Following are reports on a variety of aircraft incidents which have been investigated by NewsHawk and others. Reports are listed in reverse chronological order. Scroll down for earlier reports.

Although it would be impossible to maintain a complete archive of reports on anomalous airline crashes, we have kept some articles here for those who may wish to do further investigation.
Many of the original sources for these articles are no longer online.

1.27.02 Video Shows Fl 587 Blown Out of Sky!!

[TopView Comment:
WHY is the FedGov REFUSING to admit it? Maybe -- Because they DID IT? And GUESS WHAT? This so-called "newly-discovered" video-tape is NOT "NEWLY DISCOVERED" AT ALL
(See NewsMax article below the spin-doctored AP fluff), but was TURNED OVER to the FBLie / FIB TWO MONTHS AGO. This videotape was then SAT ON, because it utterly INVALIDATES the FedGov LIES about Flight 587!!]

Report: Toll booth video tape may shed new light on Flight 587 crash
AP: 01/27/2002 3:24 pm ET
 (link no longer operational)

NEW YORK (AP) A newly discovered and very detailed surveillance video from a tollbooth may reveal new information about the crash of American Airlines Flight 587, according to a published report. Citing unidentified government sources, Time magazine reports in this week's issue that the camera captured the entire catastrophe that sent the Airbus A300-600 crashing into a residential neighborhood in Queens, killing all 260 people on the plane and five on the ground.

The plane crashed Nov. 12 three minutes after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport. It can be seen "flying along normally and intact, and suddenly things start to go very wrong," a source at the National Transportation Safety Board told Time. Safety investigators have said the tail fin, or vertical stabilizer, on the plane fell off before it slammed into the neighborhood.

NTSB analysts are optimistic the new footage will provide more clues as to how the plane began to break apart and how its tail section separated from the body of the jet, Time reported.

= = = =
Second Video of Flight 587 Casts Doubt on Crash Probe

News that a second toll booth video camera captured doomed American Airlines Flight 587's breakup moments after its Nov. 12 takeoff from New York's JFK airport raises new questions about the candor and thoroughness of investigators conducting the probe into the disaster.

Time.com reported Sunday that National Transportation Safety Board investigators "last week got their first look at a remarkable videotape of the deadly accident." Time adds: "This is the second video record the board has obtained of the crash, but the first one was virtually useless because the plane could be seen only as a tiny speck."

In reality, both traffic surveillance videotapes - shot from toll booths on causeways that cross New York's Jamaica Bay (adjacent to JFK) - were reportedly turned over to crash probers within four days of the disaster.

On Nov. 16 the New York Daily News reported:
"Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman Tom Kelly confirmed that the agency has given surveillance videotapes from the Cross Bay Blvd. and Marine Parkway bridges to the FBI."

At approximately 3 miles distance from JFK, a camera mounted on Cross Bay Blvd's Veterans Memorial Bridge toll booth would have had a much better view of Flight 587's takeoff than one on Marine Parkway - approximately 7 miles away.

But on Nov. 16 the News quoted MTA spokesman Kelly as saying that only one tape captured the plane's breakup - which turned out to be from the more distant Marine Parkway vantage point. That could have been an oversight on his part. Kelly told NewsMax.com later that day that he had not personally reviewed either videotape but relied instead on the accounts of others.

Kelly also told NewsMax.com, "We turned (the Marine Parkway tape) over to the FBI and they have now turned it over to the NTSB." Did the FBI withhold from the NTSB the much closer Cross Bay Blvd. videotape?

Otherwise, why is an NTSB source now telling Time.com that the agency got its first look at that better video last week, more than two months after the FBI reportedly took possession of both tapes?

More troubling still, however, is Time.com's claim that the more distant Marine Parkway Bridge tape was "virtually useless." That's not what a reporter who actually examined the footage said on Nov. 17:

"The tape, viewed by the Daily News, shows a white outline of the jetliner against a clear sky in fairly steep decline. Seconds later, the outline disappears and the video shows a blurry, white undefined patch as the plane apparently breaks apart."

The toll booth obscures the moment of impact but, said the News: "At the end of the bridge videotape sequence, which has been turned over to the FBI, there appears to be a puff of white smoke in the sky."

Nov. 12, the day of the crash, was a cloudless day in New York, a fact that makes that "puff of white smoke" particularly problematic for investigators who have bent over backwards to ignore the accounts of dozens of eyewitnesses who say they saw a midair explosion and fire before the plane broke apart.

Does the closer Cross Bay Blvd. videotape undermine the NTSB's repeated attempts to blame the crash on mechanical failure? Time.com's source will only say the new evidence shows Flight 587 "flying along normally and intact, and suddenly things start to go very wrong."

Stay tuned.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics at NewsMax.com

1.02.02 http://www.joelskousen.com  Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief 

by Joel Skousen
(SEE: http://www.flight93crash.com .)

In all major conspiratorial events, evidence related to the event continues to surface over time, and if the government is involved, it demonstrates its collusion by the degree to which it attempts to suppress and cover up the emerging evidence. As in the JFK assassination and the downing of TWA 800 by a missile, we are beginning to see the same pattern of obfuscation, denial, and cover-up by federal agencies in the September 11th tragedy--especially by the FBI, the military, and the FAA. 

Some of the biggest questions about the events of 9/11 center around the hijacking of the various airliners: how the pilots reacted, and what actions the government took via the military to impede the results. Pilots have instant access to Air Traffic Control (ATC) with a push of a button on the control yoke. In contrast, it takes time for a hijacker to take over the cabin and then deal with the pilots who are in a separate compartment behind a locked aluminum sliding door. We know, by FAA admission, that in each and every case the pilots had time to communicate their emergency to ATC. In at least two cases the pilots were able to change the transponder code to 7700 for "emergency in progress" before the hijackers took control and switched off the transponder. The FAA and US military have standing orders and written procedures on how to intercept and deal with aircraft hijackings. 

The FAA has said that it alerted military authorities in Colorado at the first signs of a hijacking. Yet we know that a few aircraft were scrambled and that all others were grounded and prohibited from reacting according to standing procedures. One of my subscribers is friends with an air traffic controller at McGuire AFB in New Jersey. His friend confided to him that "he was on duty at the time of the crashes into the towers. They got a phone call in between the first and second 'hit'. His superior told him that 'NO take-off's were permitted ... NONE at all.'" 

This was too early to be a direct result of shutting down all flights nationwide--which only affected private and commercial flights-not military. Here we have evidence of the US military acting in direct opposition to national defense--acting on orders from above. These orders couldn't have come from Bush, who was engaged at an elementary school, so higher military officials were either taking orders from someone else at the White House or acting on predetermined orders. 

I find it also very strange that flight data and voice recorders from all the 9/11 crashes except Flight 93 which crashed or was shot down over Pennsylvania) have been declared not found, destroyed, or unreadable. These declarations are without precedent in aviation accident history, and especially preposterous when we consider that the FBI claims to have found letters, passports and other fragile documents belonging to the supposed Arab hijackers amidst the tons of rubble of the WTC--and yet they couldn't find crash hardened data recorders. The data and voice recorders are designed to survive both the crash and resulting fire and almost always do. Why not this time?

Now the FBI tells us they will not be releasing the lone cockpit voice recorder that survived Flight 93 because "it would be too traumatic for the surviving families." What could be more traumatic that what they already know? This is just another blatant excuse to withhold even more information about the tragedies. There has to be a good reason why the FBI refuses to release this voice recorder, and I think it has to do with the fact that it may not have been a hijacking at all that took down this aircraft.

It is becoming evident that Flight 93 was shot down by an unmarked white jet that was seen intercepting Flight 93 and following it down as it crashed. The jet was witnessed in detail by several people on the ground. One military witness claims he heard a missile being fired. In addition, the main body of the engine of Flight 93 was found miles from the main wreckage site, with damage comparable to that which a heat seeking missile would do to an airliner. There were also personal papers, and articles of clothing from the plane found miles from the crash. The government is now saying these were carried up into the air by the crash fireball--but no such occurrence has happened in other crashes. The existing body of evidence is found at on a website at http://www.flight93crash.com.

The author of the website doesn't draw any conclusions except that Flight 93 didn't go down as the public has been told and that the government knows why and isn't telling.

12.20.01 PILOT: bush's intercept stand-down orders on 9.11 were HIGH TREASON
From: AC 

As I may have told you long ago, I am a tyro at questioning the state, and such a task is not my principal activity. I am a small, specialty manufacturer who has gotten caught up in being disgusted by my government's lies. And that has caused me to look at certain events more closely than those who are thought to be responsible for that scrutiny.

it was the AS261 demise and how the government and the press handled it that altered my consciousness. Principally, it was the failure of almost all parties to introduce the existence of controller radiocom tapes and the existence of the 11,000+ ft landing strip at Pt. Mugu NAS [no more than 15,000 ft from AS261's collision with terrain] which could have caught the Alaska Airlines MD80.

Even more disheartening was when no entity published [aired] the NOAA sectional navigation charts and plotted AS261's flight path. Those entities included the aviation press, especially the AOPA journal and FLYING.

I could go further and introduce the subject of other unexamined aircraft accidents, but why bother. Suffice it to say that there are all too many accidents in the last 15 years that have been covered-up [by the government agencies and the press].

As you know by now, I have also been outraged by the monstrous lies that the government has foisted on the public, with the cooperation of the press, concerning the failure of the us military to interdict and prevent the murderously damaging conclusion of 3 or 4 commercial
airliners on 11/9/01.

Just by searching NY Times archives, I found the policy and the methodology for intercepting a runaway Lear 35[Payne Stewart's charter]. The story clearly establishes that F-16's were scrambled to intercept this bizjet within 25 minutes of its failure to report to controllers upon its reaching its cleared altitude of 39,000 ft. These F-16's were scrambled just upon the loss of a radio communication: the transponder never ceased to function.

The way I view the intercept, the F-16 out of Eglin, 500 miles behind the Lear 35, traveling at its posted max speed, mach 2+, caught the Lear 35 in 30 minutes.

For all of us who care about relating how the coup was facilitated, and care to reveal 11/9/01 as a coup for posterity, then it seems to me essential that this technical record be established...an F-16 can catch a 767 within 30 minutes [if it is ordered to do so].

With that understanding, since no one else has done it, I thought it would be of interest to see how many air force [including air national guard, air force reserve] facilities might have been within 500 miles of the "terror" airliners on 11/9/01.

Here are the facilities that I found on the USAF website[s].
1. Andrews AFB [11 miles SE of DC]
2. Bolling AFB [3 miles south of US CAPITOL].
3. Dover AFB [3 miles southeast of Dover, Delaware]
4. Hanscom AFB [17 miles northwest of Boston]
5. Langley AFB [3 miles north of Hampton, VA]
6. McGuire AFB [18 miles southeast of Trenton, NJ]

These are the major, active AIR FORCE facilities that could have launched intercepts with the commandeered airliners. All of them, if ordered in a timely fashion, could have intercepted and prevented the collisions with the WTC and the Pentagon.

Then there are these minor, active AIR FORCE facilities. I don't know how they function, but for the sake of history, let us note their existence within the umbrella of intercept before any collision with civilians could occur.

7. Cape Cod, MA AFS
8. New Boston, NH AFS


 9. Atlantic City Airport, NJ [10 miles west of Atlantic City]
10. Barnes Municipal Airport, MA [3 miles northwest of Westfield]
11. Bradley International Airport, CT [Windsor Locks]
12. Byrd Field, VA[4 miles southeast of Richmond]
13. Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport[4 miles south of Martinsburg]
14. Frances S. Gabreski Airport, NY [Westhampton Beach]
15. Greater Pittsburgh International Airport, PA [15 miles NW of Pittsburgh]
16. Harrisburg International Airport, PA [10 miles east of Harrisburg]
17. Martin State Airport, MD [8 miles east of Baltimore] 
18. New Castle County Airport, DE [5 miles south of Wilmington]
19. Otis ANGB, MA [7 miles northeast of Falmouth]
20. Pease ANGS, NH [Portsmouth]
21. Quonset State Airport, RI [Providence]
22. Rickenbacker ANGB, OH [Columbus, Oh]
23. Stewart International Airport, NY [Newburgh, NY]
24. Westover ARB, MA [5 miles northeast of Chicopee]
25. Willow Grove Naval Air Station, PA [14 miles north of Philadelphia]
26 Yeager Airport, WVA [4 miles northeast of Charleston]
27. Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport ARS, OH [16 miles north of Youngstown]

I am not so naive as to think that all of these installations were prepared to put up intercept, take-down aircraft that morning. but some number of them may have been able to do that.

And the question has to be, why didn't they? because all that were prepared to intercept and terminate could have done so. what prevented them from even launching intercept aircraft?

That is the question. Have we just watched a 7 DAYS IN MAY? Wouldn't you like to see the orders that caused all of these aircraft to stand down? 

I sure would, because based on the Payne Stewart story, such orders had to have been given. As has been admitted, the automatic response would ordinarily be to intercept and to shoot down.

And based on the Payne Stewart story, we can only conclude that the resident of the USA, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, prevented the intercept and shoot down of the terrorist-commandeered airliners. 

Can that be viewed as anything other than treason?

There, I have said it. Anyone care to contest that appraisal? I invite the argument. I regret that I gave you some reason to doubt the thoroughness of my thinking.

Wishing you a peaceful holiday season, --ace

12.14.01 Payne Stewart/NTSB
From: AC 
Today I received a message from TOPVIEW which stated that the NTSB seemed to have altered its website in the matter of Payne Stewart and the out of control Lear 35 [see text of that message]. As you can see from the posting, it is asserted that NTSB claims that it took over an hour to scramble jets to catch the aberrant Lear jet.

I haven't gone to the NTSB site to check this claim, but I shall try to. But I did go to the NY Times archives and retrieved their story. Here is the timing that appeared in the 26/10/99 story:

09:19 EDT - Lear35 departs Orlando

09:44 EDT - NTSB reports last routine radio communication between Lear35 and controllers

10:08 EDT - chase planes [F16's] launched from Tyndall AFB [Panama City, FL]

10:22 EDT - F16 and A10 in flight, based at Eglin [Tampa, Fl] diverted in flight to chase the Lear35. This F16 eventually catches up to the runaway at 10:52 EDT. And follows it until he is forced to land in St Louis for lack of fuel. When it drops out, it is replaced by four ANG F-16's, already in flight, out of Tulsa, OK. The denouement is watched by F16's out of Fargo, ND. Air Force calls the time of auguring in at 13:13edt.


This is what was done for a single, runaway Learjet with 6 people on board.

I assume that the controllers spent some time attempting to communicate with the Lear before communicating with the Air Force to put up intercepts.

So, I figure that by 09:50 a decision had been made to request that the AF make an intercept.

Even using 09:44 as the start time, F16's were ordered to intercept, and were in the air within 25 minutes.

Oh, and most interestingly, the transponder never ceased functioning, according to the NY Times article.

Also of interest in the NY Times article is this paragraph...

12.06.01 TOP_VIEW@planetmail.com 
NYPost: NTSB's FL 587 Fables Are PATHETIC

December 2, 2001 -- LITTLE wonder the National Transportation Safety Board has bleated for help from NASA to help them out in the tragic crash of American Airlines Flight 587. The NTSB has shown in the past that it is run by a bunch of bumbling bureaucrats who couldn't find a needle in a thimble.

Here they were with 265 dead, and God knows how many mourners, giving us this claptrap that the tail fell off mysteriously.

"No tail fell off, not before the explosion. I swear to that," said retired firefighter Tom Lynch, who was doing his exercise march along Rockaway Beach Boulevard on Nov. 12. "I had my head up taking in that beautiful, clear day and was staring straight at the plane. It made a bank turn and suddenly there was an explosion, orange and black, on the right hand side of the fuselage. It was a small explosion, about half the size of a car.

"The plane kept on going straight for about two or three seconds as if nothing had happened, then 'vwoof' - the second, big explosion on the right wing, orange and black. It was only then that the plane fell apart. It was after the explosion and I'm telling you, the tail was there until the second explosion."

Lynch, who lives near the crash site in Belle Harbor, claims he has 13 people who saw the plane on fire before the breakup. Until the explosion the tail was intact.

He contacted the FBI, NTSB, Rep. Anthony Weiner, and Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

"I got no response from anyone," said Lynch, "Sabotage? That's for other people to decide. At first, we hear there were seagulls in the engine, the plane was caught in a jet stream and the tail fell off. No damn tail fell off until after the second explosion."

Jim Conrad, who retired last month as a police lieutenant after 34 years, accidentally met Lynch in a dentist's office one week after the crash.

"I saw exactly what Tom saw. I was near a stop light at the Marine Parkway Bridge. First, the small explosion. The plane kept on going, tail intact, then the big explosion and the plane nose-dived. The first thing I said was: 'The bastards did it again.'"

For the NTSB to seriously speculate that the bloody tail fell off in the face of so much evidence that it didn't happen is arrogant and treating us all like a bunch of morons.

But NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz said: "We don't have any evidence of an explosion [after searching] the wreckage or from the cockpit recorder. It doesn't mean it didn't happen."

12.06.01 TOP_VIEW@planetmail.com 
WOW! NTSB sez new data shows 9.11 jet crashes were ACCIDENTS! 

ALL that hoopla: wrecking the Constitution, slaughtering tens of thousands of Afghani civilians, turning Afghanistan into a parking lot, KICKING OFF WORLD WAR THREE... and the WTC and Pentagon were never even attacked by deranged underlings of Osama bin Laden on September 11! 

It was just an incredibly coincidental series of BAD ACCIDENTS, says the NTSB now -- JUST like what happened with doomed Fl. 587 in Rockaway, Queens some three weeks ago. Other similarities to FL. 587 crash include the fact that none of the jets which crashed on September 11 had ANY Middle-Eastern passengers on board who could have been terrorists.

So there ya' go.

It was ALL a big mistake and a profoundly extensive misreading / misinterpretation of the situation on September 11, greatly facilitated by the HUGE guilty consciences of top BushMobsters -- who only WEEKS before had told Taliban representatives to either accept their monetary offer for a Caspian Sea oil pipeline deal QUICK, or receive INSTEAD a "carpet of bombs" that BushMobsters just HAPPENED to have ready and waiting to deliver to them. (Let's keep in kind too that BushMobsters NEVER demanded during these pre-9.11 negotiations that the Taliban turn over their guest and long-time bush buddy Osama bin Laden!) 

So. What a kicker ... sheesh ... whew ... There was NO "attack on America" on September 11 -- CERTAINLY not one by fanatical Islamic extremists piloting hijacked jumbo jets who hated big, shiny buildings. Nope: it never happened -- certainly not THAT way at least.

But WHAT'S THIS? Mass-murdering bUSh2 doesn't WANT to stop his little war now, anyway. He's having MUCH too much fun. Now that's NO surprise!

12.06.01 Legal marijuana smoker sues Delta for kicking him off flight because he
was carrying the drug
AP NEWSWIRE: 12/06/2001 10:55 am ET

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) A man who legally uses marijuana for medicinal purposes is suing Delta Air Lines for kicking him off a plane because he was carrying the drug. Irvin Rosenfeld, a stockbroker from Boca Raton, filed suit Wednesday in federal court, claiming the airline violated federal protections for people with disabilities.

Rosenfeld, 48, suffers from a rare and painful bone disease and finds relief in smoking marijuana, which is prescribed by a doctor and grown for the government. Every day, he smokes up to 12 marijuana cigarettes to fight tumors.

In March, he was kept from boarding a Delta flight from Fort Lauderdale to Washington, D.C., where he was to attend a U.S. Supreme Court session on possible expansion of medicinal marijuana use. Officials told him he had to leave the marijuana behind or get written permission from every state he was flying over.

Rosenfeld's attorney, Christopher Sharp, said refusing to seat his client on the airliner was like kicking a diabetic off the flight for carrying hypodermic needles and insulin.

"We're not putting any price tag on this, but Delta's exposure in this is considerable," Sharp said.

Rosenfeld is one of a handful of people in the country receiving marijuana from the federal government because of unusual diseases. He has smoked government-provided marijuana for nearly 30 years and says without the drug, his condition would become so painful that he could not walk and could hemorrhage.

Under the federal Air Carriers Access Act of 1986, Delta had to specify in writing why Rosenfeld could not board the airplane and why he was thought to be a threat to the safety of those on board, Sharp said. The airline did not do that, he said.

Rosenfeld said that when Delta turned him away, he had to find a flight on another airline and did not get to Washington until the following afternoon. 
[link is no longer working]

12.02.01 Another look at Egypt Air crash
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Nearly two years before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Egypt Air Flight 990 took off from Kennedy Airport bound for Cairo and inexplicably crashed into the Atlantic off Nantucket, Mass., killing all 217 aboard.

U.S. investigators determined the relief co-pilot, Gamil el-Batouty, deliberately crashed the plane. Those findings were released just five months before Sept. 11.

Batouty's last words, according to investigators, were in the form of Muslim prayer in Arabic: "I rely on Allah." He said it 11 times before the aircraft began its sudden descent from 33,000 feet to 16,000 feet.

The auto-pilot was switched off before the steep dive and both engines were shut off. Mechanical failure was ruled out.

Among the passengers were dozens of high-ranking Egyptian military officers.

Can I ask a stupid question?

Why haven't there been serious questions raised about this disaster in light of the events of Sept. 11? Does it seem logical, following the recent events and all we have learned about the suicidal nature of Islamist terrorism, that this crash was part of a chain of events including the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, possibly the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1996 and possibly the downing of TWA Flight 800 in December 1996?

11.20.01 Fl 587 Crash Mystery Totally Unsolved: Sabotage Best Explanation

[TopView comment: Those darn birds in the engine again.... or was it the long-dissipated turbulence from a plane that took off over TWO MINUTES prior to Flight 587?... Just COULDN'T have been "sabotage" or terrorism" that brought 587 down, now could it?...]

The Mystery Of Flight 587 - The FBI Will Never Find The Terrorist Who Caused the Crash
By Marshall Smith, Editor, BroJon Gazette
Brojon.com 11-20-1

On Monday, November 12, 2001 American Airlines Airbus A300 Flight 587 crashed and burned, just two minutes and 24 seconds after take off from JFK International Airport in New York City. Within minutes the speculation for the cause ran from aircraft failure to terrorist attack. Immediately, both the FBI and the NTSB began a formal investigation. The NTSB was in charge of investigating the crash and the FBI would take over if evidence of sabotage were found. So far, the investigators have eliminated a number of possible theories, such as birds damaging the engines, simple engine failure, or possible bomb or missile attacks.

On Tuesday, the 13th, during the NTSB press conference, one of the reporters asked, "What about the possibility of a thrust reverser failure?" The reporters were told there was no evidence of that and it's not possible for that to occur during flight. What the NTSB and FBI failed to tell the reporters is that it is not possible for there to be a thrust reverser failure in flight, UNLESS the thrust reverser controls were sabotaged by a terrorist. Instead, the investigation seems to focus on the possibility that wake turbulence from a 747 jumbo jet which had taken off just minutes before Flight 587 had caused the damage to the plane and caused the crash.

What is confusing to most knowledgeable aircraft investigators is that this is completely impossible. It is not possible for any type of turbulence to rip off the tail of an airplane, and then have it go out of control in such a way that both engines would also fall off. In August 1985 a Japanese Boeing 747 with the vertical tail assembly completely torn away continued to fly in large circles for over half an hour before it hit a mountain. But only because the pilots were busy trying to figure out what happened to the plane and did not watch where they were going. It did not go into an instant out of control spin with complete loss of the engines.

The Air Force's B-2 Flying Wing stealth bomber is a perfect example to prove that a plane with absolutely NO vertical fin or stabilizer is able to fly and does not instantly become unstable and crash. The B-2 uses modern "fly-by-wire" computers to keep the plane flying straight and level. The original flying wing design from the 1950's also flew but using manual flight controls made it rather difficult to steer with no rudder. The Airbus A300 uses a modern "fly-by-wire" computer system and would fly quite easily with complete loss of the vertical fin and rudder. The NTSB's claim that the loss of Flight 587's vertical fin and rudder might be the cause of the loss of the control of the plane which caused it to crash is both misleading and deceptive.

Any theory blaming the failure of the vertical fin and rudder assembly as the cause cannot account for why the engines would fall off the plane. Any theory blaming an engine failure as the cause cannot account for why the tail assembly would snap off cleanly with no appearance of blast damage from an exploding engine. Thus there would need to be three separate simultaneous failures, of the tail assembly and both pylons holding the engines on the plane to account for those three effects observed before the plane crashed. Most air accident investigators would easily conclude that the chances of three simultaneous airframe failures all occurring at the same time is not probable. It must be one or the other but not all three. It would be much easier to conclude that something else actually caused all three failures. Thus the breaking off of the tail and both engines is not the cause of the crash, but is the effect of some other single failure which caused the crash. And what would that be?

If the left engine thrust reverser had either partially or completely actuated during flight, it would cause the plane to go into a flat spin to the left. The airplane would spin something like a flat Frisbee with the right engine pushing forward and the left engine pushing backwards. Within a second of the flat spin occurring, the sideways wind blast would rip off the tail assembly since it was never designed to take such a side blast of air.

As soon as the tail assembly broke off there is now very little wind resistance to the flat spin. At this point the engines would cause the aircraft to spin even faster with the g-forces away from the center of the spin becoming so great that both engines would be violently ripped off the wings and thrown outward away from the plane. This accounts for why the engines were found so far away from the crash site and why the tail came off first. Thus a single point failure, the in-flight actuation of the left engine thrust reverser, can account for all three observed phenomena of the clean breaking off of the tail and the failure of both engine pylons holding the engines. But how can that happen when there are so many safety devices to ensure that it never occurs?

That is quite simple. The American Airlines Airbus was parked overnight in preparation for its flight to Santo Domingo the next morning. During the night, a terrorist saboteur disguised as a ground crew mechanic could reach up in the back of the left jet engine and with a pair of diagonal cutter pliers simply cut the hydraulic line going to the thrust reverser actuator and the control safety sensor lines. The next morning about an hour after the jet engines were started, the hydraulic fluid now under pressure would drip from the cut line until none was left in the line and the thrust reverser would simply slowly drift into the full on condition while in flight and a catastrophic crash would occur only seconds later.

Until September 11th, 2001, nobody would have believed that 19 airplane hijackers armed only with box cutters could bring down both towers of the World Trade Center. But now we know better. Is it now so hard to believe that a single terrorist armed with a pair of pliers could bring down an A300 Airbus? This is called "asymmetric warfare," or "thinking outside the box," or simply using low-tech tools in a new way to destroy the high-technology of an advanced culture.

Is it possible to show that the in-flight actuation of the left thrust reverser is the actual cause of the Flight 587 Crash? Yes. But you would probably ask, "How do you know such things?" First, I have been a pilot since 1962. I have put planes in almost every possible flight configuration. I am not a flight instructor, but for years I taught ground school classes in airframes, aircraft engines and air navigation. Second, I have degrees in mechanical and electrical engineering and physics, and for many years I was assigned to do failure analysis for many NASA Space Shuttle incidents.

In 1983, two communications satellites were left useless in low-orbit because the firing mechanism to launch them into hi-orbit failed. Several years later Shuttle flights recaptured the failed satellites and I was tasked to determine the cause of the failure. In three days of analysis I found the cause and the controls were redesigned and the failure never occurred again.

In 1987, the Air Force was launching a secret satellite from the Shuttle using a Boeing supplied launch system. The actuators for the launch system were made by UTC. Final checks before launch showed that one of the actuators appeared to be faulty and had failed the initial tests at UTC but somehow had been installed into the Shuttle anyway. My task was to prove that the actuator was not faulty but only appeared faulty due to an improper testing device. In four days I found the faulty test device and proved the launch actuator was in fact ready for space flight.

I did my usual scientific analysis "dog and pony show" for two Air Force Generals, and the Vice-presidents of both Boeing and UTC. Everybody was happy. The Air Force got their satellite on orbit on schedule. The VPs from Boeing and UTC were happy since they did not need to pay the $5 million penalty the government would assess for unstacking the Shuttle to replace the "defective" launch actuator and for delaying the project. Thus, what I am about to explain comes from many years of flight experience, along with years of experience in aerospace failure analysis.

According to the publicly available information from the NTSB, the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) shows everything was normal in the flight until about 107 seconds after the initial run-up of the engines as Flight 587 began to roll down the runway for takeoff. At this point in time the plane is about 3,000 feet in the air and the sound of an "airframe rattle" is heard in the CVR record. No explanation was given for this noise. But as I propose, what was happening was the left thrust reverser was starting to close and this caused the plane to turn to the left. The pilot would compensate by using his feet to apply right rudder to bring the nose back to straight flight by turning to the right.

When applying strong right rudder this usually causes the left wing to tilt upward so most pilots would instinctively also apply opposite or left aileron to keep the plane straight and level. Most pilots would recognize this flight configuration as a side-slip. This would be a rather strange maneuver for a commercial airliner especially during take off. This is often called the "poor mans air-brakes" since this odd configuration results in the opposite compensating controls surfaces to stick out in the wind and really slow down the aircraft.

I have done this maneuver many times in small aircraft to quickly lose airspeed or drop in altitude in preparation for landing. During this condition the burbling air flowing over the extended control surfaces makes a lot of noise and seems to make the plane shake, rattle and roll. This would account for the airframe rattle noise heard on the CVR at 107 seconds into the flight. The pilot probably thought he had overcompensated and was worried about losing too much airspeed and so then returned the controls back to normal and the rattling momentarily stopped. But the plane continued to turn back to the left.

Seven seconds later, one of the flight crew comments about "air turbulence" with no further comment, and it would seem the pilot again tried to compensate for the strong drift of the plane to the left caused by the partially closing thrust reverser by again applying strong right rudder and opposite aileron as the same rattling sound is heard again several seconds later at 121 seconds into the flight. Four seconds later, at 125 seconds into the flight, the first officer calls for "full power" presumably to compensate for the side-slip maneuvers which had really slowed the plane down to dangerously slow speed. This was a fatal mistake, but not caused by the pilot.

As soon as the power went to full, the spinning effect caused by the partially or fully actuated thrust reverser would cause the plane to now spin out of control in a flat spin. Two seconds later, at 127 seconds, the CVR shows one of the flight crew makes a comment about being out of control. No more comments are made after that and the recording ends 17 seconds later when the plane hits the ground. But what happened when the captain called for full power?

If the pilot were holding full right rudder and almost full left aileron to compensate just as the left thrust reverser came into the full on position, the application of full power would have greatly increased the turn to the left and would have created a huge side force on the tail and rudder assembly which simply broke off cleanly and fluttered away. Within another second, without the vertical tail assembly to slow the spin, the plane would have begun to spin violently to the left about the center of gravity of the airplane. It now was not an airplane but a giant spinning Frisbee, or maybe a giant horizontal boomerang. Yes, you can take a scale model airplane and holding one wing throw it like a boomerang and make it fly. I know, since I used to do that as a kid. It works. A modern swept-wing jet aircraft with the tail torn off is simply a boomerang with a large stick, the passenger cabin, stuck in the middle.

Since the pilot had been holding opposite or left aileron, as soon as the plane started to spin, the left wing would be going backwards. But with the left aileron in the upward position the left wing becomes a lifting surface which keeps the spinning plane level, since both wings are lifting. The plane is now spinning horizontally with the full power from both engines increasing the spin faster and faster until both engines break off and are flung sideways away from the plane. As soon as the tail assembly broke away and the spin started, the plane became like one of those spinning centrifuges used by the astronauts for testing at high g-forces.

Within a second or so the people at the front and back of the plane were being thrown violently away from the center of the plane with a tremendous force. The seats with passengers in the very back of the plane were probably ripped out of the floor and thrown to the back of the plane. The flight crew at the front of the plane were thrown violently forward with such g-force they were instantly rendered unconscious or killed. This would explain why no more comments from the flight crew are heard after applying full power. The plane was spinning horizontally to the left completely out of control.

With the engines still running at full power, they broke away ripping the fuel tanks in both wings and Fight 587 became a flaming Frisbee. Something which nobody, and especially none of the people who witnessed the accident, had ever seen before. Small pieces of the airframe along with the engines were thrown by centrifugal force away from the flaming plane, giving the appearance of an explosion blasting parts away.

This also accounts for the many strange witness reports. I watched the news channels live and heard many witnesses swear that they saw the left engine come off first. Many other witnesses also were just as sure that the right engine was the first to come off. How to account for these strange opposite reports? Simply, all those witnesses had never seen a plane in a flat spin before.

In a flat spin most of the plane's forward motion is stopped and the plane is like a spinning flaming Frisbee floating in the air. The flames hid the shape of the plane and the witnesses could not see the plane spinning, they only saw a ball of fire with pieces of plane blasting out from the center. At that point the concept of right or left engine no longer has any meaning, they are both going in the same circle. Thus depending on where the witness observer was standing when the first engine dropped off, half of the people would see it as going to the right and the other half would see it as going to the left. Thus both groups of observers were correct in reporting what they saw, they only misinterpreted what it meant.

There were even professional pilots who reported they saw the plane in a "spinning nose dive." Is it possible that they were also mistaken? Is it possible the plane was not in a nose dive but was actually spinning flat with one wing going backwards, all caused by a thrust reverser actuated in flight? Since the other pilots reported they saw a flaming spinning plane arcing into the ground, and since they too probably had never seen a plane in a flat spin, they simply assumed what they saw was a spinning plane nosing into the ground. Is it possible to prove that it was not a plane nose-diving into the ground but a flat spin caused by a terrorist? Yes.

When the plane began the flat spin right after the tail assembly broke off over Jamaica Bay, the passengers in the front and back of the plane would experience high g-forces which threw them to the front and back of the plane. But those passengers in the center of the plane between the two engines and over the wings would simply spin around with no lateral g-forces. They would just spin around similar to sitting and spinning on a rotating piano stool. For them the plane simply floated downward as they rotated. What would happen to them? According to a statement made by New York mayor Giuliani in a news conference on Wednesday November 14th, the rescue workers recovered 262 bodies including "a man still holding a baby." How is that possible if the plane had nose-dived into the ground?

A nose dive into the ground would have produced such a violent forward force that all objects in the plane would have been thrown forward with most of the seats ripped out of the floor. Certainly no man can be strong enough to hold on to a baby through that force, unless instead the plane was in a flat spin. For the passengers in the center of the plane the force would have been downward as the plane hit the ground and the baby would be simply forced deeper into the man's lap as he sat in the passenger seat. Is that sufficient evidence to prove the plane was in a flat spin at impact with the earth and the crash was caused by a thrust reverser being actuated in flight? Yes. It could not have been a forward nose dive.

Further evidence is shown by the fact that on the many live news videos of the crash scene as the firemen are putting out the flames, a large section of the central portion of the plane is lying on the ground almost intact but in flames. If the flaming spinning Frisbee of Flight 587 had impacted the ground in a flat spin the front and back ends of the plane would have impacted with high rotating speed and thrown pieces of the plane, including the Flight Data Recorder in the rear of the plane many blocks away. But the center of the plane would be left intact. Analysis of the debris field would show material from the front of the plane went in one direction while material from the back of the plane went in the opposite direction.

Is there clear evidence for sabotage by a terrorist? Yes. But it seems the FBI does not want to know. Maybe the airlines, especially American Airlines, do not want anybody to know they are so easily vulnerable to terrorist attack. For whatever reason, it seems the NTSB and the FBI do not want to know what happened to Flight 587. The clear evidence for the flat spinning impact is shown by the condition of the passengers and seats in the front and rear of the plane compared to the conditions in the almost intact center portion of the plane.

Is the NTSB going to reassemble the plane parts to investigate that? According to NTSB Chairman Marion Blakey in the news conference on Tuesday the 13th, the NTSB was not going to reassemble the plane for analysis. The two engines are being sent under sealed bonded cover to American's Tulsa, Okla. facility for disassembly and analysis. But it would seem the engines were not the cause of the crash, so that is an investigative dead end. The real evidence, the conditions of the cabin and fuselage which would show and prove the plane crashed while in a flat spin, is simply going to be carted away and tossed in the trash. The FBI will never find the terrorist who caused the crash, if they are not looking for one. --Marshall Smith Editor, BroJon Gazette


The above article was prepared and written based only on data from the Cockpit Voice Recorder. The NTSB has since then released data from the Flight Data Recorder showing the position of controls and configuration of the aircraft. It is entirely consistent with the above analysis, including the turns to the left, right, left, right with the "rattling" occurring during the two turns to the right. Followed quickly by the loss of the vertical tail assembly, then the rapid break into a flat spin.

The FDR data shows: " ... the Airbus began a series of oscillations, yawing from left to right, then back again. Seconds later, the data stream from the Airbus's rudder 'becomes unreliable,' (meaning it had torn off) ... the jet began rolling to its left side ... the flight data recorder shows the Airbus rolled 25 degrees to the left, even though the pilots applied full-right roll control. The recorder also shows the jet dropped into a 30-degree dive, and began revolving rapidly toward the left."

Note, it does not say it "began rolling rapidly" to the left. It says it "began revolving rapidly" to the left. And that would be known as a flat spin. The rapid revolving was due to the engines at full power. Most pilots would recognize the 30-degree drop at the end as slowing to the stall speed as if the plane were simply stalling or entering into a recoverable vertical spin. A single engine plane would be very difficult to fly into a horizontal or flat spin. But any twin or mulit-engine plane like the A300 can easily enter a non-recoverable flat spin when

reaching the stall point if the forward thrust on each side of the plane's centerline is not equal. The worst case being equal and opposite thrust around the plane's center of gravity caused by an inflight actuation of a thrust reverser.

The NTSB continues to insist there is no evidence of a terrorist attack. (The Brojon Gazette throws up its hands in complete disbelief.)

11.20.01 Payne Stewart's strayed jet intercepted within minutes by AirForce: Why DIDN'T they respond on 9.11?

WHY did the U.S. Air Force NOT take action on September when they HAD TO HAVE BEEN alerted by Air Traffic Control that FOUR large commercial aircraft over the eastern U.S. were totally UNREACHABLE through standard communications channels and drastically off-course as well?

Such requests by ATC or even by pilots of the military to INTERCEPT aircraft which are deemed for one reason or another to be in some sort of trouble, INCLUDING a HIJACKING, are COMMONPLACE -- they happen ALL THE TIME! Absolutely NO "official authorization" of ANY kind is needed, despite specious, disinformational LIES to the contrary.

Remember two years ago, when golf pro Payne Stewart's small PRIVATE jet went off-course just after takeoff in Florida? Within MINUTES, U.S. Air Force jets were SCRAMBLED to INTERCEPT Stewart's jet and see what the heck was up (not that it helped much in that case...).

Air Traffic Control personnel in the U.S. HAD to have alerted the U.S. Air Force about the ongoing situation with FOUR LARGE PASSENGER JETS on the morning of September 11.

WHY DIDN'T the Air Force RESPOND??

Clearly, because they were ORDERED not to by their commander in chief, whose administration was a direct party to the horrendous events of 9.11. THAT'S WHY. THINK ABOUT IT!!
URL for this article:

Part 1, Section 2 of 'GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS'
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel [Posted 20 November 2001]
Dedicated to the firemen of New York.

In Part 1, Section 1 we demonstrated that Andrews Air Force base, 10 miles from the Pentagon, had combat-ready fighter squadrons on September 11th. Why didn't jets scramble from Andrews until after the Pentagon was hit? http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm 


On Sunday, September 16th, Vice-President Richard Cheney was interviewed on NBC TV's 'MEET THE PRESS.' During that interview he made the claim that the military needed authorization from President George W. Bush before scrambling fighter jets to intercept American Airlines Flight 77.

Mr. Cheney did not present this lie in a straightforward manner. He did not say, "A commercial airliner can't be intercepted without presidential approval." Instead, he spoke as if the need for presidential authorization were a commonly accepted fact; and then, based on this false foundation, he emitted a fog of emotional misinformation to confuse the millions of Americans who had asked themselves: why didn't jet fighters intercept Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon? Doesn't the U.S. have radar and an Air Force anymore?

It is common for officials attempting to cover-up a capital crime to put the blame on a subordinate. However Mr. Cheney used a different approach on 'MEET THE PRESS.' Relying on his skills in public deception, Cheney tried to create the impression that nothing improper had occurred. But as soon as one sees through his lies, one realizes Mr. Cheney has placed the responsibility for the failure to intercept on George W. Bush.

Here is the excerpt from 'MEET THE PRESS' where Richard Cheney puts forward his intercept lie:

"MR. RUSSERT: What's the most important decision you think he made during the course of the day?

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.

"MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time..."It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate.

"MR. RUSSERT: So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. The president made the decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York." --NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001 (1)

* * *
Note that Mr. Cheney has performed a sleight of hand here.
First he said, "the toughest decision was...whether we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."
Later he said, "The president made the decision... that if the plane would not divert as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out..." that is, "shoot it down."

But "intercept": and "shoot it down" DO NOT mean the same thing.

"intercept (nter-spt1) verb, transitive > intercepted, intercepting, intercepts 1. a. To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of" > (From 'American Heritage Dictionary')

"shootdown (sht1doun) noun
"Destruction of a flying aircraft by a missile attack or gunfire." > (From 'American Heritage Dictionary')

Mr. Cheney deliberately confused these terms to stop people from asking: why weren't the hijacked jets intercepted?

Since "stopping, deflecting, or interrupting the progress or intended course of" a hijacked airplane does not necessarily involve violence, there could be no moral obstacle to scrambling fighter jets to intercept Flight 77. Therefore Mr. Cheney shifted quickly to the morally charged question of whether to shoot down "an airplane full of American citizens". By creating this emotional link between interception (not necessarily violent) and shooting down a commercial jet (very violent), Cheney hoped to create sympathy for a President forced to make this "horrendous" choice: to intercept or not to intercept.

Mr. Cheney attempted to smooth over his sleight of hand by inserting the following connecting sentence:
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

This is disinformation. Mr. Cheney was treating his viewers like fools.

First, as anyone with a computer and basic knowledge of the Internet can find out, Air Traffic Controllers request military jets to intercept commercial aircraft on a routine basis. Sometimes the purpose is to tell a commercial pilot that his plane has gone off course; other times the interceptor goes up in order to observe the situation directly - for instance, to see who is flying the plane. None of this requires presidential approval.

Second, military interceptors (or 'escorts') already have clear "instructions to act." These instructions can be read online in detailed manuals from the FAA and the Department of Defense. The instructions cover everything from minor emergencies to hijackings. If a problem is serious, high-ranking military officers from the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon (NMCC) can take charge.

Let us consider the procedures used in intercepting commercial aircraft.

An Air Traffic Controller (ATC) may request military jets to intercept (or 'escort') a commercial aircraft in response to any serious problem which the Air Traffic Controller cannot solve through radio contact. Perhaps the most common problem is that a commercial jet has deviated from its authorized flight path.

Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument Flight Rules. IFR requires pilots to file a flight plan with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before takeoff. (FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (2)

"Commercial flights fly according to predefined flight plans. These flight plans are intended to provide quick routes that take advantage of favorable winds while avoiding the routes traveled by other aircraft. The usual flight plan is a series of three connected routes: a standard instrument departure (SID) route, an en route path, and a standard instrument arrival (STAR). Each route consists of a sequence of geographic points, or fixes, which, when connected, form a trajectory from the point of departure to the point of arrival." --'Direct-To Requirements' by G. Dennis & E. Torlak (3)

If a plane deviates from its flight plan, or makes the wrong turn at one of its 'fixes,' an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) contacts the pilot. If the ATC cannot make contact, he or she will request an escort - that is, a military jet - to scramble and check out the situation. This is called 'interception.'

As you can see, interception is not necessarily an aggressive act. Usually it is requested because routine communication has become impossible.

For example, when the Lear jet chartered by Payne Stewart, the famous golf pro, went off course, and the pilot did not respond by radio, the FAA immediately contacted the military: "Several Air Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS radar control plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel." --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (4)

The FAA online manual describes how an escort (i.e., a fighter jet) might communicate with a commercial airliner which fails to respond to radio contact. The FAA has a chart entitled:

"Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by intercepted aircraft."

According to the chart, which is available on-line, if a commercial jet is intercepted in daytime, the escort fighter jet may communicate by: "...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft..."

This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet should respond by rocking its wings, indicating it will comply.

The escort then makes a "slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading [direction]."

The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the escort. > (FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (5)

When a commercial jet deviates from its approved flight path, it creates a potentially deadly hazard: it could collide with another jet. It is therefore reassuring that the FAA has an exacting standard for what constitutes an emergency:

"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft." --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)


"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency." --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)

A high-ranking FAA official - called an Air Defense Liaison Officer (ADLO) - is stationed in the headquarters of NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The purpose: to help the FAA and the military work together to handle emergencies as quickly as possible. (8) Escorts are usually scrambled from NORAD bases, such as the Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or the air base at Langley, Virginia. But not always:

"Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. " --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9)

Thus when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course: "First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota." --'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (10)

During a serious emergency, or if there is ANY POSSIBILITY THAT A HIJACKING HAS OCCURRED:

"The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)." --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9)

A Defense Department manual makes the same point: "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." --CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001 (11)

Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne Stewart incident:

"...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center." --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (4)

When dealing with potentially hostile situations, escorts can adopt aggressive behavior:

"Small Private Plane Ordered to Land in Vicinity of Bush Ranch "A small private plane flying unauthorized in the vicinity of President Bush's ranch near Crawford was ordered by the military to land Thursday, a sheriff's deputy said....

"The Federal Aviation Administration declared that the plane was unauthorized and ordered its occupants detained, Plemons said. At that point military officials, flying in two jets beside the plane, got on the pilot's radio frequency and ordered the Cessna to land...

"The plane landed on a private landing strip near State Highway 6, about eight miles from the Bush ranch near Crawford....

"In [a second incident, in] Wood County, Sheriff's senior Dispatcher Rodney Mize said a private plane was forced down by two military pilots in A-10 Warthog jets about 11:30 a.m. The jets flew one above and one below until the private plane's pilot landed at Wisener Field near Mineola."  --'AP,' 13 September 2001 (12)

The 'Boston Globe' reported that: "[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.

"When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile." --'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 (13)

Now, let us return to Mr. Cheney and his interview on 'MEET THE PRESS.'

As you will recall, he said: "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

Mr. Cheney is attempting to misinform by pretending that intercept pilots need 'instructions' from the President, when he knows perfectly well that clear instructions and a whole organizational network exist to handle intercept emergencies.

Moreover, Mr. Cheney's implicit argument - that there is no point in sending up an escort unless the pilot has clearance to shoot down a commercial jet - is absurd. Why would such a decision have to be made in advance of scrambling the escort? Even if an airliner has been taken over by a terrorist with a suicide mission, how could Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bush or anyone else other than God Himself possibly predict how the hijacker would respond to an intercept by military jets? Even if a hijacker were ready to die for the glory of crashing into the Pentagon, does that mean he would also be ready to die for the glory of ignoring a military pilot's order to land?

So even if the military had no authority to shoot down Flight 77, why not send up escorts planes? Isn't that in fact how police and the military routinely handle hijack situations - by mobilizing a potentially overwhelming force in the hope of getting the hijacker to surrender?

Why, as Mr. Cheney claims, would there have been "no point" in trying this tactic in the case of Flight 77? Weren't many human lives at stake? Isn't that "a point"?

What about the rest of Mr. Cheney's remarks, his contention that only President Bush could authorize the military to actually shoot down a hijacked plane? In all probability this is true. But as we shall see in a later section, this comment, as well as other things Mr. Cheney said on 'MEET THE PRESS,' will prove damning to George W. Bush when he goes on trial for treason.

Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN PART 1, SECTION 3


For a map of Washington showing the distance from Andrews Air Force base to the Pentagon go to: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/andrewsmap.htm 

(1) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001. Full transcript at: http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1 [link no longer works]

(2) Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order 7400.2E
'Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,' Effective Date: December 7, 2000 (Includes Change 1, effective July 7, 2001), Chapter 14-1-2. Full text posted at:

(3) For a clear and detailed description of flight plans, fixes, and Air Traffic Control, see: 'Direct-To Requirements' by Gregory Dennis and Emina Torlak at:
http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/atc/D2Requirements.htm  [link no longer works]

(4) 'CNN,' 26 October 1999 "Pentagon never considered downing Stewart's Learjet," Web posted at: 8:27 p.m. EDT (0027 GMT) > Full text posted at: http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/26/shootdown/
Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/cnnlearjet.htm 

(5) FAA 'Aeronautical Information Manual: Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001) Chapter 5-6-4 "Interception Signals" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4 

(6) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations" > Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5 

(7) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency Determinations" > Full text posted at:

(8) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 4, Section 5, "Air Defense Liaison Officers (ADLO's)" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/mil0405.html#Section%205 

(9) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 7, Section 1-2, "Escort of Hijacked Aircraft: Requests for Service" Full text posted at: http://faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-2 

(10) 'ABCNews,' 25 October 1999 "Runaway Plane Crashes in S.D.; Golfer, at Least Four Others Killed," by Geraldine Sealey Full text posted at:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html  [link no longer works]
Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abclearjet.htm

(11) 'Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,' 1 June 2001, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects," 4.Policy (page 1)
PDF available at: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/3610_01a.pdf

(12) 'The Associated Press State & Local Wire' 13 September 2001, Thursday, BC cycle, "Small private plane ordered to land in vicinity of Bush ranch"
Full text posted at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/bushranch.htm

(13) 'The Boston Globe,' Saturday 15 September 2001 Third Edition Page A1, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis Fighter Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt The Attacks" by Glen Johnson.
Full text posted at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/bg915.htm

11.15.01 American 587: Manipulation of the Public Mind for Political Purpose
James D. Sanders Thursday, Nov. 15, 2001
[link no longer works]

We are at war. Our enemy specializes in finding new and creative ways to destroy airplanes in order to terrorize America.

American Airlines Flight 587 crashed shortly after liftoff from JFK Airport, New York. Neither engine exploded in flight, per The Washington Post. Both engines and vertical tail section "appear to have broken away from the aircraft before the crash," The Washington Post said.

Less than 30 minutes after American 587 crashed in Queens, N.Y., the FBI declared it to have been the victim of a mechanical failure. Establishment media immediately disseminated this transparent manipulation of the public mind as serious news.

Shortly thereafter Secretary of State Collin Powell raced to the media microphones and declared the crash to have been caused by a mechanical failure. Establishment media immediately disseminated this transparent manipulation of the public mind as serious news. "If there was an explosion on the plane * and many witnesses heard one * it was probably caused by a mechanical failure, investigators said," according to The Washington Post, which failed to question the absurdity of the premise.

We are at war. Our enemies specialize in blowing up commercial aircraft. "If there was an explosion on the plane," the crash should be treated as a crime until a non-criminal cause has been found.

" 'We're utterly baffled,' said one official. 'This is not even within statistical calibrations,'" according to The Washington Post. " 'Everything points to an accident,' said Marion Blakely, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board. 'The communications from the cockpit were normal until the last few seconds before the crash.'"

This statement would soon be proven factually false. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recorded multiple significant events requiring extensive analysis. Any of these significant events could be evidence of a crime. Real investigators must spend significant time investigating and analyzing before "everything points to an accident."

Establishment media never challenged this transparent disinformation effort.

As American 587 plummeted toward the ground, Reuters put out a wire story saying " 'There is credible information of an impending attack inside Saudi Arabia * and one wonders whether inside America itself,' said Saad al-Fagih, head of the London-based Movement for Islamic Reform."

Flipping between MSNBC and CNN, "In-flight breakup of a massive nature," "Came apart in the air" was the early news. Shortly thereafter came the approved propaganda line * [MSNBC] "Information suggests crash was an accident," "There's no sign crash was terrorism," [CNN] "everything points to an accident."

Nov. 12, 2001, is a case study in manipulation of the public mind for political purpose. The federal government instantly declared American 587 to be a mechanical event. Less than 30 minutes of deliberation within the national security structure and White House was required to make the decision and set the mind control operation into motion.

The decision makers decided that BOMB would not be the answer. They further decided to take positive action to immediately remove establishment media discussion of BOMB as a serious consideration.

Political necessity trumped investigative integrity. BOMB would immediately be eliminated from the public psyche. A multi-week speculative BOMB feeding frenzy by establishment media might fatally damage the public psyche. Therefore, the public must be lied to, for the noble purpose of lessening economic pain for the greatest number.

If a bomb brought down the plane, it is an answer that would destroy what is left of the airline industry, plunging the economy into a deep recession, perhaps a depression, during a war for national survival. Lie to the public; reassure the collective mind that tragic accidents occasionally happen * particularly if you fly out of JFK Airport.

"Mechanical" causes short-term economic pain. Within weeks the public anxiety over dying in a plane crash will be gone.

BOMB causes the public to believe the enemy can strike anywhere, anytime. The federal government cannot protect you. A national economic tragedy closely follows such collective thinking. People stop spending and traveling. They economically circle the wagons.

Millions of new unemployed follow in the wake of such mass reorganization of the economy. No longer consumer driven, it is now propelled downward by mass fear of the future.

The NTSB was turned into a political arm of the federal government in the 1990s, so it is accustomed to developing political answers to commercial aircraft crashes.

In 1996, when Flight 800 was shot down, political expediency trumped investigative integrity. William Jefferson Clinton's career was at stake. Today the stakes are much higher.

The public psyche must not be further damaged, or the economy, already in recession, may spiral downward into financial depression. The FBI lied for a noble reason. Colin Powell joined the ranks of the noble ones when he seconded FBI disinformation.

American Airlines will be imperiled for the public good if a bomb or sabotage caused the crash. Sacrifice the economic future of thousands in order to salvage the economic future of millions.

This is the essence of collective liberty. Individuals cannot always be allowed to make personal decisions based on fact when the personal decision may adversely affect government policy.

When personal liberty significantly inhibits the collective good, collective liberty, the right to let noble reason safely guide us, mandates that individual liberty be sacrificed.

As we enter the new millennium, "1984" doublespeak is a public policy requirement. Individuals cannot be allowed to know their personal liberty has been seriously harmed. Doublespeak, lying for noble reason, solves the problem.

Doublespeak is good for the economy, albeit at the expense of the Constitution and individual liberty. But we have been warned for years that individual liberty must give way as we gain a new, unpredictable enemy to replace the good old Soviet menace.

We are constantly told we cannot remain free unless we give up some of our liberties. Individual liberty must give way to collective liberty * liberty for the masses, the McDonald's-like assembly line version of liberty, without thought, individuality or choice. Prepackaged liberty. Fit the collective mold and you will be free.

Collective liberty demands acceptance of transparent federal disinformation when the disinformation is for a noble reason * to protect collective liberty.

American 587 provides significant insight into collective liberty. We are being lied to. It is in the collective interest, therefore the lie is told for noble reason * the collective good. Collective liberty is enhanced. Individual liberty is diminished.

James Sanders is a retired police officer, an investigative reporter, the author of four books, and co-producer of the video documentary "Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice."

11.15.01 http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20011115_130.html {link no longer works]
Loss of tail fin in flight is rare; only other instance in commercial flight came in 1985
The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) Investigators don't yet know why the tail fin and rudder broke off in flight just before American Airlines 587 crashed, but such a catastrophic loss has occurred just once before in commercial aviation history.

On Aug. 12, 1985, a Japan Air Lines jumbo jet lost its vertical tail section on a flight from Tokyo to Osaka. The Boeing 747 flew in circles for half an hour before crashing into a 7,000-foot mountain, its pilots still trying desperately to understand why they had lost control.

That crash killed 520 people, the worst single-aircraft mishap in commercial aviation. Four people survived. In Monday's crash, the American Airlines Airbus A300 took off from Kennedy International Airport and shortly afterward lost its vertical stabilizer and rudder. Without this two-part tail assembly, the jetliner would have suffered a loss of stability and turning control. The plane plunged into a Queens neighborhood, killing all 260 people on board and five people on the ground.

Investigators said witnesses described a "wobble," and the cockpit voice recorder revealed "suggestions of a loss of control" 17 seconds before the plane crashed.

The 27-foot tail fin and the rudder have been pulled out of Jamaica Bay and taken to a nearby collection center for study. Investigators said Wednesday that the tail fin showed no sign of damage from external impact; the rudder was in pieces.

Most forces exerted on an aircraft are from front to rear. The tail fin is made of aluminum or composite material, and is designed to flex from side to side, but whether it could be snapped off by a lateral force was unclear. National Transportation Safety Board experts said they did not know why the tail section was sheared cleanly away from the fuselage.

"We'll be looking very carefully at how the tail failed," NTSB investigator George Black Jr. said Wednesday. Besides the commercial accidents, the only other recorded cases of tail fin losses involved an Air Force B-52 bomber, a Boeing E8 and a Convair 880 jetliner, all during test flights decades ago, according to Scott Haskin, an aircraft maintenance specialist and industry historian.

In the 1985 Japan Air Lines crash, the aircraft suffered "massive decompression" a sudden loss of cabin pressure when the dome-shaped pressure seal in the rear of the passenger compartment unexpectedly collapsed. The explosive force destroyed the aircraft's hydraulic lines that converged in the tail, and ripped away the vertical stabilizer and rudder.

Unable to see the plane's rear, the cockpit crew did not know they had lost the tail, only that the aircraft's control surfaces flaps, elevators and rudder were suddenly and mysteriously inoperative.

Capt. Masami Takahama told air controllers that a rear door had broken, declared an emergency and was cleared to land at either of two nearby airports. Takahama was able to steer the crippled plane by applying and easing power to the engines, but with no rudder to control the turns, the jetliner turned in circles, unable to set a course for either runway.

Photographs taken by witnesses on the ground clearly showed the plane's tail fin was missing. Investigators eventually found that the plane's rear pressure dome, damaged earlier in a "hard landing," had been improperly repaired, and eventually gave way during the Tokyo-Osaka flight. Boeing, which had supervised the pressure dome repairs, took responsibility for the failed repairs.

11.13.01 NY Plane Exploded in air-sabotage
From: "Pointman USA" pointmanusa@yahoo.com  

At 11 AM, CBS Brian Gumball interviewed a pilot that has flown that route to the Dominican Republic in that very type of aircraft . He was off duty and the plane came down near where he lived. He actually went out to see what was wrong because from the sound he knew something was wrong. He was a witness. He -Mr. Mernenis said there were two or three explosions. He saw the engine fly off one way and the wing separated and went another way. Other witnesses say they saw the same thing.

The plane was at say 1000 to 2000 ft. tops 3 miles away then came down in a spin and hit 4 miles away. Another witness at a further distance away heard no explosions and said only the engine came off. Witnesses that did not hear explosions in the sky were all inside buildings looking through windows. Witnesses that heard explosions in the air were outside and close to the flight path. I'll take the testimony off the off-duty pilot.

Another witness saw the plane after the engine came off at 500 ft the whole wing on right in flames and said it pitched left rolled and nose dived straight down. I was an aviation mechanic and on flight crews where both reciprocal and jet engines went out and we flew for hundreds of miles...on the other engine.

I tell you this was sabotage. It was either hit by a low altitude heat seeking missile or a Taliban sympathizer that worked in maintenance put something up in the engine. They are trying to keep the stock market from panicking. And the collapse of the already faltering aviation and related industries.

Something is very fishy here. I think it was sabotaged. --Pointman USA
- - - - -
From http://www.HalTurnerShow.com 

Eric Burns, President of Air Transport Association at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York City confirms that American Airlines Flight #587 an AIRBUS 306 with 247 passengers and 9 crew OUTBOUND from John F. Kennedy Airport enroute to Santo Domingo, crashed and exploded in the Far Rockaway / Rockaway Beach section of Queens, New York at 9:17 AM EST.

Within minutes of normal takeoff, ground witnesses reported seeing an EXPLOSION IN MID-AIR with a wing and an engine fall off! Plane nose-dived into the ground. More ... Engine landed four city blocks away from fuselage. 3-Alarm fire blazing at scene of engine crash; 5 alarm fire blazing at scene of fuselage crash. Multiple homes ablaze

That area of New York City is DENSELY POPULATED. At least four homes / Apartment buildings reported on fire at Beach 129th and Newport Avenues. Hundreds feared dead. Flames and smoke can be seen for miles.

FAA has closed all three New York Airports and all New York airspace in 20 mile radius. All Inbound air traffic to New York must divert. Fighter Jets are airborne over New York City to enforce the NO FLY ZONE.


Northbound I-95 Traffic now backed-up from the George Washington Bridge (GWB) for 25 miles on New Jersey Turnpike, and southbound is backed-up from GWB to the Connecticut State Line! I-80 Eastbound is backed up 27 Miles from GWB. Long Island Expressway has 42 Mile back-up inbound to NYC. BELT PARKWAY AND VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY TOTALLY JAMMED ENTIRE LENGTH.


More Details to follow. Check www.HalTurnerShow.com  often! http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html 
- - - - -

Black Box Recovered From N.Y. Airliner Crash, NewsMax.com Wires Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2001 
[link no longer works]
Police State: http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=143236 

Think about it. What we know about the Egypt Air crash is that a Muslim co-pilot deliberately crashed the plane into the ocean. It was carrying high-ranking Egyptian army officers. If Osama bin Laden and his Islamic terror gang hate anyone as much as the United States, it may well be the current regime in Egypt.

Yet, with all the extensive media coverage of the Sept. 11 attacks, there has been precious little interest shown in this earlier suicide downing of an airliner. There has been no linkage made by government officials.

Why is it important to re-examine this earlier incident? Because knowing the truth is always important. Because it is critical that Americans * and the rest of the civilized world * understand the extent of the threat we face. Because this war is clearly not winding down, despite the advances in Afghanistan.

This war has been going on for a long time under the radar screen. It seems clear to me there was a deliberate and conscious attempt by the previous administration to minimize * at all costs * the threat of Islamic terrorism to the United States. It was evidently a politically inconvenient reality, so it was not just ignored, it was covered up, it was obscured. The American people were deliberately deceived.

Personally, I'd like to know specifically who was on that Egypt Air flight. Who were those Egyptian military officers? Who were the other passengers? This was not just a "suicide" as we were told; it was most likely an act of suicide terror * just like the attacks of Sept. 11.

Egypt, too, has officially rejected this possibility. No wonder. Hosni Mubarak has always sought to minimize the threat to his regime posed by Islamists * even though they assassinated his predecessor, Anwar Sadat.

I believe the reason there's been such stunning silence about Egypt Air Flight 990 is because the truth about it would raise other questions * questions about TWA Flight 800 and the Oklahoma City bombing. For some reason, probably because deliberate government cover-ups tend to be bi-partisan in nature, even the new administration has been unwilling to reopen investigations and re-evaluate old evidence in the light of new developments.

But, I believe, it's time for the truth * no matter what the cost to individual careers.

Government officials and investigators do not work for politicians. They work for the people. And the people deserve the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

For those who have not read WorldNetDaily's extensive coverage of the Oklahoma City bombing and the TWA Flight 800 crash, this might be a good time to catch up.


On a warm June evening in Kansas City, the historic home of TWA and the current site of its huge overhaul base, a group of 75 or so airline pilots watched the documentary "Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice" in stunned horror, writes filmmaker Jack Cashill in WorldNetDaily.

Afterwards, not a one among them, either publicly or privately, challenged the video's thesis that TWA Flight 800 had indeed been shot down, he writes. Offered instead were corroborating details, particularly from angry TWA pilots, about the money trail and the inexplicable Pentagon visits of then TWA CEO Jeff Erickson. Said one TWA pilot: "90 percent of us believe there was a government cover-up."

Cashill says the fifth anniversary of the TWA Flight 800 disaster on July 17 presents the last great opportunity to share this story with a mainstream media that definitely does not want to hear it. If the overwhelming public response in the last two weeks is any indication, this is one story that may well from the bottom up.

WND Editor's note: The following column by independent filmmaker Jack Cashill explores how the official explanation of the TWA Flight 800 disaster fell apart upon examination in his new video documentary "Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice."  James Sanders, a former police officer turned investigative reporter, co-wrote this report. Sanders is the author of "The Downing of TWA Flight 800" and "Altered Evidence," among other books.   © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com 

On the evening of July 17, 1996, when Mike Wire quit the switch gear room on Beach Lane Bridge for a breath of fresh air, he had no idea he would be strolling on to the center stage of one of the most explosive political cover-ups in American history. 

For the unassuming Wire (Mick to close friends) to play this critical role took a combination of unlikely and unrelated factors, among them the reckless cunning of the CIA, an unthinking bit of bureaucracy by the National Transportation Safety Board, a seemingly trivial slip-up by the FBI, the keen-eyed detective work of Accuracy In Media's Reed Irvine, and above all, the stalwart character of Mike Wire himself, a man whose courage and resolve the CIA would fatally underestimate. 

Wire, a union millwright from suburban Philadelphia, had been working all that day on this Westhampton Bridge. At day's end, he leaned his burly 6-foot-6-inch frame against the rail on the southwest end of the bridge and looked out toward the sea beyond the house line. 

At that moment a white light caught his eye. Twelve days later, during a 90-minute interview at his Pennsylvania home, he told an FBI agent * "a real nice guy" * exactly what he saw. Here is how the agent recorded the conversation on his "302": 

"Wire saw a white light that was traveling skyward from the ground at approximately a 40 degree angle. Wire described the white light as a light that sparkled and thought it was some type of fireworks. Wire stated that the white light 'zig zagged' (sic) as it traveled upwards, and at the apex of its travel the white light 'arched over' and disappeared from Wire's view. ... Wire stated the white light traveled outwards from the beach in a south-southeasterly direction." 

After the light disappeared, the 302 continues, Wire "saw an orange light that appeared to be a fireball." This description, by the way, matches the description Wire gave the FBI a few days earlier by phone and perfectly mirrors what the eyewitnesses observed in the NTSB missile test: the white smoke trail, the zig-zag, the arch, the disappearance. At the end of the 302, the agent added the now ironic notation, Wire "wishes to cooperate in any way he can and can be re-contacted at any time." 

Wire was hardly alone in his sighting. Seven hundred and thirty-five other citizens shared their observations of the crash with the FBI. The patterns in their testimony are undeniable, flare after flare, streak after streak, zig-zag after zig-zag. 

At least 96 of these eyewitnesses saw the light rise up off the horizon. Many saw the explosion from a clearer angle than Wire. At least four of them, for instance, saw the nose of the plane blow off; two of these shared this information with the FBI even before the authorities knew the nose had fallen off first. Wire did not parrot these details. He had left Long Island for home the next morning before any story might have circulated. Had a co-worker not alerted the FBI to what Wire had seen, Wire would have played no role in the drama to follow. 

After his July 1996, interviews, Wire returned to his uneventful, workaday life in Pennsylvania. Having little interest in politics and less in the Internet, he did not follow the controversy swelling around the crash. Wire did, however, see the CIA recreation of the flight presented by the FBI in November of 1997, at least the abbreviated version shown on the news. He presumed this to be some temporary scheme to pacify the public and was fully unaware of his own role in it. 

This CIA video, however, proved to be the central, most visible element of a disinformation campaign designed to discredit the eyewitnesses. In an animated sequence, The CIA argued that when the nose of the plane broke off * due to a spontaneous explosion in the center wing tank * the plane pitched up and climbed like a rocket for more than 3,000 feet. According to the CIA, this climb, not a missile, is what the 736 official eyewitnesses saw. 

Forget for a moment the all-but-unanimous rejection of this scenario by the aviation world. Forget, too, the total absence of any eyewitness corroboration in the FBI 302s or in the accompanying sketches. Focus instead on the role Mike Wire played in the video's creation. 

For reasons not fully explained, the CIA chose to build its case squarely on Mike Wire's testimony. "FBI investigators determined precisely where the eyewitness was standing," says the CIA narrator of Wire while the video shows the explosion from his perspective on Beach Lane Bridge. "The white light the eyewitness saw was very likely the aircraft very briefly ascending and arching over after it exploded rather than a missile attacking the aircraft." 

To be sure, this version of events does not at all square with Wire's detailed 302 from July 1996, recorded when his memory was at its freshest. The CIA animation converts Wire's "40 degree" climb to one of roughly 70 or 80 degrees. It reduces the movement of an obvious smoke trail from three dimensions, south and east "outward from the beach," to a small, two dimensional blip far off shore. It places the explosion noticeably to the west of where Wire clearly remembers it. Most noticeably, it fully ignores Wire's claim that the plane ascended "skyward from the ground" and places his first sighting 20 degrees above the horizon, exactly where Flight 800 would have been. 

Curiously, however, the CIA narrator repeats Wire's claim that the object "zig-zagged," although neither the CIA nor the NTSB animations show the crippled plane in anything but a perfectly smooth, elliptical ascent. 

The question begs to be asked: How could the CIA recreate events at such obvious odds with the original and detailed 302? Here is what the agency reported orally to the NTSB and which the NTSB transcribed and released with bureaucratic unconsciousness (NTSB Witness document, Appendix FF, Docket No. SA-516, April 30, 1999): 

CIA Analyst No. 1: "Let me say something else about this eyewitness [Wire] because I think this is interesting. He was an important eyewitness to us. And we asked the FBI to talk to him again, and they did [our emphasis]. In his original description, he thought he had seen a firework and that perhaps that firework had originated on the beach behind the house. We went to that location and realized that, if he was only seeing the airplane, that he would not see a light appear from behind the rooftop of that house. The light would actually appear in the sky. It's high enough in the sky that that would have to happen. 

"When he was re-interviewed, he said that is indeed what happened. The light did appear in the sky. Now, when the FBI told us that, we got even more comfortable with our theory. He also described, he was asked to describe how high in the sky above the house he thought that light appeared, and he said it was as if -- if you imagine a flagpole on top of the house it would be as if it were on the top or the tip of the flagpole." 

If he could summon the political will, Attorney General John Ashcroft could launch an investigation into a criminal cover-up of the TWA 800 catastrophe with nothing more than the CIA animated sequence and the document above, as clear and compelling evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct justice as a prosecutor could hope for. 

Why? Here's why: The FBI never re-contacted Mike Wire after July of 1996. Someone made up the interview out of whole cloth * including the bizarre "flagpole" detail. (Curiously, the NTSB's David Mayer fully invents "two flagpoles" in discrediting critical eyewitness 649). Some persons within either the CIA or the FBI, or both, knowingly and flagrantly corrupted the investigation into the tragic death of 230 innocent people. 

Joan Wire, Mike's equally courageous wife, did take one call from an alleged FBI agent after July of 1996, but when Mike Wire called the number back, he got a New York publishing house, presumed the call a fraud and refused to talk. 

If there were a follow-up interview by the FBI, there should be a follow-up 302 complete with date, place, and name of agent. The attorney general could begin his investigation by asking the FBI to produce it. It won't be able. 

Besides, even if the FBI had decided to call back, Wire would not have changed his testimony. He has not changed it to this day. When he and Joan came back to Westhampton to help us create the video, "Silenced," he told and showed us exactly what he told the original agent on his 302, though he had not seen that document himself. For the record, Wire received no compensation for this trip, even for his travel. 

Wire has no reason to lie. In fact, he and Joan are fully aware of the potential consequences of telling the truth. Says Mike, "I understand the implications of dealing with the big guys." But the reserved, soft-spoken Wire, who served with the U.S. Army in Korea during the Vietnam War, still believes deeply in the concept of duty. "If we don't stand up for the country," he asks rhetorically, "who will?" 

The question remains: Why, of all the eyewitness accounts, did the CIA choose to alter Mike Wire's? Many others, including key witnesses like Major Fritz Meyer and Paul Angelides, never claimed to see the streak of light come off the horizon. Their testimony might have been easier to fudge. 

Best guess: the 302s contain fairly detailed information about occupation and residence. There is much the CIA can infer from them about income and media access. Most of the eyewitnesses on this, the affluent south shore of Long Island, viewed the events from their boats, from their summer homes, from their yacht clubs. One eyewitness, a humble mechanic from Philadelphia, saw it on his work break before heading home the next morning. Who would you choose? 

One must give credit here where it is due. The CIA damn well almost got away with it. Wire spent the next four years fully unaware of what had transpired. Had it not been for an odd double screw-up by the FBI, he might still be unaware. 

On his 302, the interviewing agent from July of 1996 neglected once to capitalize "Wire." The FBI employee that redacted the 302s before their public release failed to black out "wire" since it was a common noun, not capitalized. The 302s also included Wire's hometown. Reed Irvine of AIM, who has been diligently pursuing this case for years, caught the discrepancy, found Wire's name in the phonebook, and called. This call did not take place until the spring of 2000. 

And the rest, as they say, is history. 
If you want to be out front on this one, make sure you have seen Jack Cashill's amazing video documentary, "Silence: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice," available exclusively at the WorldNetDaily online store. 
SOURCE: WorldNetDaily  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/  

6.23.01 NEWSWEEK: Egyptians Agree Plane Crash Was Suicide
June 23, 2001 11:56 pm EST 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Egyptian investigators who probed the 1999 crash of Egyptair Flight 990 in which 217 people were killed privately agreed with the U.S. view that it was probably caused by the co-pilot committing suicide, Newsweek magazine reported on Saturday.

The magazine said U.S. intelligence agencies secretly monitored communications between Cairo and the investigators who were in Washington at the time.

"Intelligence sources say the intercepts reveal that despite their public stance, the Egyptian investigators privately agreed with their U.S. counterparts that suicide was the likely cause of the crash," Newsweek said.
All on board were killed when the Boeing 767 crashed into the sea off Massachusetts. No mechanical cause for the crash has been found.

Earlier this month, the man who headed the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board at the time of the crash, James Hall, said it could only have been caused by someone in the cockpit.

"The information that I have very carefully reviewed when I was chairman left no question in my mind ... that there is no way that the events could have occurred as a result of a mechanical failure, but occurred as a result of pilot actions," Hall said.  Investigators have focused on co-pilot Gamil Batouti, who was at the controls when the aircraft went into a final dive.

Egyptian authorities have long rejected any suggestion that Batouti may have deliberately crashed the aircraft. They have urged U.S. investigators to look more closely at the Boeing's elevator panels to determine if they malfunctioned. The final U.S. report on the accident is expected later this year. 

FLIGHT 800 - DOWNED BY EMP WARHEAD? Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001

How could so many witnesses see a missile intercept Flight 800 and yet the only evidence found suggests that an electrical surge, not a missile, ignited the center fuel tank? Could there be a war-head designed to destroy aircraft with a powerful electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would only leave evidence of an electrical surge? Looking for the answer at the Library of Congress I found it…

The US Navy began developing a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) warhead for antiaircraft missiles ten years ago and was test firing them two years before the Flight 800 crash. An MHD warhead kills an aircraft by burning out its circuits with a powerful electrical surge induced by a electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from the warhead detonating near the aircraft. The systems from Flight 800 were riddled with evidence of a powerful electronic surge. In fact, the official cause was declared to be an inexplicable surge strong enough to put a spark into the center fuel tank.

Goddard’s Journal introduces and explores the theory that Flight 800 was downed by a missile equipped with an EMP warhead, offering an explanation for both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. The report is replete with photographic evidence and an animation: EMP-warhead theory: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/twa-emp.htm  [link no longer works]
SOURCE: Ian Goddard Ian@Goddard.net, http://users.erols.com/igoddard/twa-emp.htm  [link no longer works]


Wow. Okay, so YOU try and figure out what the tangled web described below actually means.

About the only interesting, possibly worthwhile though unsurprising item that I got out of this report is that Libya's Col. Kadafi is apparently a Mason. As the ever-questionable Kadafi seems to be willing to buy into the U.S. government's painfully threadbare fable about the Pan Am bombing, his membership in a Masonic Lodge is certainly to be expected.

Countless other world "leaders" (no laughter, please) are members of this sinister and eminently subversive global "organization," which is thus VERY closely linked to the covert worldwide "government."

Anyway, it's beyond the bounds of reason that the CIA is saying ANYTHING even CLOSE to the truth about what happened to Fl. 103. Take it from us. That is, the headline below almost certainly SHOULD read: "Agent ADMITS CIA blackmailed him into framing Libyans in Pan Am case."

Got it.   ---NewsHawk® Inc.


CAMP ZEIST, Netherlands (AP)  --A former Libyan double agent denied on Wednesday that the CIA blackmailed him into framing two former colleagues on trial for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

The former spy, a witness in the Lockerbie trial identified by the pseudonym Abdul Majid Giaka, kept his composure as his credibility was assailed all day by lawyers defending Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah.

Al-Megrahi and Fhimah are charged with sending a suitcase bomb on a flight from the Mediterranean island of Malta on Dec. 21, 1988. The bomb exploded on the Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.

Giaka, a former CIA mole in the Libyan secret service, was hidden from public view as he addressed the court.

"Mr. Giaka, you are a liar, aren"t you? You tell big lies and you tell small lies, but you lie, do you not?" said Richard Keen, counsel for Fhimah.

"I did not lie," Giaka insisted time and again. "I did not style="mso-spacerun: yes"> lie about anything." On Tuesday, Giaka testified that the defendants stored explosives at Malta"s Luqa airport as late as October 1988. In late December 1988, he said he saw them at the airport going unnoticed through customs with a brown Samsonite bag that matched the suitcase bomb.

Malta airport officials have confirmed the defendants arrived on the eve of the explosion. But Bill Taylor, a Scottish lawyer for al-Megrahi, noted "a deafening silence" about the suitcase in reports filed by CIA debriefers who were interviewing Giaka monthly.

The silence continued until a July 13, 1991, meeting with CIA operatives, who recorded that Giaka feared for his life if he returned to Malta or Libya. Giaka, who now lives under witness protection in the United States, was going to meet Justice Department officials the next day who were looking for "anything that is going to be of use as a witness,"

Taylor said, quoting the report. According to the lawyer, the CIA delivered an ultimatum: "Come up with something and your future is rosy. Come up with nothing and not a penny."

"Lo and behold, the deafening silence ends the very next day when you come up with a brown Samsonite suitcase and this rubbish about customs," Taylor said. "The very next day is the first mention by you, Giaka, of these matters."

"They did not try to buy me off," Giaka insisted. "I did this with a lot of courage."

In a bizarre test of wills, Fhimah"s attorney clashed with the witness over his statements to a U.S. grand jury in October 1991. According to Keen, the double agent alleged that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was involved with former Maltese president Guido de Marco in a Masonic conspiracy "over a particular matter."

"How did you discover that Col. Gadhafi is a Mason?" Keen asked, repeating the question six times, each time the witness refusing to reveal his source.

At first, Giaka said the source, who is still in Libya, would be in danger. Then, after judges ruled that Giaka was under no obligation to reveal the name, Giaka said he could not remember making the allegation.

Keen cited numerous inconsistencies, including Giaka"s denial of a CIA report that recorded him saying he was a "distant relative" of Libya"s last king, who was deposed by Gadhafi in 1969.

The defendants have pleaded innocent to the bombing, claiming Palestinian terrorist groups were responsible.

Gadhafi surrendered the suspects for trial in 1999 and the proceedings began May 3 at a special Scottish courthouse in the Netherlands.
SOURCE: NewsHawk® Inc. 9.27.00

US Military EMF Pulses May Have Caused Recent Air Crashes 9/15/00

Electromagnetic pulses from military craft may have been responsible for several civilian airline disasters in the past four  years. If the theory is proved correct, it suggests navy ships and air force planes pose a lethal threat to passenger flights. Crash investigators have been startled by similarities between several tragedies. In particular, they have uncovered common features in two crashes: Swissair 111, on September 2, 1998, and TWA 800, on July 17, 1996. Both planes took off from the same airport, New York's JFK, on the same day, a Wednesday, at the same minute, 8.19pm. Both followed the same route over Long Island. Both reported trouble in the same region of airspace, and both suffered catastrophic electrical malfunctions.

And on both occasions the planes were flying at a time when extensive military exercises - involving submarines and US Navy P3 fighter planes - were being conducted. These factors - outlined by  Elaine Scarry in the forthcoming issue of the New York Review of Books - suggest to many investigators that a routine weekly event, probably involving the generation of strong electromagnetic pulses by military personnel, may have triggered short-circuits in the two planes. In the case of the TWA 800 flight, this could have caused a spark to set off a fire in its fuel tanks.

Alternatively, a pulse could have knocked  out instruments, causing the Boeing 747 to spin out of control, making metal parts tear and produce sparks. In the case of the Swissair 111, a fire was reported in the cabin and the plane plunged into the sea off the coast of Nova Scotia.
SOURCE: Conspiracy Journal 9/15/00
http://www.conspiracyjournal.com and http://www.webufo.net


CAIRO -- Egypt's Pilots' Federation has threatened to file a lawsuit against the US President if the US investigation committee fails to consider all possible causes of last year's EgyptAir plane crash, including missiles and technical failure.  The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said earlier this  month it had been unable to conclude what caused the crash of Flight 990 from New York to Cairo, which plunged into the Atlantic on October 31, 1999, killing all 217 aboard.  US says they are working on a theory that relief copilot Gamil al-Batouti deliberately crashed the plane.  The NTSB's assessment dismissed Egyptian theories that technical problems on the Boeing 767 or that surface-to-air missiles downed the craft," said Ali Murad, of the Egyptian Pilots' Federation. "They have no tangible evidence that Batouti committed suicide," Murad said. "But they have many witnesses of the fireballs flying towards the plane." The Egyptians want the US authorities to release radar images and to question an air traffic controller, as well as two pilots from Germany and Jordan said to have seen a missiles while flying in the area at the time of the crash.  Five fishermen are possible witnesses. "EgyptAir Chairman Mohamed Fahim Rayan said last week he was 99 percent sure a technical problem in the elevator system caused the crash, citing Boeing's bulletin as evidence to inspect the elevators on the horizontal tail surface.
Thanks to Ed Komarek ekomarek@mail.caironet.com and Esmat Salaheddin (Reuters)

SOURCE: Filer's Files #35 -- 2000, September 4, 2000
George A. Filer,  Majorstar@aol.com

8.30.00 Pro Guts Official Lies On JFK Jr Crash
Date: 8/30/00  NewsHawk Inc.

A long-term NewsHawk subscriber, Ace, put forth this point by point rebuttal of the NTSB's official "last word" on the plane crash which killed John Kennedy, Jr., his wife and sister-in-law July 16, 1999.

Mr. Ace wrote this in response to an article in AOPA Pilot Magazine about the Kennedy "crash" which detailed and more or less "endorsed" the NTSB's ludicrous lies.

Ace's dissertation is so well-done, we all deserve to check it out, and here it is, below (I'm not sure about his speculations on "death-by-doggie," however).

My own last word here: some of the most solid and telling evidence  showing there IS an official cover-up regarding the true causes of the crash is the following. Using information obtained from videotaped copies of WCVB-Boston's TV broadcasts from the day after the crash, and information obtained from official US Coast Guard records,

NewsHawk proved that Kennedy DID make radio contact with flight controller personnel only seconds before his supposed "death spiral" began.

This crucial news was later strenuously buried as deeply and completely as it was conceivably possible to do.

What's more, some additional footage of WCVB's July 17 broadcasting, recently retrieved, adds significant new information which strongly indicates the existence of a official campaign of cover-up and disinformation (shades of TWA FL 800!).

A WCVB-TV reporter states on camera that a LARGE number of people, at or near the southwestern shore of Martha's Vineyard the evening of July 16 at around 9:40 PM, heard and saw an AIRBORNE EXPLOSION over the water to the south, at the same time as JFK. Jr. has completed his radio contact with flight control!

There is NO DOUBT there was an "official cover-up" about the circumstances which caused the crash of JFK Jr.'s plane and the deaths of all aboard.

In our view and CERTAINLY in this case, PROOF of cover-up is all but tantamount to PROOF of foul play; of intentional, willful murder.   ---NewsHawk® Inc.



Ordinarily, I would not bother to comment. But in light of how the NTSB has been dealing with some other aviation accidents[incidents], I thought that I would try to chastise you and Mr. Langford for the oddly incomplete article that appears in this current  AOPAPILOT [“Vineyard spiral”].

My attention to the intentions of the author was flagged early on, by the phrase, “...especially when flying over water and sparsely populated areas after dark”.

I recommend that you do what no other commentator has done so far, print the NEW YORK CITY sectional chart and overlay the line of flight. Additionally, make the same flight with a VTR at the same hours. I think that it would be quite clear that Jr. was virtually flying down one of the most heavily illuminated areas on this planet. This was not a flight into the void [even the Vineyard up to about midnight is quite nicely illuminated].

And then there are these other questions, which I think neither your Mr. Langford nor the NTSB considered.

For instance,

1. Apparently there were broadcasts from the USCG that indicated that Jr. conducted a radio transmission with FAA indicating that he had the runway in sight and was on final approach within one minute of his flight’s instantly auguring in. Reportedly, some exquisite efforts were undertaken to bury this data. Why do you think?

2. And then there is the mystery of Jr.’s last instructor. I have read everything that I can find on this subject, but I can neither find his name nor his public appearance nor his sworn testimony. What gives, do you think? For all the air time that was devoted to this incident, I never saw any interview conducted with this last instructor. With the interview-mad media, why do you think this was the case? Could he not be found? Or was it that for some reason he was not to be interviewed. But never forget this when you consider this incident. A week prior to this accident, Jr. made a round-trip flight to Buttonwood airport in Canada. Accompanied by an instructor because he had a fractured ankle in a cast. As I know the regs, the identity of this instructor should be a matter of public record. He should have logged out when they cleared US CUSTOMS on the outbound leg and should have logged in upon the return flight. That paper trail should exist. So, how is it that this Certified Flight Instructor remains unrevealed?

3. In fact, after the incident, there were never any interviews conducted with Jr.’s most recent flight instructor prior to his death. Why? It should be no mystery as to that individual’s identity. When I used to hire an instructor, everybody at my FBO knew who was flying with me.  Everybody talks about the excessively inquisitive press. How is it then that I can read all this verbiage about the JFK JR incident and never learn the name of the most recent witness as to Jr.’s flying skills?

4. And then there is the issue of the weather satellite data which disappeared for the two hours during which Jr. augured in. Oh, you know, those satellite pictures of that area are available for all that day, then for a period of some few hours during which the incident occurred the data is unavailable, then it becomes available again. And my guess is that it has been available ever since then, virtually. That the disappearance of the data that should have been recorded during the incident interval is a distinct, almost unique operational anomaly.

If my point has been missed, let me re-phrase it. I think it to be the case that there is at least one [1] geosynchronous satellite making a virtual photo record of all that occurs in this part of the planet. Ordinarily, there would be a satellite record of the area, viewed from overhead, during the interval of Jr.’s flight. A mediocre photo-intelligence plot should have been able to present a complete flight picture of the flight. Including all the weather. Timed to mesh with the timed radio transmissions and any transponder recorded data.

For some reason, according to things that I have read, no record was made during the interval of Jr.’s flight. Don’t you find it upsetting when this disappearance of normally routinely collected data disappears only for a uniquely well-defined interval involving an aircraft incident resulting in the death of the “heir to Camelot”?


A. First of all, until it can be proven that Kennedy’s CFI who flew with him to Toronto still lives, my guess is that there was a fourth person on board Jr.’s plane. Sitting in the right-hand seat. And that individual was the instructor who was hired and has never been heard from again.  Any investigative journalist of any skill should have been able to document this story by now. As far as I know, that has not happened. And I find no NTSB documents, nor any NTSB-SYMP articles, that consider this individual. He, or she, has become a nullity. That should provoke lots of nasty speculation, especially in light of the NTSB’s distortions in the TWA 800 investigation. If I am right, and Jr. hired this CFI to accompany him on this flight, principally because of his atrophied ankle (2 days out of a cast), then this puts an entirely different light on the incident.  And don’t you agree? Because if the CFI was on-board, then the politically-correct explanations for the cause[s] of the accident have no legs. Inexperience would not be the cause of the accident.

B. And then there is the issue of the curricula vitae of that last instructor. Did he have any ties to any intelligence agency?

C. Is there any reliable evidence of who was sitting where? For instance, was Jr. in the front, left seat? Where were the other passengers sitting?

D. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DOG[S]? Long ago, in another lifetime, I used to read this magazine entitled Air Facts. It specialized in reporting the causes of general aviation accidents. One that I specifically remember was a Beech Debonair departing Millville, NJ that augured in shortly after lift-off. Seems that the pilot had all his family on board as well as the two family dogs [a golden retriever and an Irish setter]. Accident cause was attributed to the dogs becoming excited upon lift-off, jumping forward so as to force the pilot into the control yoke, pushing the nose towards the ground at an unrecoverable altitude. Everybody killed.

Now, we know from a Vanity Fair photo essay that was run only weeks prior to this catastrophe that Jr. had at least one large dog named Friday. What became of this dog when Jr. and his wife left Manhattan? Was he placed in a kennel? Given over to friends for safekeeping?  Or was he taken along and on board the plane?

As of this date, no one has identified the whereabouts of this doggie since the accident. But it would not be unreasonable to consider that this dog was on board, became excited as he sensed landing, jumped forward pushing Jr. into the control yoke, and the plane was forced to augur in.

And then there is the possibility that Jr. owned more than Friday. There might have been a Saturday and a Sunday. And all three might have been on board. And these are the questions that AOPAPILOT should be asking about this incident and the NTSB “findings”. The NTSB investigations[sic]. But the way that I read this AOPA article makes me feel that JIm Hall has become the chief of AOPA.

If this seems too strong, I invite you to tell me where I have gotten it wrong.

Thanks for your time in considering these comments and I request that you “air” this message.

Filer's Files #33 -- August 21, 2000 George A. Filer,  Majorstar@aol.com  http://www.filersfiles.com/files/2000/filersfiles33.html


The following is from AIRWise News - Aug 14, 2000. The head of the Egyptian pilots' federation yesterday accused U.S. investigators of withholding key evidence in the crash of EgyptAir Flight 990 off the U.S. coast last October, according to Reuters.  Walid Murad called for the release of radar images and the evidence of two pilots who said they saw missiles in the area where the plane went down, killing all 217 people on board.  He told reporters that U.S. investigators said they were denying access to the radar images because they contained military secrets.  "This is a weak excuse," he said.  "This American stance is evidence of concealing facts, and we demand the release of these radar images and to hear the testimony of the two pilots, one German and one Jordanian, that they saw missiles where the Egyptian plane crashed," he said.  Egypt Air Flight 990, headed for Cairo from New York, suddenly plunged into the Atlantic Ocean on October 31, 1999.  Information from the flight data and cockpit voice recorders led to assertions by some U.S. investigators that relief copilot Gamil al-Batouti deliberately caused the crash.  Egyptian officials have rejected that line of inquiry and worked on a theory that the plane's elevator panels on the tail, which control whether the nose points up or down, may have jammed.  Murad said the Egyptian pilot's federation demanded the recovery of the remaining parts of the aircraft and the completion of an investigation to determine whether there were technical problems in the tail section.  By concealing and leaking information, Murad said, the U.S. investigation risked losing credibility.

"The National Transportation Safety Board did release 1,665 pages of data of its investigation into the crash of Egyptair Flight 990," August 11, 2000, "but drew no conclusion about the cause,  a move that allows the political dispute between  the United States and Egypt to continue."
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2000/08/966256308.html  [link no longer works]

8.14.00  Aviation Pros Outraged By Feds' Endless Fl 990 Lies

As we've said consistently ever since the powerfully suspicious crash of EgyptAir Fl 990 last Nov. 1, U.S. crash "investigators" (that is, paid-off, corrupted lying sacks of excrement) have been spewing mouthfuls of lies about the tragic event from minute one, and in fact continue to do so to this very day. Somebody, hopefully will shoot down said lying fed sacks of excrement really soon... and for good.

Interestingly the "AIRWise" magazine article below sent to us by Ian Goddard makes note of something publicized by NewsHawk within weeks of the crash: that a German national who was piloting a small jet in the immediate vicinity of Fl 990 witnessed a missile streak past his plane and strike Fl 990 in the rear/tail section.

And then, guess what? The plane crashed. Case closed.

Don't these punk-ass fed swine get the picture YET? As in -- hardly ANYBODY in the WORLD BELIEVES THEM!  Give it up already! --John Quinn / NewsHawk® Inc.


Flight 990   From: Ian Goddard Ian@Goddard.net
The following is from AIRWise News - Aug 14, 2000

http://news.airwise.com/stories/2000/08/966256308.html  [link no longer works]

The head of the Egyptian pilots' federation yesterday accused U.S. investigators of withholding key evidence in the crash of EgyptAir Flight 990 off the U.S. coast last October, according to Reuters.

Walid Murad called for the release of radar images and the evidence of two pilots who said they saw missiles in the area where the plane went down, killing all 217 people on board.

He told reporters that U.S. investigators said they were denying access to the radar images because they contained military secrets. "This is a weak excuse," he said. "This American stance is evidence of concealing facts, and we demand the release of these radar images and to hear the testimony of the two pilots, one German and one Jordanian, that they saw missiles where the Egyptian plane crashed," he said.

EgyptAir flight 990, headed for Cairo from New York, suddenly plunged into the Atlantic Ocean on October 31. Information from the flight data and cockpit voice recorders led to assertions by some U.S. investigators that relief co-pilot Gamil al-Batouti deliberately caused the crash.

Egyptian officials have rejected that line of inquiry and worked on a theory that the plane's elevator panels on the tail, which control whether the nose points up or down, may have jammed. Murad said the Egyptian pilot's federation demanded the recovery of the remaining parts of the aircraft and the completion of an investigation to determine whether there were technical problems in the tail section.

By concealing and leaking information, Murad said, the U.S. investigation risked losing credibility.

8/14/00 TWA Flight800: A Plea for Truth
Ian Goddard igoddard@erols.com

The Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization has issued a challenge to the major media to stop promoting proven falsehoods regarding the crash of TWA Flight 800.

A year ago FIRO showed that the official crash scenario violates the radar data http://Flight800.org/radar6.htm so severely that it violates the conservation of energy, and thus is pseudoscientific nonsense, as FIRO president and physicist Dr Thomas Stalcup has clearly demonstrated (http://Flight800.org/radar9.htm). Based on the official radar data, my calculations corroborated his conclusion. FIRO's challenge to the media to stop promoting pseudo-science is made in the following devastating critique of the official explanation of eyewitness accounts:

FBI force-fed mainstream media Flight 800 CIA propaganda

When the FBI stepped away from the Flight 800 investigation in November of 1997, then Assistant Director James Kallstrom held a press conference, which included a CIA video. The video allegedly depicted the final moments of flight for the doomed aircraft as it headed to Paris. All the major networks aired the video nationwide during primetime hours. But no network was given the chance to review the content of the animations, nor even the opportunity to check the validity of the data used to produce it. Even Boeing was out of the loop.

Boeing was not involved in the production of the [CIA] video shown today, nor have we had the opportunity to obtain a copy or fully understand the data used to create it." (Boeing Press Release, 11/18/97)

The CIA video was produced to show the world what the Flight 800 eyewitnesses saw.

Of particular concern to FBI investigators and CIA analysts are accounts from dozens of eyewitnesses who reported seeing an object--usually described as a "flare" or "firework"--ascend and culminate in an explosion." (CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence John C. Gannon)

The video attributed the ascending "firework" to Flight 800 itself, after a violent midair explosion blew off its forward section. According to the CIA, a resulting weight imbalance caused Flight 800 to pitch up sharply and climb approximately 3,000 feet. CNN continues to maintain a URL reporting on the FBI press conference and CIA video. http://cnn.com/US/9711/18/twa.fbi.presser/index.html

"This may have looked like a missile attacking an aircraft," the CIA narrator alleged. Dramatic music accompanied the introduction and conclusion of the video, which included the onscreen, underlined words "not a missile" on several occasions.

Nearly two years later, raw radar data from the crash were released, showing direct conflict with the CIA crash sequence. [ http://Flight800.org/radar6.htm ] In August of 1999, these data were presented during a nationally televised (C-Span II) press conference of independent Flight 800 researchers.

And more recently (April, 2000) the eyewitness evidence was released showing further conflict with the CIA video. In fact, the two key witnesses referenced to produce the CIA video say that it does not represent what they saw at all.

Mike Wire -- The backdrop of the CIA video shows Mr. Wire's exact view from "Beach Lane Bridge" in Westhampton, NY. No CIA representative ever contacted Mr. Wire, yet the CIA crash sequence was based upon an FBI drawing Wire made while at his Pennsylvania home. He was never taken back to the bridge to gain line of sight trajectories or other information. During a July 17, 2000 press conference (carried live by Fox News Channel) Wire stated that the CIA video does not account for what he saw.

Dwight Brumley -- The video also takes into account the observations of Master Chief Dwight Brumley (active duty Navy at the time of the crash). He was looking out a right side window of a US-Air Flight when Flight 800 crashed (3 miles away). Before the explosion, he reported seeing a "flare-like" object ascend from below and behind the US-Air jet. The object passed the US-Air plane on a parallel (NNE) heading, toward Flight 800. http://Flight800.org/brumley.gif  But the CIA video misrepresented Brumley's testimony, giving the flare- like object an erroneous origin and heading, making it fit a theory that it was Flight 800. Brumley was never interviewed by the CIA, nor was he asked any detailed questions about his observations by any federal investigator. Brumley also spoke at the July 2000 press conference and stated that the CIA video does not account for what he saw.

The only detailed briefings taken from Mr. Wire or Master Chief Brumley were by independent investigators from the Association of Retired Aviation Professionals (ARAP) [http://TWA800.com] and Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization (FIRO). [http://Flight800.org] The fact that neither the FBI, NTSB, nor CIA took detailed briefings from these witnesses is shocking, but does help explain the video's misrepresentations of their accounts.

Not only are the Wire/Brumley accounts inconsistent with the CIA video, but all witness accounts who saw the front section separate from Flight 800 contradict the CIA conclusions.

The CIA alleges that the loss of the forward section of the plane preceded a steep climb of Flight 800. This climb is supposed to account for what dozens of eyewitnesses saw going up. But not one eyewitness who reported seeing the front section separate from the rear agrees. These eyewitnesses either see a secondary object cause the front section to separate or observe Flight 800 descend immediately after losing its forward section.

Witness 55: "She then saw and heard an explosion and saw the cockpit separate from the plane. She saw a trail of blue-gray smoke following these pieces downward." (NTSB Witness Exhibit, Appendix B http://TWA800.com/witnesscd/witnesscd.htm)

Witness 73: "While keeping her eyes on the aircraft, she observed a 'red streak' moving up from the ground toward the aircraft at approximately a 45 degree angle...[and afterwards] observed the front of the aircraft separate from the back." (NTSB Witness Exhibit, Appendix B)

Witness 88: "He glanced over to the southeast and observed what he thought was a firework ascending into the sky...[and afterwards] noted that he felt that either the bright red object pushed the nose cone of the plane up or the plane was slightly angled upward when the strike occurred." (NTSB Witness Exhibit, Appendix B)  

Witness 150: " She followed the object for approximately 2 or 3 seconds when she then noticed a large  commercial airliner which appeared to be traveling at the same altitude, 'just stop' and begin to disintegrate...As the plane [identified by the witness as a 747] came apart, its nose turned up and to the right." (NTSB Witness Exhibit, Appendix C)

The above four, independent eyewitnesses are highly credible. Two of them informed the FBI that the front section of the plane separated before it was confirmed during salvage efforts, while the other two suggested the same. Three of the four describe a secondary object rise up from the surface and cause the forward section to separate. But the CIA somehow got the order of events reversed and created a video showing an ascending streak of light after front section departure.

The CIA simply did not do their homework. The video is in total disagreement with the radar data as well http://flight800.org/radar6.htm  as with the two key eyewitnesses upon which it is based. Furthermore, all eyewitnesses who viewed the front section separation are in conflict with the video.

But the CIA video concludes: "The 21 eyewitnesses whose observations began earlier describe what almost certainly was the aircraft in various stages of crippled flight after it exploded. Those who said they saw something ascend and culminate in an explosion probably saw the burning aircraft ascend and erupt into a fireball just after it reached its maximum altitude. From a distance of 9 miles or more this may have looked like a missile attacking an aircraft, but nothing in their statements leads CIA analysts to conclude that these eyewitnesses in fact saw a missile. Indeed, several eyewitnesses who suspected that they had watched a missile destroy an aircraft were puzzled that they hadn't actually seen the aircraft before the missile hit it.

The following summaries from 21 FBI eyewitness statements "whose observations began earlier" are at odds with the above CIA conclusions. For starters, a majority (13) did see an aircraft.

Witness 73: "On 7/17/96, at approximately 8:37 P.M., she was on the Mobay (phonetic) section of Long Island Beach, New York, when she observed an aircraft climbing in the sky, traveling from her right to her left. She advised that the sun was setting behind her. While keeping her eyes on the aircraft, she observed a 'red streak' moving up from the ground toward the aircraft at an approximately a 45 degree angle. The 'red streak' was leaving a light gray colored smoke trail. The 'red streak went passed the right side and above the aircraft before arcing back toward the aircraft's right wing. 

Described the arc's shape as resembling an upside down NIKE swoosh logo. The smoke trail, which was light gray in color was narrow initially and widened as it approached the aircraft.

She initially thought someone had set off a flare and commented same to her friends...She never took her eyes off the aircraft during this time. At the instant the smoke trail ended at the aircraft's right wing, she heard a loud sharp noise which sounded like a firecracker had just exploded at her feet. She then observed a fire at the aircraft followed by one or two secondary explosions which had a deeper sound. She then observed the front of the aircraft separate from the back. She then observed burning pieces of debris falling from the aircraft."

Witness 88: "All of a sudden he heard an explosion. He glanced over to the southeast and observed what he thought was a firework ascending into the sky. He stated he originally felt this firework emanated from the shoreline on the other side of the jetty to the east. He stated that he continued to watch the firework ascend, expecting to view the explosion in the sky. He stated this object which was ascending left a wispy white smoke trail. About midway through its flight, the smoke trail stopped and the object turned a bright red in color. He felt that this bright red flame was at the top of the device. He stated that he now thought it was some type of boating distress flare. All of a sudden, it apparently reached the top of its flight. He stated that the red fireball then arced from the east to the west. At this point he observed an airplane come into the field of view. He stated this airplane was very high up and many miles from his location. He stated that the bright red object ran into the airplane and upon doing so both the plane and the object turned a real bright red then exploded into a huge plume of flame. He noted that he felt that either the bright red object pushed the nose cone of the plane up or the plane was slightly angled upward when the strike occurred. He stated he felt the bright red object struck the plane towards the cockpit area."

Witness 150: The shiny object "had no projections on it, like wings, but [she asked herself] why would there be such a huge bullet hurling through the sky?...She followed the object for approximately 2 or 3 seconds when she then noticed a large commercial airliner which appeared to be traveling at the same altitude, 'just stop' and begin to disintegrate...As the plane [identified by the witness as a 747] came apart, its nose turned up and to the right."

Witness 166: "noticed a large commercial plane flying east...[then] noticed something ascending 30-35 miles away, which looked like white, yellow fire, trailed by black smoke...It ascended in a straight line at an angle of seven to ten degrees away from a vertical ninety degree...[He] believed it was from the water...After hearing news of the crash, he concluded that he had seen a missile. He stated he was in the Polish army in 1974 and has experience with  missiles ... [He] opined that this was a medium size missile which would have required three experienced people to operate."  

Witness 675: At a water hole in Speonk, NY "...noticed an orange flare ascending from the south, traveling in a WNW direction trailing white or light gray smoke. He then observed the flare strike what looked like an eastbound Cessna airplane on the port side. 675 saw a small burst of flame erupt from the port side wing near the fuselage. Approximately two (2) seconds later he saw the plane go into a spiral and explode. With five (5) seconds [of losing the falling debris behind the tree line] he heard what sounded like thunder and felt the ground shake."

Witness 34: "observed what he thought was a shooting star traveling west to east coming from the south shore ... [it] moved faster than an airplane and had no arch to it...he stated that it approached the aircraft (what he originally thought was a Coast Guard flare) from west to east...He was approximately 15 miles from where he observed the crash site and no more then 5 miles from the missile (originally described as a shooting star)."  

Witness 107: He "described the flare as starting off in the front of a larger object and giving off an orange glow initially...[and] advised that the initial flare seemed to hit the object then shoot off to the west at an eighty (80) degree angle giving off an orange and red glow."

Witness 145: "stated that she saw a plane and noticed an object spiraling towards the plane. The object which she saw for about one second, had a glow at the end of it and a gray/white smoke trail. She stated she saw the object hit the plane and the object headed down toward the ocean. She could not be sure where the object hit the plane, but said it could have been to the side or near the back. She heard a loud noise and saw an explosion just as the object hit the plane. The plane dropped towards the water and appeared to split in two pieces. A few seconds later, she heard another explosion. She stated that the explosions were so loud that they shook the house." A drawing of the collision is presented.  

Witness 640: At Smith Point Park, "he leaned back to stretch [and] his eye caught a jet plane in the sky, off to his left, and moving eastward. At the same time, he saw, off to his right, a 'green flash' rising up, and going toward the plane. The "flash" was far out in the ocean, was rising from the west, was also traveling east, and was behind the plane."  

Witness 144: "she first noticed a plane in the sky traveling right to left...She then saw an object angle to the right with a bright orange glow with a white streak behind it...She then lost site of the streak because of the clouds. She described this streak as 'taking off like a rocket.' She thought at first that she saw fireworks but then changed her mind and said 'no way it was a missile.' After the clouds parted she saw a bright orange fireball, more than doubled in size, which broke shortly after into two pieces."

Witness 550b: "[H]e saw a plane coming from west to east and then what looked like a 'smaller' plane coming from the northeast on a dead course heading toward the nose of the larger plane...and saw what looked like aerial bomb fireworks. The larger plane blew up and became a big fireball...he heard a sound like paper crackling when the 'two planes' crunched up."  

Witness 649: At Westhampton Beach High School, 649 observed a "projectile ascend in the sky." It was "red or pink with a trail of whitish smoke. The projectile moved in a squiggly manner in a southwest direction. The projectile was airborne for six-seven seconds and then it met with a shiny object that produced white smoke. The white smoke disappeared and then a red ball began to form. The red ball fell in an easterly direction at a [?]much quicker[?] pace than the projectile was ascending." [? this is contradicted by a later FBI summary that says the second object fell at the same or half the speed of the first, ascending object.]  

Witness 658: While piloting an Air National Guard Helicopter, "Baur first noticed what he thought was a flare and said into the helicopter's radio, "Is that a pyro?" Baur's first thought was that two things had flown into each other." He also saw the falling debris and immediately flew to the area in a search and rescue effort. From NTSB interview, Appendix N: A "white-hot.. pyrotechnic... device...[which] came from the left and went to the right. And it made the object on the right explode."  

Witness 221: "At approximately 8:30 pm, he heard the sound of jet plane engines and he looked up so see a large commercial jet which had apparently just taken off from John F. Kennedy International Airport. The aircraft was increasing in altitude as it flew out over the ocean in an easterly or southeasterly direction...Within seconds after the aircraft past him, his wife called his attention to two fishing draggers which were directly south or southwest of their location. ...looking at the draggers, but further east or in the same direction of where the aircraft flew, he saw a streak of light travel up from the water into the sky...[like] a rocket or like a shooting star only going upward..." then heard rumbling sound and saw flash of light.  

Witness 157: "he noticed a red flare or firework trailing white smoke ascending over the tree line on the south side of the waterhole. The flare was angling east-southeast. Approximately seven (7) to ten (10) seconds later, he observed a large fireball erupt approximately 12 miles away. An object, not on fire fell away from the fireball. Before the explosion in the sky, he observed a plane in the area of the flare. After the explosion, he could no longer see the plane."

Witness 218: "observed what appeared to him as two objects flying up, coming together and exploding ... then a blue and dark purple flash. Then another part dropped off. The rest of the plane seemed to coast a little further."  

Witness 233: "she noticed a flare off in the distance, rising into the air [later describing the flare as rising "at a steady, remarkable pace"]...and straight up..[then after looking away at nearby boats that she thought may have launched the flare], she reacquired the flare still glowing and still steadily rising ... pause ... then brightly pulse in a small concentrated area ... within two (2) seconds of the pulse she observed a large object seemingly stopping its forward momentum while igniting into a fireball." 

Witness 261: "saw a red navigator light from an airplane in the distance. He then saw an orange firework, with a tail, in the air southwest of him. The firework traveled up, then arched down before he lost sight of it. Seconds later he saw a second and third firework in the sky simultaneously..[and they]..traveled in the same arching pattern of the first firework. Approximately 30 seconds later, he heard a rumble and saw a blue vertical line of smoke stretch down to the horizon."  

Witness 243: "This flying object looked like it came up from land [later described as "ascending into the sky from an east to west direction"] in the Moriches area.. [It] was relatively slow in flying up and took about four or five seconds before hitting the plane. The smoke which trailed this object was whitish in color and the band of smoke was narrow. It looked like a Roman candle flying into the air...and neither it, nor its impact with the plane, made any noise." 

Witness 508: saw "an orange thing streak toward a dark object for about 10 seconds [approaching] ...from behind and on a downward angle and continued until an explosion occurred...[And from another FBI summary, he described the trajectory of the orange object:] saw an orange object ascending in the sky...traveling horizontally from right to left." [This other summary does not mention the "dark object."]  

Witness 185: "To the right of the star, a 'yellowy-orange" light, 'all glowing', was coming up, it arced, from the right of the star going left. It went in front of the star and then exploded like a big bright light...She saw the rising light originate, she thought...from the water...then one piece falling"

The above twenty-one eyewitnesses all describe two distinct objects in the sky. Thirteen identify the larger object as an aircraft, with a smaller object hurling towards it. Time after time, the smaller object is described as causing the aircraft to explode. Cloud cover on the night of the crash caused some eyewitnesses to lose sight of the "flare" before it exploded, and Flight 800 was likely behind these same clouds, out of view to many eyewitnesses. Thus, most of the 183 eyewitnesses who reported seeing an ascending "flare-like" object did not see an aircraft. But sixty of these reported either a western or eastern component for the ascending object, and a majority (33) gave a western component. The CIA says the "flare-like" object was Flight 800, heading east to Paris.

            It is clear that the analysts did not pay attention to details, since they did not bother to interview eyewitnesses, nor account for the radar evidence. The finished product was simply multimedia misinformation, with the CIA stamp of approval preceding dramatic music and state of the art 3-D animations--all costing U.S. taxpayers $40,000.00. But when put to the test, it does not represent reality, as seen by the eyewitnesses and recorded by FAA radar. The video is mere propaganda for an official crash theory that does not include a missile.

            Now that the truth is known, will the mainstream media, who transmitted this nonsense to the taxpayers during primetime, give equal time for the truth? FIRO is sending a letter to all the major networks asking just that. We will keep the public informed as to their decision.

From: http://Flight800.org/cia_propaganda.htm 

Ian Goddard's critique of the CIA's "you saw nothing"  F800 video: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/ciavideo.htm  [link no longer works]  Aviation experts show many ways the CIA-video violates physics: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/experts.htm  [link no longer works]
GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm

4.18.00  Coleman Testimony on CIA's PAN AM 103 Drug Smuggling Corroborated

Respondent Virginia McCullough is fully conversant with the details the PAN AM Fl. 103 crash, and knowledgeable about CIA drug smuggling operations which were a major factor in the tragedy.

Former DIA agent Lester Coleman, unsurprisingly, was recently incarcerated on bogus charges as a way to shut him up, after he blew the whistle on massive CIA drug smuggling activity directly responsible for certain airport security anomalies/breeches, which enabled explosives to be smuggled aboard Fl. 103. The plane blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988.

Coleman's crucial statements on the CIA drug smuggling have now been corroborated by a PAN AM baggage handler based in Frankfurt, Germany named Roland O'Neill.

Palestinian terrorists based in Germany penetrated the CIA drug operations, and switched a bag containing drugs to be smuggled with one containing Semtex explosives. the rest is history--a history of 270 innocent human beings blow to shreds in an incident of horrendous brutality--all made possible by the filthy international drug dealing of OUR Central Intelligence Agency! ---NewsHawk® Inc.


Coleman Corraborated on CIA's PANAM 103 Drug Smuggling!! 4.17.00
Virginia McCullough  virginia.mccullough@netzero.net
References: 38FB0DF6.2B3C3EA4@iname.com

John:  I think it is very important to present a "full" and complete picture of Lester K. Coleman in order to understand why he is so important to understanding "the big picture". To that end I am going to type in an article about Coleman from the London Times dated Monday, July 22,1991. The article carries no byline and reads as follows:


A former American intelligence officer who worked for a secret unit, four of whose members have been killed, in hiding abroad because of allegations he has made about the Lockerbie bomb disaster.

Lester Knox Coleman, formerly with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is a key witness behind allegations that negligence on the part of the US government led to the placing of a bomb on board Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people.

Mr. Coleman, aged 47, worked until May 1990 with the secret unit Middle East Collection 10 (MC10). For most of his six years with the DIA he was in Cyprus, running a network of agents in Beirut, whose mission was to find American hostages held by extremists. Two senior MC10 members, were Matthew Kevin Gannon and Major Charles Dennis McKee. Both were on flight 103 and had just returned from a mission in Beirut. Also on board was Khaled Nazir Jaafar, a Lebanese agent for the American Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

Mr. Coleman was a unique insight into DIA and DEA operations in the Middle East because he worked for both organizations in Cyprus. While still a DIA agent -- usually paid in travelers cheques sent from the Luxembourg branch of the now collapsed Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) -- he was seconded twice to the DEA, from February to September 1987 and April to May 1988.

According to an affidavit by Mr. Coleman given to Pan Am lawyers in Brussels on April 17 this year [1991], the DEA, with the narcotics squad of the Cypriot national police, the German BKA police and British customs, ran a "drugs sting operation" through Cyprus and airports in Europe including Frankfurt. It involved delivering heroin from the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon to the United States, particularly to Detroit, Houston and Los Angeles, where there are large Lebanese communities.

The explanation for this operation, which was officially codenamed Khourah, was provided by Ronald Caffrey, acting assistant administrator of the operational division of the DEA, in a US government submission dated March 20 this year [1991]. He said the drugs operation was "a controlled delivery".

His statement said: "In a controlled delivery, a law enforcement agency permits and monitors shipment of contraband, including drugs, to move from a source or transit location to its intended destination. Use of this technique is sometimes essential to enable law enforcement agencies to identify and arrest high-ranking members of trafficking organizations, rather than simply arrest low level couriers. "

Mr. Coleman, with his knowledge of this type of operation, believes that flight 103 was being used by the DEA as a "controlled" flight in which Khaled Jaafar, a DEA courier, was allowed to carry his luggage through Frankfurt without being subject to normal security checks. He knew Jaafar was one of many agents involved in drug operations.

In a telephone conversation last October with a BKA officer in charge of investigations at Frankfurt Rhein-Main airport, Mr. Coleman said he was told that BKA had "serious concerns" that a US drugs sting operation out of Cyprus had been used by terrorists to place the bomb on flight 103, by switching bags.

According to reports last year, the security of flight 103 had already been compromised by a mysterious man with an American accent using the pseudonym David Lovejoy, who had reportedly telephoned the Iranian embassy in Beirut on December 20, 1988, the day before the Lockerbie flight, to tip them off that US agents Gannon and McKee would return from a mission in Beirut to the US on flight 103.

Mr. Coleman said: "Individuals involved in drug sting operations would arrive at Larnaca (in Cyprus) on the ferry from Jounich (in Lebanon) and be escorted by officers of the Cypriot national police to the offices of Eurame Trading Company in Nicosia, a DEA proprietory company." Mr. Coleman saw Khaled Jaafar on at least three occasions in the Eurame offices and knew him to be a DEA courier.

The DEA has denied it was involved in a drugs sting operation at any time around the Lockerbie incident. But James Shaughnessy, lead counsel for Pan Am, said in his latest affidavit dated May 3 [1991]: "The DEA's denial is incredulous....simply false." Pan Am's affidavit refers to a telephone conversation between a senior officer of British customs' investigations branch and Michael Jones of Pan Am Corporate Security in London in which he asked: "Have you considered a bag switch in Frankfurt due to the large amounts of Turkish workers?"

The Beirut end of MC10 had been "blown". There were five key members of the MC10 cell in Cyprus and Beirut, according to Mr. Coleman. Apart from Mr. Coleman there were Werner Tony Asmar, a German Lebanese, Charlie Frezeli, a Lebanese army officer, and two more Lebanese who worked with Asmar. Asmar was killed in a bomb explosion at his office in east Beirut on May 26, 1988. Frezeli was shot dead at his home in east Beirut in November 1989. When Asmar was killed, the DIA ordered Mr. Coleman home.

Those, like Mr. Coleman and the Pan Am lawyers who are convinced there is a link between the Lockerbie bomb and "Operation Khourah" were not helped by the so-called Aviv report, which claimed that a rogue CIA unit permitted the bags switch, knowing it contained a bomb. The report, produced by Isaeli investigator Juval Aviv was discredited. Now, however, a judge in a US court has ruled that the US government must produce all relevant documents relating to the practice of drugs sting operations through Frankfurt and elsewhere in Europe.  --END OF ARTICLE

It is VERY important to read the preceding article closely and then re-read it again. Next one must compare the information in the article to an affidavit Coleman introduced in Adversary Proceeding No. 86-0069 in the case entitled INSLAW, INC, plaintiff V. USA and the USA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The affidavit reads as follows:

I, LESTER K. COLEMAN, being duly sworn do hereby state as follows:

1. I am currently self-employed as a freelance writer, editor, and security consultant. I am a United States citizen and am temporarily residing outside of the United States.

2. In November 1984, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) offered me a position in human intelligence operations in the Middle East. I was raised in the Middle East, where I lived in Iran, Libya and Saudi Arabia. I speak three dialects of Arabic and some Farsi. I accepted the position and received training from the DIA. I was assigned to a Middle East intelligence unit.

3. Between February and September 1987, I was seconded by DIA to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in Nicosia, Cyprus, reporting to the DEA Country Attache, Michael T. Hurley.

4. After a cover assignment in the United States, I was again seconded to the DEA in Nicosia, Cyprus, in early 1988.

5. During April and May 1988, I worked in the offices of EURAME Trading Company, Ltd., in Nicosia, Cyprus, a DEA proprietary company. On or about May 29, 1988, because of my concern about poor security in the DEA operation in Cyprus, I returned to the United States, having previously obtained the concurrence of the DIA.

6. During my two stints as a DIA covert intelligence officer seconded to the DEA in Nicosia, Cyprus, I became aware of the fact that DEA was using its proprietary company, EURAME Trading Company, Ltd, to sell computer software called PROMISE or PROMIS to the drug abuse control agencies of various countries in the Middle East, including Cyprus, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait and Turkey.

7. I personally witnessed the unpacking at the Nicosia, Cyprus, Police Force Narcotics Squad of boxes containing reels of computer tapes and computer hardware. The boxes bore the name and red logo of a Canadian corporation with the words "PROMISE" or "PROMIS" and "Ltd" in the company name.

8. The DEA objective in inducing the implementation of this computerized PROMIS[E] system in the drug abuse control resources available to the United States Government by making it possible for the United States Government to access sensitive drug control law enforcement and intelligence files of these Middle East governments.

9. It is also my understanding that third-party funds were generally made available for the purchase of these computer software and hardware systems. One third-party funding source was the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control in Vienna, Austria.

10. As DEA Country Attache for Cyprus, Michael T. Hurley had overall responsibility for both the EURAME Trading Company, Ltd, and its initiative to sell PROMIS[E] computer systems to Middle East countries to drug abuse control.

11. In 1990, DEA reassigned Hurley to a DEA intelligence position in Washington State.

12. I became aware in 1991 that Michael Riconosciuto, known to me as a long-time CIA asset, was arrested in Washington State by DEA for the manufacturing of illegal chemical drugs. I had also become aware of the fact that Riconosciuto made a sworn statement, prior to his arrest, about his participation in a covert U.S. intelligence initiative to sell INSLAW's PROMIS to foreign governments.

13. In light of Hurley's personal involvement in the U.S. Government's covert intelligence initiative to sell PROMIS[E] software to foreign governments and his reassignment to a DEA intelligence position in Washington State in advance of the DEA's arrest of Riconosciuto, the arrest of Riconosciuto should be regarded as suspect. I do not believe that Hurley's posting to a drug intelligence position in Washington State in advance of Riconosciuto's arrest on drug charges in merely coincidental. Rather, the probability is that Hurley was reassigned to Washington State to manufacture a case against Riconosciuto in order to prevent Riconosciuto to become a credible witness about the U.S. Government's covert sale of the PROMIS software to foreign governments.

14. The investigative journalist Danny Casolaro contacted me in Europe on August 3, 1991. Mr. Casolaro had leads and hard information about things that I know about, including Department of Justice groups operating overseas, the sale of PROMIS[E] software by the U.S. Government to foreign governments, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the Iran/Contra scandal. I subsequently learned of Mr. Casolaro's death in Martinsburg, West Virginia, one week later, on August 10, 1991. I contacted INSLAW in October 1991, after learning about Mr. Casolaro's death under suspicious circumstances.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. Signed by Lester K. Coleman

This, then, was Danny Casolaro's Octopus. Casolaro had been interviewing Michael Riconosciuto since approximately May of 1990; Casolaro had also met with and interviewed Michael's wife, Bobbie. Both Riconosciutos had told Casolaro the same thing they have repeatedly told me about the downing of Pan Am 103. Michael Roconosciuto claimed to be an intelligence officer monitoring the hostage situation in Iran staying at the apartment of Robert Booth Nichols and Ellen Hopko Nichols located near the Nicosia, Cyprus airport. This group of people, according to Michael, were also involved in the "controlled drug operation" run by the DIA. Riconosciuto stated that they were paid with unsigned BCCI travelers checks. Shortly before the Lockerbie crash Riconosciuto returned to his home in Oregon. He knew that the McKee team would be returning to the United States to "blow the whistle" on the drug operation run by George W. Bush. Riconosciuto told me that when the warning came to the unit in Nicosia that there might be a bombing of Pan Am #103, Robert Booth Nichols told Rinconosciuto that he would change the reservation for the McKee team to another flight, just as FBI agent Revell's son had done. The night of the Lockerbie crash, Bobbi Riconosciuto was watching the television with their children when she learned of the crash and heard that the McKee team went down with others on board. She woke Michael up and told him. Michael broke from Robert Booth Nichols from that point forward because he held Nichols responsible for betraying the McKee team.

Robert Booth Nichols became the key source for Danny Casolaro who had contacted Lester K. Coleman seven days before his murder in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Nichols stated, in a lawsuit against the FBI and FBI agent Thomas Gates, that he has had no source of income for the past twenty+ years and yet his concealed weapons permit shows that he maintains many residences around the world. Sam Giacana was Nichols business partner and it is rumored that his mentor is the head of Yakuza in Hawaii. Nichols' lawsuit was sustained by a declaration submitted by the former head of the LA FBI, Ted Gunderson. Gunderson has stated to me and others that he owes his life to Nichols because he called off a mob hit on Gunderson. Gunderson also states that he is nothing but a private investigator but documents out of his own files show his intelligence connections.

270 people were killed on Pan Am 103 and the United States government is continually silencing witnesses who could tell the truth about what happened. Lawyers who hold the Coleman documents out for ransom, judges to use the law to torture and imprison individuals who would expose the intelligence prostitutes who whore for drugs, arms, power and money, and an apathetic public are the ones who are responsible for the murder of those who died at Lockerbie. Let Lester K. Coleman testify. Let Michael Riconosciuto testify. MAKE Robert Booth and Ellen Hopko Nichols testify. FORCE Michael T. Hurley to testify. MAKE THEM TELL THE TRUTH!! If the families of the victims want to really know what happened they should demand the head of Danny Casolaro's Octopus.

Sincerely, virginia.mccullough@netzero.net 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 [link no longer works]

If the axiom "power corrupts" is a reliable axiom, then the Official Story must be suspect on its face.
GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm 
Asking the "wrong questions," challenging the official story.



Copyright ©2006 IRAAP.org.  All rights reserved.
to top