20 years ago today...

...TWA flight 800 exploded off Long Island.   There's a lot going on in our world today and this will pass without thought for the most part, but it's worth mentioning that some consider this a cold case that was never fully solved.

Here's one of them--former NTSB investigator Hank Hughes, explaining his role and opinion.  For what it's worth, the damage pattern seen on MH17, a verifiable missile shoot-down, didn't resemble what can be seen on the reconstructed TWA 747.  But, we don't know what the wings or horizontal stabilizers looked like or the tail fin as they were not included in the rebuild.  Nor were the engines. 

And we still don't know why agencies like the CIA were involved in explaining to the public the NTSB's implausible scenario that the nose fell off and the rest of the aircraft ascended several thousand feet, which was meant to explain away eyewitnesses who said they saw missile streaks.

Meanwhile, few if any aircraft have been retrofitted for nitrogen inerting systems, which were supposed to prevent future similar crashes, of which there have been none.  And cargo aircraft were not included in this recommended fix because we all know cargo aircraft don't blow up or something.  So you decide.   

Regardless, the official probable cause is in the books and will not be changed anytime soon. Eventually the skeptics and cynics and conspiracists will die off and the story of flight 800 will be relegated to the corners of history.  But there's someone running for president right now who might know a little more than the average Joe.

CNN's show on Flight 800

CNN's "Witnessed", timed to the upcoming 18th anniversary of the downing of TWA flight 800, was fairly well-done, particularly in the witness interviews (lived up to its title).  Too often arguments over these things are cold without regard to the victims' families, but this show brought that home. 

Still, the presentation didn't close any holes in the age-old narrative.  For instance, there was no scrutiny of the oft-repeated theory that the aircraft over-heated while sitting on the tarmac on a hot summer afternoon running the APU to cool the aircraft.  This was cited as raising the temperature of the airframe to over 100 degrees, which heated the fuel vapors, which were turned to mist by either the APU or in taking off.  That's basically the only way the spark theory works.

So there's a kind of conventional wisdom that it was a particularly hot day.  Yet here are the weather observations from JFK on July 17, 1996:

5:51 PM 84.9 °F

6:51 PM 82.9 °F

7:51 PM 82.0 °F

8:51 PM 80.1 °F

Not exactly a heat wave.  And good grief, if temperatures in the mid 80s are hot enough to cause a fuel tank explosion then airplanes at Atlanta, Memphis, Dallas and Phoenix should have been exploding with some regularity.  Even St. Louis, where TWA had a hub, gets a lot hotter.  Yet flight 800 was the first jet aircraft to blow up in flight in the history of the modern jet age.  Not to say it couldn't be the first based on a series of bad circumstances, just odd.   Calling attention to an 86 degree day in New York in July is also odd. 

Another irritant was the interview with Mr. Goglia.  His dismissal of all the witnesses, especially the testimony of the Eastwind Airlines pilot who saw the whole sequence right out his front windshield, was curious, since the pilot says he did NOT see a missile.  But apparently since the pilot didn't see the aircraft rise thousands of feet like the unofficial CIA video (commissioned by the FBI without blessing by the NTSB) showed--and Mr. Goglia seemed to be supporting--his testimony was deemed unreliable.  Too bad there's not a video out there to put this all to rest.  

Finally, Mr. Panetta.  It was a little strange to see him, a political person, interviewed.  Major Clinton political figures have been reluctant to discuss this crash, even in their memoirs.  So it was good to see him.   Perhaps CNN could have asked why, if president Clinton was as he says ready to retaliate strongly should evidence have pointed to states or terrorists why he had not (and never did) responded to the Khobar Towers attack just a month earlier?  Or the terror attack on our Riyadh barracks in late 1995?   Had the attack been tied to Saddam Hussein would he have invaded that country?  How about Iran?  Follow-up questions never asked. 

CNN could have also asked him why Bill Clinton placed Al Gore on an aviation safety committee only a month after flight 800 with the goal of studying how to prevent attacks on commercial aircraft.  A coincidence?   A question never asked.  
 
But the stranger thing about the Panetta interview is that he didn't exactly come off as a cheerleader for the NTSB/FBI storyline, preferring to say something like 'we may never know' (what caused the tank to explode) as if leaving the door slightly ajar. 

MORE  7/17/14

What can you say?   Condolences to all involved, even Malaysia Airlines.   On the anniversary of an event that everyone thought was a commercial aircraft shot to pieces by a missile we have this Malaysia event, which looks to be a missile strike.  This has been the sum of many fears for civilized governments for awhile, but it's happened.   Except this time it happened to an airline that is already missing another 777-200. 

Technically it's hard to point out much at this juncture based on the few snapshots of debris--it will be harder for the pros if the FSB-led separatists keep them out of the crime scene.   There's very little chance that NTSB will get the black boxes, but even if they did the data would likely show a catastrophic failure and not much else.  What needs to happen is a reconstruction just like they did with flight 800.   But the aircraft is lying in pieces in a war zone.    

As to any symbolism with flight 800, terrorists do like anniversaries.  But it's hard to see any links here, unless the Russians actually shot down 800.  No, if there's a conspiracy to boot it's not about what happened, which is pretty obvious, but why.  The president and EU just announced tougher sanctions on Russia on Wednesday the 16th, including Russian companies who make missiles and weapons.   Then on Thursday the 17th a commercial aircraft is shot down by a missile.   One could certainly take it as a message from Moscow.

But Occam's Razor might suggest it was an accidental shoot-down by a trigger happy separatist in an area where several military planes had just been shot down.  That analysis will become more likely when the passenger manifest is released and is unremarkable.   If there was somebody famous on that plane, ie, famous in a government or security kind of way,  it may get more complicated very fast.   

Aviation Update

Not much fanfare as this was announced..

The National Transportation Safety Board has refused to reopen its investigation into the 1996 crash of TWA flight 800, turning down a request from a group that believes the jet was shot down by a missile. 

Conspiracy theorists or those who generally don't believe that airplanes can climb thousands of feet without their nose may also notice the announcement was made after the departure of NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman and during the time of an interim chief, for what it's worth.

They may also note the dismissal admitted 1) there were problems with the FBI as to which agency 'owned' the investigation, 2) the CIA acted completely on its own in producing their 'zoom climb' cartoon, and 3) they have no idea why the Suffolk County Medical Examiner's office has never identified the cause of death of the victims.

The report also dismisses the contention that a dog-training exercise in St. Louis never occurred because the petitioners presented no new evidence to discount it.  The investigators used that exercise as a possible explanation for the explosive traces found on the wreckage. Ironically they've previously claimed the contamination could have also come from the boots of those recovering the wreckage out of the water, yet have never provided any conclusive evidence of such a thing.     


Meanwhile, there's some irony in an NBC News report of the event. Back in 1996 their fledgling leftist offshoot network MSNBC was just getting started and allegedly became the recipient of a bombshell tape from a civilian--someone peddling a video of what was purported to be the plane crash:

For hours the previous evening, Fox News had reportedly been involved in a bidding war for an amateur video tape of the 747 being destroyed by what appeared to be missile fire. When the electronic bidding war reached $50,000, Fox was eliminated from the process.

The high bidder seems to have been NBC and/or its new sister network, MSNBC. This makes market sense in that MSNBC had been launched just two days prior, and the publicity would have been well worth the cost.

Still, I say “seems” because my sources here will not speak on record, nor will MSNBC follow up on queries. Here is exactly what I know, no more, no less.

The video tale later became the theme of Nelson DeMille's novel "Night Fall", loosely based on the crash. But the video, presuming it exists, remains in hiding just like the Obama Khalidi going away party video. Nobody at NBC ever mentions it, nor does anyone in the media ask them about it.  The petition mentioned it though, which triggered this response:

The NTSB has requested that the FBI provide copies of any photograph or video evidence it may have. As of this writing, the response from the FBI is pending.

Pending?  Not "doesn't exist"?  Why would such a thing be pending if the plane was brought down by accident?  Seems a simple task to hand over any video or photographic evidence from a file.  Maybe Scully and Mulder still have it.  Not sure why the board would deny the petition outright without knowing whether any such evidence existed somewhere, but like the pathological information they referred to the ME's office, it wasn't their agency and they only speak for themselves.

-----

Meanwhile, as TWA 800 fades into oblivion the mystery around MH370 deepens, which means conspiracy theories will rule the void until something concrete is discovered.   This video represents a very good summation of events so far..



This program introduces a few things not widely known to date. The first is that somebody on-board messed with the in-flight entertainment system. It's always been perplexing as to why there were no tweets or calls or anything from the passengers after the plane went off course. Does this fully explain at least part of that mystery?  

The second is the curious reaction of Malaysia Airlines operations personnel after the flight went "NORDO" (no radio). Such a thing is fairly common in aviation, where a flight crew will not check in on a new frequency after being 'handed off' between control facilities or sectors within such facilities. Protocol is to try to contact the flight on the last good frequency; call other aircraft and have them relay a message; or call the airline and have them try to communicate via satellite phone or ACARS.

Of course this aircraft also had a loss of transponder, which if both occurred in this country--after 9/11--would raise major suspicions and result in the scrambling of fighter jets. The interview with the Malaysian Civil Aviation minister was very weird on this point, him admitting that America would not hesitate to shoot down such a target but Malaysia considered the primary target as 'non-threatening' because it originated inside their airspace and they were 'not at war with anyone'. Very curious comments considering the threat of terrorism around the world.   Perhaps this laid back attitude can at least partially explain why no red lights were flashing in places they should have been.

In the same vein, the revelation that Malaysia ground ops told the Vietnamese the aircraft was in 'Cambodian airspace' when they first inquired may be weird, or it may not be. A supervisor later blamed it on erroneous flight tracker info, which makes sense if someone tasked with answering the question only looked at a projected flight plan, not actual tracking info.  That said, flight trackers would no longer be showing the plane, which should have been a concern for operations.  When combined with the Vietnamese saying they had never worked the flight after the handoff failed this should have raised alarm.

Yet despite such weirdness the show claims the Malaysians made the first AND ONLY attempt to contact the aircraft via satellite phone, without success (apparently).  Why wouldn't they keep calling?

Finally, the Malaysians themselves first admitted that Penang control center had lost contact with the aircraft after 2:30am.  The aircraft actually stopped communicating over an hour before. This discrepancy was discussed a lot in the beginning but still doesn't make much sense, especially after it was confirmed the plane turned west and flew right over Penang around 2:15am then out into the Indian Ocean. What exactly do they mean by lost contact? 

Doobie Bowl Sunday

Can't claim much affection for either team.  Seattle seems more like the Cinderella squad this year, so will give it to them.  Either way, don't care who wins or loses, just hope it's a good football game. 

As to the politics, Bill O'Rilly has secured his almost-traditional pre-game Obama interview, of which he's been chest-thumping about for a week or more (along with tempering some of his normal rightward leaning views in the advent of meeting the prez).  Ho-hum.  It's hard to believe he'll ask anything truly controversial.

That said, he'll almost certainly ask tougher questions that any mainstream advocacy-journalist.  He asked 'the folks' to send him some suggestions because one will be used in the interview, so here are some hypothetical submissions..  

1.  Where were you on the night of the Benghazi attack?  Were you in regular contact with the Situation Room?   Did you issue any stand-down orders?   How and when did you realize the attack was over, and where were you at the time?   Why was the mention of "AQ" and "terrorist" removed from the original CIA talking points by unknown State and White House staff?  Did you approve this? 

2.   Have you seen the Seymour Hersh story and the report from a weapons inspector suggesting the Syrian rebels actually fired the chemical weapons that almost triggered a bombing raid on that country?  If you are not familiar with these stories/reports, why not?

3.  Sticking with Syria, Bashar Assad is not delivering the chemicals to the port in a timely fashion, as promised by the agreement.  If he continues to stall what is the remedy?  Is the bombing threat being made through back channels or directly to the Assad government?   Is Russia involved and helping?

4.  Similar question on Iran, what happens if we find them cheating before or after the 6 month preliminary disarmament negotiations?  Will new red lines be issued or does that pretty much mean bomb, bomb, bomb?

5.  If Karzai doesn't sign the BSA before leaving office will we definitely be pulling out all troops from Afghanistan?  By the way, when you say we are 'ending the war', will the enemy consider it a victory if everyone leaves and there's no BSA?  What happens if they allow AQ trainees back into the country or another attack is launched from commanders operating there?

6.  Have you changed your mind on presidential executive powers since your comments in 2008?  If so, do you owe the previous president an apology?

7.  Is Anas al-Liby, who was rendered from Libya last year, being interrogated anymore?  He seems to have lawyered up, with a report saying the Libyan government is paying his attorney fees.  Did we get anything useful out of him on possible pending attacks before he was read rights?   

8.  On the IRS targeting story, you expressed outrage upon learning of the event in the news but later called it a "phony scandal".  How did your half-brother Malik get 501 c4 status so quickly for his Barack H Obama foundation--even having it made retroactive?   Do you not see that as a form of favoritism?  Is the impression left that the IRS was used as a political attack dog something that concerns you?

9.  On a similar theme, why was your uncle Omar and aunt Zentuini allowed to remain in the country after both being ordered deported?  Were you aware of either case in advance?  Do you agree with the outcomes, and if so, do you believe there should essentially be open borders in the United States to the point of getting here means staying, and eventually citizenship?  Does it concern you that people following the legal pathway to citizenship are left looking like chumps when those ordered deported are given asylum or in the event of a general amnesty passed by Congress?      

10.   Which corporations do you think need their 'asses kicked' these days?  Looking back, do you consider that rhetoric as helpful or do you regret using it?

11.  How in the world does a website cost over a half-billion dollars?  Did you know the costs were running that high before rollout?  How did the website pass Initial Operating Capability tests?  Who signed off on these tests, assuming they occurred?   Are the contractors being paid more to fix something they should have delivered on October 1 or is it included in their agreements with the government?

12.  What do you think of the TSA whistleblower whose story is out this week, saying that TSA agents were indeed laughing and abusing the naked scanners at airports?   Surely stories like that in combination with the NSA snooping leaves many people guessing about their own government. How do you combat the negative impression left by such programs?  Should someone apologize?  

13.  You recently pointed out that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been falling for the last 8 years, which would include the Bush administration.  Actually, the level of carbon increase was fairly stable during the two Bush presidencies, suggesting the decline may not be due to new EPA rulemaking alone.  Do you think this leveling off/decline of US emissions is related to the observed flat trend in global temperatures since 1998?  Do you think it's useful for people like the former Vice President to be running around spouting falsehoods about climate?   Doesn't that undermine efforts to persuade the people?     

14.  Why won't you approve the Keystone Pipeline project?   Does it trouble you that the shale oil is being moved in unit oil trains that might not be safer and definitely produce more greenhouse gases than transport through a pipeline?  Doesn't Keystone fit well with your "all of the above" energy strategy laid out during the State of the Union?  

15.   Is there a war on women, and if so, who are the combatants?  Is Sarah Palin a target or a combatant?  Is it acceptable for Democrats to use a term like 'war' when discussing their political opponents when Palin was blamed for encouraging the Gabby Giffords shooting based on her use of 'target'?

16.   Pete Carroll is being called a "9/11 Truther" by some due to a reported incident where a retired US Army general visited his clubhouse and he reportedly asked if Bush blew the towers.  Whether that's true or not, as president you would have access to all the secrets of the government, right?   It's tempting to ask you to once and for all confirm such things here, but it's understandable if you can't.  It would also be nice to clear up the UFO conspiracies and maybe the TWA 800 crash, which some former investigators recently asked your NTSB to take another look at.

However there is something you can answer.  Allegedly Coach Carroll asked the general about the 9/11 attack during a discussion about Iraq. You are famously on record as calling the Iraq war 'dumb', so here's the question-- what would you have done about Saddam if he were still around when you took office in 2008?   Would you have continued the sanctions and no-fly zones indefinitely?  Or do you think Middle-East peace would be possible with his regime still in power, as in, do you think he could have been brought to the table to honestly broker a peace treaty amongst Iran, Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Russia?       

Thank you sir.             

AFTERMATH  2/2/14

Hate to say "I told you so" (so here it comes) but the team with better defense usually wins the big games.  In Seattle's case they were the number one defense to boot.  Also, they were severely misunderestimated, which is often a formula for victory.  Russell Wilson wasn't the team, the team was the team.   

As to BO vs BO, or O'Reilly vs O'bama, score one for the first prevaricator.  He turned every question around as a slam on Fox News, as if nobody in the country cares about the scandals he's already proclaimed as 'phony'.  Even BO couldn't effectively cut off BHO's filibustering, allowing him to run down the clock and limit any dents in the presidential armor.  Of course BO had to worry about his career and Fox's future access so he couldn't go for the jugular so to speak, but he could have pressed the president as to what he means by holding people accountable when nobody has even been demoted or placed into less-demanding jobs.  The other questions largely backfired on BO because he can't challenge the person who was there on scene and who holds all the power.  So as predicted, yawn.

Finally, this was tweeted out from HQ prior to the game....

A few initial questions come to mind.  One, why is the president looking up?  Is he trying to throw it to some guy in the stands?   Two, where is NATO field?    

Handling the Truth

The TWA 800 documentary officially airs tonight.  Some of the reviews are coming in already:

If you need to get a person’s attention fast, just whisper, “There’s something the government isn’t telling you.” Works every time.

When the story first broke last month the mainstream media gave it some surprisingly non-judgmental air time, probably due to the six former investigators involved, but that tide turned weeks ago.  It's unlikely the movie will change that narrative (assuming there's any significant coverage today--and checking the main news websites there is not).

What it has done is bring to light some rather obscure stories that touch on flight 800 that for some reason 60 Minutes missed.  Such was the case with Mail Online this past week, whose report basically dismisses a missile and brings in a bomb, which was actually a working theory reported by the New York Times for weeks after the event.  The Mail story centers around FBI 302 reports detailing conversations between cellmates Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the first WTC bombing in 93, and mobster Greg Scarpa, where Yousef allegedly predicted the plane would be taken down while schooling Scarpa on how to make the kind of micro-seat bomb used in a previous terrorist attack against a Philippine Airlines 747 a few years earlier.

There seems to be just as much circumstantial evidence of that occurring as with the missile theory, including several Democratic talking heads mentioning a 'bomb' during live 9/11 TV coverage.  It's compelling, very compelling, but not conclusive (been there, done that).  Besides, the bomb theory doesn't comport with the missile theory as to evidence.  One rules out the other and these former investigators are claiming a missile.


The various essays ask a logical question about it--why? Why cover it up?  The most obvious reason is the Clinton machine.  Would Bill Clinton have had reason to cover up such a thing?  Well maybe, considering it was before his approaching reelection against a war hero, especially if said attack was state-sponsored.  Clinton is not like Obama in almost any way except wanting to focus on domestic social policy instead of foreign policy.  The economy was rolling and nobody wanted a war, especially with Iran or Iraq.  Yet the cover-up of such an attack, especially with 9/11 to follow, would certainly do some serious legacy damage.  And if Yousef was actually involved--and the FBI had a heads up--there could be many angry questions and scores of congressional investigations.

Even if it was a horrible military mistake it would have overridden the cheery, sunny headlines his political advisors (like Dick Morris) were trying to project for November.  So yes, it's not hard to imagine someone wanting to kick the investigation down the road in a straightjacket of electrical engineering nuance.  Obama is trying to do with his own scandals now.  It takes a willing and helpful media to succeed, but Clinton enjoyed such as does O.  Of course there's another Clinton preparing herself for 2016 as well.  It's doubtful she could get away with scolding anyone about what difference it makes. 

But saying there's a reason isn't the same as someone actually doing it.  Conspiracies are hard to manage and this one would require people in the NTSB, FBI, CIA, NSA, ex White House staffers, assorted technical people and others to remain dummied-up.  Indeed people point to nobody coming forward in 17 years.  Well, they are coming forward now.  And some of the players mentioned above keep quiet for a living. So while there are some unexplained problems with the conspiracy theories they generally number less than the unanswered questions brought up by the movie.   Still, disproving an established narrative is a tall order.   

When all is said and done most people want to trust their government.  It's more comforting, especially when it comes to things like air safety.  That's why the spark theory works.  That's why the dog training exercise and the 'zoom climb' theories worked when they were reported--people forgot that both theories were basically discarded in the final report but they produced a sigh of relief at the time and allowed the press to move on to their normal liberal advocacy journalism.       

So while the movie might be interesting it will take someone of stature, like a president or a presidential release of official documents, to ever confirm anything as highly controversial as TWA 800, or for that matter any other sensational theory such as JFK or UFOs.  And there's really no reason to upset any apple carts. As Bush likes to say there are few objective historians at this juncture. 

MORE 7/19/13

I don't have the EPIX channel but you can go online to their website and sign up for a 14 day trial and watch the film.  Which I did. 

It was a well-done production overall.  As many reviewers have noted it did not focus strongly on the new evidence, which appears to consist of radar data showing high velocity ejecta from the plane and a trace of nitrates found splattered on the top of the CWT that a main forensic investigator (interviewed) didn't seem concerned about (he failed to send it off for further testing at the time).

The main thrust was to hit on the overarching weirdness associated with the investigation, consisting mainly of a phony-baloney propaganda movie from our main intelligence agency attempting to explain away witnesses and the FBI's bullying of said witnesses (and the exclusion of them in final hearings).  Those things are more than enough in and of themselves to keep a conspiracy going even if nothing else is brought forward.   But they are not enough to get a new investigation or change public opinion. 

Aviation Update

Another first for a domestic aviation crash--the NTSB pulled off a 'background briefing' with reporters on Tuesday to explain their investigatory conclusion on TWA 800.  The last background briefing that made news happened on that fateful day in May when the Benghazi talking points story was exploding--the very same day the IRS leaked that the IRS was messing with Tea Party c4 applications.  So pardon some of us for the skepticism. 

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!

Aviation Update

More on the TWA 800 story, which continues to get press in the aviation sector.  Here's Popular Mechanics, who effectively debunked the 9/11 conspiracy theories, providing three reasons to doubt any conspiracy here:

All the holes near the wing, where the fuel tank that exploded was located, were low-velocity impacts. About 95 percent of the airplane was reconstructed, and the missing parts were too small to hide bomb or missile damage. To fake these lab results would require a cadre of engineers at Boeing, as well as the NTSB to be in on the conspiracy or be willing to sit quietly as their tests were rigged. Either way, there is a slew of outside voices involved with the tests that could contradict the government's story.

Hmm, well a couple of the 'whistleblowers' are forensic pathologists. Were any metallic objects found in the bodies that would suggest explosive material?  And speaking of the wings, where are they? We have a mock-up of the fuselage but no wings. What kind of damage did they sustain? Obviously, according to the official theory they remained attached to the fuselage (even after the CWT explosion ripped the nose off) to facilitate the 'zoom climb' to explain away the streaks people had seen.

To be fair, many conspiracy theorists have used the existing radar data to back up their own ideas of what brought the airplane down—especially the behavior of some boats and radar anomalies from one of the radar sites that registered objects in the area moving at high speeds, then vanishing. (These were judged to be phantom returns from building reflections.) None of these radar returns show anything in the air intersecting the path of the airliner, or any vessel behaving in an overtly suspicious way.

OK, but the whistleblowers' data shows that the NTSB track was at least a mile off. Why?

The investigators studied it all: the chemistry of the fuel, how the fuel/air vapor could ignite, how the flames could move through the wing after bursting from the tank. They established two independent models to simulate the pressure differences inside the wing, a key part of how the fiery fluid would spread. The Safety Board contracted the University of Nevada to analyze the properties of jet fuel vapor. The team ran hundreds of simulations, brought in Boeing engineers to assess the damage of the airliner's remains, and solicited the opinion of an explosives dynamics expert at the California Institute of Technology. There were flight tests done at the same temperature and conditions as TWA Flight 800 and full-scale fuel tank explosion tests conducted in England.

... In the end, NTSB found that TWA Flight 800 would not have perished without a flammable fuel/air mix in its central wing tank, but investigators were never sure what sparked the explosion in the first place—the closest they got was "a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system."

In other words, there really was no probable cause because they never figured out exactly what sparked the initial explosion, which got the airlines off the hook for expensive follow-ups while having certain political benefits.  All in all a disappointing effort from PM because they shined no new light on causation.  We're left back at square one- why?

Meanwhile, some may be wondering how many official closed cases the NTSB has re-opened in the past per new information/requests: it's more than some might guess. Take this one, which appears to show a case of crony bias:

In 2006, the NTSB reopened a case involving a 1967 Piedmont Airlines Boeing 727 and a Cessna 310 near Hendersonville, N.C., at the urging of amateur historian Paul Houle.

Houle believed the NTSB mistakenly blamed the Cessna pilot because the agency's lead investigator was the brother of Piedmont vice president Zeke Saunders. US Airways, which had merged with Piedmont, opposed the reopening. In 2007, following a 14-month investigation, the NTSB declined to change its findings because its review indicated that the Cessna pilot had flown off course.

What new data caused them to re-open that case just so they could re-shut it?  Former member Peter Goelz was quoted on this 800 group's petition:

"They disagree with our analysis of the radar data and they have new eyewitnesses," he said. "Fine, but neither one is sufficient to reopen the investigation."

So what new data and witnesses did Mr. Houle have? And another question for the media is how many times have groups petitioned to reopen cases and were denied.

----

This is an update, so all the aviation news doesn't have to be morbid conspiracies.  Here's something you don't see everyday...

For some reason this reminds me of a scene (NSFW) from the old John Candy movie "Who's Harry Crumb".

The oddest part of the story is that Southwest Airlines is saying it's not a story: 

"He was simply taking the equipment to their office for their standard upkeep and standard maintenance," Mainz tells Today in the Sky. "So nothing out of the ordinary. It (the stair car) had all the proper plates and tags they need to do so. He certainly was not going to get pizza."

This after the story appeared on the Today Show and a NY Port Authority rep was ready to call out the posse or the NSA and find the offender.  You just can't make this stuff up. Or maybe you can!

Aviation Update

Jack Cashill is tickled.  After all these years skeptics of the official story about TWA flight 800 are getting some respectable press (as opposed to the usual wacko bird treatment) based on the coming out of six former investigators who worked the case but don't believe the official finding.  

Cashill isn't alone, a blizzard of stories on almost every network and newspaper have provided an interesting glimpse into the mindset of America on the story (or at least the mindset of those bothering to comment)--and there appear to be a lot of skeptics. 

While some are happy to see the 'truth' come to light I'm still a skeptic on everything.  It's entirely possible that a spark in the center wing tank caused the explosion and crash.  Certainly a long shot chance, but sometimes stuff happens.

The reason I've discounted the official story stems from several questions that have never really been answered to my satisfaction, including stuff that doesn't belong in a typical air crash investigation. Even now, with all the new coverage, the press doesn't know enough to ask about them when speaking to former NTSB officials like Jim Hall or the former FBI lead investigator James Kallstrom.  So I'll put mine down in a short list:

1.  Why was the CIA involved in producing the 'zoom-climb' video?   How involved were the spy agencies in this crash and why were they involved in a domestic aviation crash investigation?  Did they prepare any reports about their involvement and if so, are those reports available?

2.  Where did the traces of PETN and RDX on the airplane come from if not a dog training exercise in St. Louis weeks before the crash?    

3.  Did the autopsies of the victims show any strange metallic fragments or anything unusual?  Have those reports been released?

4.  Was there a home video taken of the event or not?  If so, was it shown on MSNBC, then confiscated by the FBI? 

5.  If Iran or Iraq were somehow linked to the crash via a terrorist act, what would Clinton have done?  Were any contingencies planned?   

It will be interesting to see what comes of this new revelation.  Let's see if the media goes after these six or treats them with respect.  Maybe this will put this whole thing to bed once and for all, answering the above questions.  Surely the families of the victims hope this will be the last of it.

Aviation Update

It's not surprising the 787 saga has been a second page story with all the other huge stories going on (Manti and Beyonce), but some strange things have happened.  Here's the Trans Secretary on January 11:

Despite the incidents, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood declared, “I believe this plane is safe, and I would have absolutely no reservations about boarding one of these planes and taking a flight.” Administrator Michael Huerta of the Federal Aviation Administration said his agency has seen no data suggesting the plane isn’t safe but wanted the review to find out why safety-related incidents were occurring.

Here he is on January 18 after an All Nippon 787 had to make an emergency landing:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood vowed Friday that Boeing's 787 Dreamliner wouldn't take to the air again until regulators are absolutely certain it's safe. "Those planes aren't going to fly until we are 1,000% sure that they are safe to fly," LaHood said outside a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors here.

Such a flip-flop might become a big scandal during a GOP administration, especially with the added components of safety, Big Aviation, and unions.  But apparently we're in a new era of trust.

This new era included a rigorous certification process of the 787 culminating in certification in mid 2011, followed by thousands of daily scheduled flights from late 2011 through most of 2012 without any serious incidents.

During this same time period Boeing was embroiled in labor problems.  The 787 is a new kind of airplane for them and the production and supply chain represents a new way of making planes that apparently some in the old guard found upsetting.  But new airplanes always have bugs. 

But suddenly the bugs began piling up.   On January 11th the feds announced a comprehensive review of the "safe" aircraft, triggered mainly by the publicity of a battery fire on the ground in Boston.  A very short time later Boeing offered a pay increase to some of the very same engineers who were to be integrally involved in the upcoming review process.  Just months prior Boeing management had been threatening to move engineering work away from their Seattle HQ due to the high cost of doing business in Washington State. 

Of course everyone remembers the brouhaha after they announced moving part of the production to South Carolina and how that triggered a review by the NLRB (ie, Obama administration), which ended in a contract offer to Seattle personnel and a dropping of the complaint.  So there's more than enough fodder for speculation or conspiracy.

Not only that, but everyone knows batteries on airplanes are no laughing matter.  Commercial carriers are already restricted as to the transport of lithium-ion batteries as cargo; the 787 uses a massive version to power its electrical system.   According to some reports the UPS 747 that crashed in Dubai in 2010 was doomed by a fire emanating amongst a shipment of such batteries in the main cargo hold (nobody has explained what started the fire but this cause has apparently been ruled out).  Supposedly Boeing prepared for the contingency of a possible battery fire in the 787 by designing a fireproof compartment that wouldn't allow a fire to spread, which was part of the certification signoff.

Now they've got a mess.  Whether any of that mess was unavoidable, avoidable, or inflamed by shady operations is beyond the knowledge of the average person at this point.  Clearly there's a lot at stake. 

Ironically, another fire aboard an aircraft was blamed on a crash that killed 230 people in 1996. Unlike the 787 battery fires it did not trigger a world-wide grounding of the 747 despite what appeared to be a horrible flaw, possible wiring issues in the fuel tanks. There were circulars and such but the 'fix'--a nitrogen interting system in the fuel tank to neutralize vapors--didn't arrive for almost a decade.  This fix has been mandated on newer aircraft and calls for retrofitting certain older aircraft but for some reason excludes cargo aircraft, as if they are somehow immune from middair explosions.

By the way, other causes were studied, including whether EMI from electronic devices might have triggered the spark, but the main focus seemed to be operating the fuel system on warm days.  Why this was suddenly a problem despite no recorded in-flight crashes caused by overheated fuel tanks in commercial aviation history remains a mystery.  

Regular readers know this crash has long been a source of skepticism here, mainly due to how it was handled in the press and by the Clinton administration, including certain theories provided by various agencies that don't usually get involved in domestic aviation investigations.  Jack Cashill was an early skeptic and his book "First Strike" initiated the interest, but his conclusion of a small terror plane never made much sense. Over the years he has kept an open mind and indeed his latest column suggests that former Kennedy family friend Pierre Salinger may have been onto something.

Not sure, but perhaps the biggest clue something might be amiss comes from the memoirs of those who should know.  Cashill points out that people like Hillary, Bill, George Stephanopoulis and George Tenet hardly mention this event at all in their tomes, quite odd for something Richard Clarke claimed almost triggered a war with Iran. That's pretty sensational stuff to omit from a book especially since the official cause is now something more random and mechanical.

But it's not just the prime players who ignore it.  The more recent book "Threat Matrix" by Garrett Graff is an exhaustive overview of the FBI starting with J. Edgar and moving to the Robert Mueller era.  The book tapped many sources and discusses various high-profile crimes and terror attacks along the timeline, yet is largely silent on two huge FBI cases--the anthrax letters and TWA 800.  Graff devoted far more pages to another TWA flight--847.

It's hard to say whether such omissions are deliberate, out of ignorance, or  whether some people just don't want to talk about certain things anymore, which is quite understandable with so much at stake. But the silence remains the most compelling evidence to date.  Which isn't much.

The Egyptian Connection

The recent speculation about the Blind Shake brings back some of the events that occurred in the mid 90s after his trial, such as this:

Investigators are reviewing an anonymous threat received after the October 1, 1995 conviction of radical sheik Omar Abdel Rahman .... the threat was that a New York airport or jetliner would be attacked in retaliation ........

Not only that, but this:

The sources said the missiles arrived in America seven months ago after being shipped from Karachi via Rotterdam and on to the Canadian port of Halifax. They claimed an Egyptian fundamentalist group backed by Iran was responsible for smuggling the weapons across the Canadian border into the United States. The group, the Gama'a al-Islamiya, comprises followers of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric jailed in the United States over the 1993 New York World Trade Center bombing.

A senior White House official responsible for counter-terrorism told The Sunday Times this weekend that he had seen a report that a Stinger missile had been smuggled into the United States from Pakistan. The official, who is involved in collating intelligence relating to the TWA inquiry for the White House, said investigators were aware of reports that Stingers may have been smuggled into the country.... If a Stinger was the cause of this, our first theory would be that it came from Afghanistan." The official was commenting on reports from Tehran that claimed several groups funded by the religious authorities in Iran are active in the United States. The reports claim one previously unknown underground group called Falakh may have as many as 50 highly trained terrorists in the country.

It's amazing how many threats or rumors of threats during the halcyon days of the 90s were directly related to Abdel-Rahman.  During the time everyone was focused on Monicagate and if terrorism was ever brought up it was mainly in relation to 'wagging the dog', even after our embassies were attacked in 1998.  It was only 9/11 that shook the foundation, but by then all attention had shifted to bin Laden. 

It's easy to blame the Clinton folks for downplaying Rahman and his Egyptian wing while pounding the drum about bin Laden and Saddam--the GOP didn't have a very good track record either.  While they were trying to string up Slick for lying about sex everyone was overlooking the looming threats. And they were real.

Even today most don't seem to understand how the two terror groups merged into one al Qaeda.  Ramzi Yousef, KSM and their cohorts were more loyal to the Blind Sheikh than UBL, which makes sense because US prosecutors didn't even indict UBL for the 1993 WTC attack.  Ayman Zawahiri was more connected to the former through his leadership of Egyptian Islamic Jihad back when they played ball with the Sheikh's Jamaat al-Islamiyya.

Anyway, here we are 15+ years later after 3000 dead on 9/11 and thousands more dead in later attacks and on the battlefield, now hearing rumors about transferring the sickly old Rahman back to Egypt--yes, the very same guy mentioned in almost every jihadist fatwa in the 90s and used as a rationale for murder.  Yet many have no clue about the Blind Shiekh's role in the history of terrorism in America.

Why?  Maybe because telling the full story could implicate the Clintons/Democrats.  Yet this story should not be partisan--one could ask why the Bush 41 folks ever allowed Abdel-Rahman a visa in the first place.  It is what it is.  Enemies of your enemies sometimes become your enemies after your enemy is defeated.        

It's clear Egypt was always closer to center of the jihad than given media credit, partially explained by the peace deal with Israel (the Sunni assassin of Anwar Sadat had a street named him in Tehran, and his brother was working closely with bin Laden) and our subsequent support for Mubarak.  The lead hijacker on 9/11 was an Egyptian, as is Ayman Zawahiri, the current leader of AQ.   Ayman's brother, an extremist captured in Yemen and jailed by Mubarak who was recently pardoned and released by the Muslim Brotherhood-backed government, was on scene of the recent jihad flag-raising at our Cairo embassy.

Matter of fact, the entire riot-attacks on 9/11 were likely started as a message to free the Blind Sheikh with the spontaneous response to a You Tube movie clip as cover.  Is that perhaps why American diplomats in Cairo reacted by tweeting our apologies about the movie clip, to distract from the real issue?

All of this, including our position in Afghanistan, leaves some fairly disparate dots to connect when trying to understand current U.S. foreign policy vis a vis the GWoT, aside from playing whack-a-mole with drones.  Bottom line--it's less clear than it ever was, but one can certainly whiff a level of capitulation strategy in some of our latest moves.  Are we that desperate? 

The third presidential debate will deal with foreign policy.  We'll see how Romney wants to deal with any of this.  We already know how Obama will frame it. 

ROMNEY WEIGHS IN  10/8/12

His speech on Islamic radicalism was very well delivered and contained a clear vision--peace through strength (where have we seen that before).  One thing the naysayers might point out is that Romney, like Bush 43, has a vision that Islam and democracy can exist in the same government, which seems shaky.   But isn't it really the only hope for humanity in a world full of dangerous weapons?   

Blunt Romney and other Spin

Several stories to play with today, all with spin.

One, Blunt Romney visiting the NAACP.  Seriously, "Blunt Romney"?  Is that some kind of secret street language nickname for Mittens leaked by his staff to give him street cred or just business as usual for the Paper of Record?  If you chose latter come collect your prize.  Their counterparts mainly hit with he was booed.  No doubt the booed headline saturated most mainstream coverage as in, how dare Romney campaign against the current president.  That's a personal insult. What next, claiming Obama drove the economic bus into a ditch?  Or spitting on Emanuel Cleaver? 

The other spin came from a potentially embarrassing story that broke connecting Occupy Wall Street with murder.   Early reports said DNA taken from a chain used at an OWS New York event matched that found on the personal effects of a 2004 murder victim.  Early reports also said that all forensic personnel in the NYPD crime lab had been cleared of contaminating the evidence.  Suddenly the main headline has now transformed into "Possible Lab Contamination...", all thanks to a 'source' in the lab, not the PD.   Fit to print with massive font headlines apparently based on one source!

These same folks have held onto the Tea Party spitting story (alluded to above) forever despite Breitbart's cash award for anyone who could actually provide evidence (nobody did) and his later attempt to show up the NAACP as dishonest and bigoted in their approach to the event and the Tea Party in general via the Shirley Sherrod debacle.  No surprise, the very same folks also pushed a dishonest and erroneous narrative against noted white Hispanic George Zimmerman by creatively splicing a 911 tape to make him appear racist.  No source needed.

Finally, the absentee Jesse Jackson, Jr. story.  Early reports said he was being treated for substance abuse, perhaps for alcohol.  Now it has changed to "a mood disorder".   Give the mainstreamers some credit here, the spin is coming from the congressman's staff.  However, reporters by nature are trained to be skeptics and not swallow press releases verbatim, at least theoretically.  Or maybe that was just in Bogie movies.  Wait, no, they still do that with Sarah Palin.  And every other Republican.  So let's see if this new explanation satisfies these notorious hungry dogs just like that dog training exercise story back in the 90s gave them reason to shut down another potentially embarrassing investigation.  


    

15 Years Ago...

TWA flight 800 exploded off Long Island 15 years ago today. There's not much more to say that hasn't been said... the government gave its probable cause, which if correct would represent the first such occurrence in a commercial jet aircraft in flight (none have occurred since), but strange things sometimes happen. Most have forgotten and accepted and moved on, but writers like Jack Cashill are still frustrated.

In his latest exercise of frustration Cashill points to an excellent book by Richard Miniter about KSM (a good primer in case a trial ever happens). The book contains nothing about flight 800 but the screaming message throughout is one of aviation terror, whether it be the 'planes' operation on 9/11, the failed 'Bojinka' plot, Yousef's seat bomb on a Philippine Airlines 747, the plan to crash a Cessna into the CIA complex, or their lifelong buddy Murad the pilot.

Indeed, aviation plots have dominated the terror news since the 90s, as recently as the parcel inkjet plot and the underwear guy (and a few unexplained crashes where terrorists have taken credit). Prior to the 90s, Arab terrorists had long made heavy use of hijackings going back to the 70s. At one point flight 800 was thought to be part of the same pattern, then after a dog training exercise explained away the PETN residue on the aircraft and a government animation explained away the streaks of light seen by dozens of witnesses, the big media lost interest despite the weakness inherent in those explanations.

While government investigative bodies aren't likely to weigh in on this case anymore there are a few questions not involving investigators that could still be asked. For instance, somebody could ask John Kerry and Katie Couric (video now gone from internet) and George Stephanapoulis what they meant when they called 800 a 'bombing' during the chaos of 9/11. Kerry even mentioned it again on a September 24th interview, well apart from the chaos of the day. Stephanapoulis wrote an excellent biography--published before 9/11--about his time in the White House and never mentioned 800.

Aside from those questions, which presume to point to a state sponsor, others are still inquiring. According to a Vanity Fair article, lawyers representing a 9/11 family claim that former commission attorney Dieter Snell has claimed in an affidavit there is compelling evidence that Iran helped facilitate the 9/11 plot. This was hinted in the final report but not strongly; if Snell has stronger evidence it's not being published.

And why would it? The public might demand our leaders take it further than 'the water's edge', and maybe we still aren't ready to do that yet. Some terrorism experts suggest that Hizballah maintains sleepers throughout North America that can be activated should something occur in the mother country. Responsible leaders have to plan carefully and play the game right. And of course there is always politics to consider.

Consider our presence in Libya now--reportedly as a UN and NATO member to 'protect the people' (or whatever the current rationale might be--the MSM has lately focused all their energy on bringing down Murdoch and Fox). Maybe we've actually slipped past the water's edge on this one due to al-Megrahi and other previously unmentioned horribles.

The Meaning of the Word "They"

Jack Cashill has an interesting review piece out on Richard Miniter's new book "Mastermind", specifically about how it relates to the Clinton administration's handling (or mishandling) of KSM. In so doing he points out an exchange between historian Taylor Branch and Bill Clinton regarding TWA 800:

On August 2, 1996, Clinton told Branch that the FBI was “rechecking” its interviews with “some fifteen ground witnesses who saw a bright streak in the sky near the plane.” If corroborated, Branch adds, this “could suggest a missile rather than a bomb.” Clinton knew it was a missile. By this time, the FBI had interviewed at least 200 eyewitnesses who had seen a bright streak. Still, he gave away more than he might have intended in this interview. Clinton traced the likely attack to Iran. So obsessed was he on the upcoming election that he claimed terrorists had struck “to undermine [his] chances for reelection because he was pushing the middle-east peace process.”

“They want war,” Branch quotes Clinton as saying. Those three words suggest the probable justification used to stop this investigation at the water’s edge as well.

Bolded to point out that according to Branch's reflection the president believed (on August 2, 1996 at least) that Iran was likely behind an attack on the US that killed hundreds because they didn't want him solving Middle East peace. Could make sense--they had a large investment in Hizballah and Hamas. And Cashill has long talked of a 'come to Jesus' meeting at the White House on August 22, 1996 after which the 800 story suddenly began morphing from a terrorist act to a spark in the fuel tank, no worries, just an accident.

It's not hard to believe that Clinton might have thought "they" were trying to goad us into war to stop peace by staging an attack to sway the public towards the election of war hero Bob Dole later in 1996.

Bit it seems a lot depends on the meaning of the word "they". Conventional wisdom about 9/11 is that bin Laden was trying to bait us into a long war, which sounds similar to what Clinton was saying about Iran. Several AQ members were holed up in Iran for years after the attacks, most likely including the interim leader al-Adel and at least one of bin Laden's grown sons. Since proxies are normally used to do the dirty work, KSM's 'planes' operation was certainly in line with Yousef's earlier attacks on aviation. Was it just the Iranians he thought were trying to goad us into war? Or was 9/11 not a shock to him?

In a world of WikiLeaks perhaps such a truth may someday come out, although since it hasn't yet maybe that's not a rock solid guarantee. And maybe for good reason--just imagine such a revelation coming now as Iran gets closer to nuclear weapons every day while we prepare to leave the battlefields both east and west of them.

Of Iran and Sanctions

Word is Iran now may want to negotiate over nuclear fuel. So they say.

Few probably remember the day in August 1996 when Bill Clinton signed into law the "Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996" (otherwise known as D'Amato-Kennedy ILSA) during a televised signing ceremony attended by family members of the victims of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing.

That bill originated in 1995 after the announcement that Russia was helping Iran build a nuclear facility at Bushehr. President Clinton, worried about Iran gaining WMDs, signed two executive orders in mid 1995 enacting sanctions regarding energy trading and the sale of aircraft parts directly to Iran. But when it became apparent other countries were ignoring those efforts Senators Alfonse D'Amato and Ted Kennedy came up with the bill as a way to force other countries into playing ball.

Reaction from around the world was not good. Some considered it a backdoor trade war, while the European Union directed member states not to participate. Keep in mind the world loved us back then.

During this same happy time period, when peace guided the planet and love steered the stars, rumors were that manpad missiles were being smuggled into the country from Canada. The Olympics were coming and it was also an election year so tensions were likely high.

Anyway, the House passed their version of D'Amato-Kennedy, HR3107, on June 19, 1996 by a vote of 415-0. On June 25, 1996 members of the Iranian proxy group Saudi Hiz'allah bombed the Khobar Towers, killing 19 US service people and injuring many more.

Then the Senate passed D'Amato-Kennedy by unanimous consent on July 16, 1996.

One day later, on the 17th, TWA flight 800 crashed off the coast of Long Island. Many witnesses thought a missile brought it down because streaks or flare-like objects were seen prior to the explosion.

The story has been told and retold--despite some odd behavior from various federal entities and the trace presence of PETN and RDX residue on the aircraft the NTSB and FBI concluded that a spark probably occurred in low voltage electrical circuitry inside the fuel tank and blew up the plane, the first and last such occurrence on a US commercial jet in flight.

No terrorist group took direct responsibility, but one group did issue a strange missive around the same time:

"The mujahideen will deliver the ultimate response to the threats of the foolish American president. Everyone will be amazed at the size of that response," it read in part. "Their time is at the morning-dawn. Is not the morning-dawn near?"

No one knows exactly what was meant by 'the foolish American president' but one can surmise. The group that issued the communique, the "Islamic Change Movement", had also taken credit for the bombing of US military barracks in Riyadh in 1995 that killed five. The genesis of our sanctions was also in 1995.

The first ILSA was set to expire on August 5, 2001. Although some sanctions were weakened the bill was extended on August 3, 2001. We all know what happened in September.

Fast forward to 2009, where the House just overwhelmingly passed an update to the ILSA act on December 15 by a vote of 412 to 12. Weeks later an airplane was almost blown up approaching Detroit.

Coincidences? Most likely, since it would blow that whole Sunni-Shiite thing wide open and change everything we know about AQ. But it is a little weird.

What Meets the Eye

It appears that convicted and released Pan Am 103 bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi has a similar form of cancer as did a few noted Iraqi thugs, such as Izzat al-Duri, Mrs. Anthrax, and Tariq Aziz. From April:

This would allow Megrahi "to continue his sentence in a Libyan prison, particularly since he is suffering from an advanced stage of cancer and has only a few weeks left to live," the source added on condition of anonymity.

Emphasis added to point out that he only had a few weeks to live back in April and now he's been given several months in August. Praise Allah for the miracle! Or maybe it was the UK's national health service. This new background information calls into question that giant FU rhetorically drawn in the Libyan sand along with the State Dept's noble 11th hour efforts. Either way the FU could have still been totally unexpected. Lying down with dogs, and such.

Speaking of aviation disasters, author Jack Cashill points us to a new book about mafioso Tony Scarpa, Jr. and his role as a snitch in the Manhattan jail he shared with Bokinka and WTC 1 bomber Ramzi Yousef, whereupon the following is alleged to have occurred:

As July 17 approached, according to Scarfa, Yousef was warning friends not to fly on TWA or American Airlines on the morning of July 18.

On the night of July 17, after the explosion, Yousef kept pressing to use Scarpa’s cell phone, which he did not know was part of an FBI sting.

As I previously reported, Yousef called 9-11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed that night, saying, "What had to be done has been done, TWA 800" (last two words unintelligible).

Scarpa was also involved as a snitch against convicted Murrah bomber Terry Nichols, which apparently led to the discovery of a huge cache of weapons buried underneath Nichols' Kansas home. Both events are a bit shady and haven't received any mainstream media scrutiny, so who knows. What the Libyan case suggests is that there's almost certainly more to the story than meets the eye. Surely that applies to other events as well.

MORE 8/23/09

Should the common man take anything away from the presumed lack of outrage expressed by the White House over the release of the Pan Am 103 bomber? Does it signal the Obama administration's belief in one of the various conspiracy theories floating around about the event or just their general belief in a kinder gentler approach to terrorism?

Hmm, well whatever the case they surely can't believe this version, although it does have the reek of disinformation (and we know how much Obama hates disinformation). By the way, here's an excellent summary of airliner bombings over the years. Note how many had Abu Nidal's fingerprints on them. Also note the dearth of any official events since 1994.

13 Years Ago This Evening

It was thirteen years ago this evening, a warm July night off the coast of Long Island, when a Boeing 747 broke up and tragically plunged into the ocean. After years of inquiry the NTSB and FBI now seem satisfied with their findings that TWA 800 for some reason spontaneously combusted during climb-out, probably due to a frayed wire in the center fuel tank.

Some are still not convinced. Various descriptions have been applied--kooks and charlatans looking for a quick buck; political operatives determined to smear Bill Clinton; military haters going after the Navy. Or is it something more? Judge for yourself. My thoughts over the years are contained on the tag below.

But with all the talk these days of the CIA being a pack of liars one has to wonder what Nancy Pelosi might have said had the Bush administration elicited the assistance of the CIA to help explain a domestic aviation accident. Will any sort of Congressional investigation explore this?

Unsolved Mysteries

Still lots of uncertainty about the crash of AF 447 but the evidence is slowly providing some clues:

The paper also reported that some victims were found with little or no clothing, and had no signs of burns.

That lack of clothing could be significant, said Jack Casey, an aviation safety consultant in Washington, D.C., who is a former accident investigator. "In an in-air break up like we are supposing here, the clothes are just torn away."

That, combined with being shock-exposed to temperatures from -30F to -40F, should have been enough to put most of the victims to sleep well before hitting the water, perhaps a small comfort to the victms' families.

As to the theory, a break-up/ejection theory comports with an extreme turbulence event. They found the tail fin largely intact, which some have compared to AA 587 (downed due to wake turbulence) except in this case the rudder section was intact, unlike 587. Of course it also comports with an explosion as per former NTSB member John Goglia:

Lack of burn evidence would not necessarily rule out an explosion, said John Goglia, a former member of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

If something caused the lower fuselage to burn or explode, "passengers would not be exposed to any blast damage" and the plane would still disintegrate in flight," Goglia said. "These are scenarios that cannot be ruled out."

Identification of the bodies is also critical, as pointed out by former NTSB Managing Director Peter Goelz:

"If the victims found in one part of the ocean mostly came from one part of the plane, and the victims in the other area came from another part of the plane, that is really telling you something," he said - perhaps what parts of the plane had broken up in the air.

The above two gentlemen were involved in the TWA 800 crash investigation during the 90s, another airliner that broke up and plunged into the ocean, reputedly from a fuel tank explosion (the one directly under the passenger compartment):

Goelz noted that the pattern of injuries found on passengers of TWA Flight 800 - which went down in 1996 off the coast of Long Island, New York - helped investigators confirm that the nose broke off and fire blew back from the fuel tank.

Since they are bringing up flight 800 please allow a short detour for comparion, beginning with the phrasing, 'the nose broke off and fire blew back from the fuel tank'. The quote, assuming it was direct, begs for more explanation. It's as if they believe the causative event, a fuel-air explosion, which was massive enough to split the aircraft in two, would have allowed the nose-less section to simply fly along intact spraying flaming fuel back through the rear seats. OK then, the initial theory was that this rear section with wings included was zoom-climbing upwards another 2000 feet trailing a flaming fuel spill, which looked like an ascending missile.

How much fuel was left to burn in the near empty center tank after the explosion? Especially since it must be assumed the wing tanks were functioning since the engines were still producing thrust to propel the plane upwards. Presumably the wing tanks did not explode when the nose was sheared off by the initial explosion. An exercise in hair splitting perhaps, but puzzling nevertheless. Maybe that's why the NTSB has gradually climbed down off that explanation over the years.

In comparison, the only thing remotely weird about 447 so far was the eyewitness report of a large flash in the vicinity, which clearly could have been lightning. Autopsies will obviously be critical in clearing up some of the mysteries here but very little official information was ever publicly released on the autopsies from flight 800, which prompted an engineer to file a FOIA with the FBI in an effort to determine the properties of small 'bb-like' fragments found in some of the bodies. It seems logical to think that metallurgical tests on these fragments could have helped rule out a bomb or missile, providing concrete support for the spark theory. But it didn't happen.

Instead the FBI was very unresponsive, which led to an appeal, which led to a decision. As with all conspiracies this engineer could just be a partisan crank out to blast Bill Clinton or make a quick buck, as could this person. This post will be called conspiratorial, as will anyone who argues against the official story, which is why most steer clear. But the evidence says what it says. Actions speak louder than words. To wit--after nearly 13 years we're still awaiting the nitrogen fuel inerting system retrofit. Imagine if they find that 447 was brought down due to exploding fuel vapors.

That's why it's so critical to find the black boxes, especially the CVR. In the 800 event it provided very little aside from a curious comment about a fuel-flow indicator (common on 747s according to NTSB) followed by nothing. If this French A330 was brought down by turbulence alone there will almost certainly be conservation pertaining to the problem prior to the event.