been the gas tank. Further proof: There were hundreds of 747s flying at that time. If that were the cause they all would have been grounded. That grounding never happened.
So, I and many others, who had some technical know how, knew that the government was lying to us.
One further thought about this. There was at that time terroristic attacks on U.S. interests at home and abroad. People were searched before getting on flights, although not as thoroughly as today. But the government knew that if people believed that getting on a jet airliner would make you a sitting duck to terrorists with missiles or U.S. Navy personnel 'screwing up' and letting one get away, they would never fly. The airline industry would collapse, taking the economy with it.
Good work