Here's a story on the briefing, which includes this bit of information:
The NTSB imposed strict guidelines on Tuesday’s briefing, instructing reporters not to record it or to photograph Kolley and his colleagues. Reporters were also shown only the right side of the reconstructed fuselage.
But it did allow some of the “TWA Flight 800” filmmakers, including co-producer and physicist Tom Stalcup, to conduct interviews in the rain-slicked parking lot. Stalcup told AFP that the NTSB has never determined the precise source of the spark that triggered the fuel tank explosion — “they admit it” — and that radar data refutes its findings.
“They say it’s a low-velocity explosion. The radar says it was a high velocity explosion. You cannot have both. It’s impossible... A low-velocity explosion cannot create high-level debris,” he said. He suspects the airliner was targeted not with a shoulder-mounted missile, but with a “proximity fuse missile” which detonates close to its target and destroys it with flak and shockwaves.
Hank Hughes, a retired NTSB investigator who petitioned for the case to be reopened, said there had been “lots of missteps, lost of incorrect things” during the course of the investigation. “There were many many positive hits for nitrates and other explosives” said Hughes, referring to forensic tests for trace evidence of explosive substances on the debris.
Kolley said only three pieces of debris tested positive for explosives, something put down in part on the fact that the aircraft had once been used for training police sniffer dogs.The dog training exercise comment made in the above report is worth investigating. There were stories to that effect leaked to the press back in the early days to explain away the traces of explosives found on parts of the aircraft, but it was not included in the NTSB's final report--they blamed salvage operation and/or military personnel, claiming parts submerged in the briny sea for more than two days would be wiped clean of such evidence. Ergo, they couldn't officially use the dog story.
But the above remark in the link is not a quote, so let's see if we can get a quote. From the Politico version:
He said that at the time, possible explanations were believed to include residue left over from bomb-sniffing canine training, which he said was less likely than accidental contamination.
“Probably a more likely scenario is the fact that [the wreckage] was contaminated after retrieval from the ocean,” Kolly said. FBI and military personnel involved with the investigation could easily have left traces of explosives from their shoes or hands, or residue could have rubbed off from active duty military vessels transporting the material.And there you have it--"probably a more likely scenario..". In other words, they don't conclusively know where the traces of explosives came from; they don't know what caused the spark with certainty; they dismissed most of the witnesses; but the case is definitely closed and it's just silly to ever bring it back up ever.
And why wouldn't the most transparent administration in history allow the media to broadcast an event trying to make the case the final report was accurate? Or at least show the press conference between the officials and the reporters? After all, the 'whistleblowers' were outside the facility giving interviews. Is everything with the Obama administration now a background briefing?
Evo Morales. El-presidente of Bolivia. Coming back home from a meeting with Putey Poot only to see his Falcon jet denied airspace over southern Europe and forced down in Austria for a stop-and-search, this time not for drugs but for Snowden.
And how can this international incident and violation of diplomatic protocol not come on orders from President Not-Scramble Jets? Of course there's outrage in South America with talk of filing a UN protest, but just imagine the same thing occurring under Bushitler. The US mainstream media would be outraged!