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...

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."

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"  

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