Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Saying someone is mistaken is not always a cover-up
One can say that a missile took down Flight 800, but one cannot reasonably say that eye witness evidence was "ignored" when an investigation does a lot of investigation of eyewitness reports and concludes that eyewitness evidence is incorrect.
To read some stuff on the net, you would think that nobody ever gave much thought to the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of a missile. Perhaps the whole thing is a giant cover-up (it is possible, of course), but eye-witness testimony was investigated in depth and at length. Doesn't anyone remember 1996 any more??? We instituted new air travel security regulations in response to belief it was a missile. The initial theory was a missile. Everyone knew, at the time, that many people thought they saw a missile. TV was full of people talking about the missile.
The missile theory and eye-witness reports of such were not ignored. They were determined, after considerable investigation, to not be reliable.
One can say that determination was wrong, and even say it was a cover-up, but cannot plausibly say the eye witness accounts were ignored, not investigated, etc..
(wikipedia does not have a four paragraph rule. Everything below is copyright wikipedia)
Analysis of reported witness observations
At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[100] CIA analysts, relying on sound-propagation analysis, were able to conclude that the witnesses could not be describing a missile approaching an intact aircraft, but were seeing a trail of burning fuel coming from the aircraft after the initial explosion.[101] This conclusion was reached after calculating how long it took for the sound of the initial explosion to reach the witnesses, and using that to correlate the witness observations with the accident sequence.[102] In all cases the witnesses could not be describing a missile approaching an intact aircraft, as the plane had already exploded before their observations began.[103]
As the investigation progressed, the NTSB decided to form a witness group to more fully address the accounts of witnesses.[104] From November 1996, through April 1997, this group reviewed witness documents on loan from the FBI (with personal information redacted), and conducted interviews with crewmembers from a New York Air National Guard HH-60 helicopter and C-130 airplane, as well as a U.S. Navy P-3 airplane that were flying in the vicinity of TWA 800 at the time of the accident.[105]
In February 1998, the FBI, having closed its active investigation, agreed to fully release the witness documents to the NTSB.[106] With access to these documents no longer controlled by the FBI, the NTSB formed a second witness group to review the documents.[106] Because of the amount of time that had elapsed (about 21 months) before the NTSB received information about the identity of the witnesses, the witness group chose not to re-interview most of the witnesses, but instead to rely on the original FBI documents as the best available evidence of the observations initially reported by the witnesses.[58] However, despite the two and a half years that had elapsed since the accident, the witness group did interview the captain of Eastwind Airlines flight 507, who was the first to report the explosion of TWA 800, because of his vantage point and experience as an airline pilot.[107]
The NTSB's review of the released witness documents determined that they contained 736 witness accounts, of which 258 were characterized as "streak of light" witnesses ("an object moving in the sky...variously described [as] a point of light, fireworks, a flare, a shooting star, or something similar."
[58] The NTSB Witness Group concluded that the streak of light reported by witnesses might have been the actual airplane during some stage of its flight before the fireball developed, noting that most of the 258 streak of light accounts were generally consistent with the calculated flightpath of the accident airplane after the CWT explosion.[59]
However, 38 witnesses described a streak of light that ascended vertically, or nearly so, and these accounts "seem[ed] to be inconsistent with the accident airplane's flightpath."[108] In addition, 18 witnesses reported seeing a streak of light that originated at the surface, or the horizon, which did not "appear to be consistent with the airplane's calculated flightpath and other known aspects of the accident sequence."[108] Regarding these differing accounts, the NTSB noted that based on their experience in previous investigations "witness reports are often inconsistent with the known facts or with other witnesses' reports of the same events."[109] The interviews conducted by the FBI focused on the possibility of a missile attack; suggested interview questions given to FBI agents such as "Where was the sun in relation to the aircraft and the missile launch point?" and "How long did the missile fly?" could have biased interviewees' responses in some cases.[110] The NTSB concluded that given the large number of witnesses in this case, they "did not expect all of the documented witness observations to be consistent with one another."[111] and "did not view these apparently anomalous witness reports as persuasive evidence that some witnesses might have observed a missile."[112]
After missile visibility tests were conducted in April 2000, at Eglin Air Force Base, Fort Walton Beach, Florida,[113] the NTSB determined that if witnesses had observed a missile attack they would have seen: (1) a light from the burning missile motor ascending very rapidly and steeply for about 8 seconds; (2) the light disappearing for up to 7 seconds; (3) upon the missile striking the aircraft and igniting the CWT another light, moving considerably more slowly and more laterally than the first, for about 30 seconds; (4) this light descending while simultaneously developing into a fireball falling toward the ocean.[112] None of the witness documents described such a scenario.[112]
Because of their unique vantage points and/or the level of precision and detail provided in their accounts, five witness accounts generated special interest:[114] the pilot of Eastwind Airlines flight 507, the crew members in the HH-60 helicopter, a streak-of-light witness aboard US Airways flight 217, a land witness on the Beach Lane Bridge in Westhampton Beach, New York as well as a witness on a boat near Great Gun Beach.[115] Advocates of a missile-attack scenario asserted that some of these witnesses observed a missile;[116] however, analysis demonstrated that the observations were not consistent with a missile attack on TWA 800, but instead were consistent with these witnesses having observed some part of the in-flight fire and breakup sequence after the CWT explosion.[116]
The NTSB concluded that "the witness observations of a streak of light were not related to a missile and that the streak of light reported by most of these witnesses was burning fuel from the accident airplane in crippled flight during some portion of the post-explosion, preimpact breakup sequence".[112] The NTSB further concluded that "the witnesses' observations of one or more fireballs were of the airplane's burning wreckage falling toward the ocean".[112]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Analysis_of_reported_witness_observations
At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[100] CIA analysts, relying on sound-propagation analysis, were able to conclude that the witnesses could not be describing a missile approaching an intact aircraft, but were seeing a trail of burning fuel coming from the aircraft after the initial explosion.[101] This conclusion was reached after calculating how long it took for the sound of the initial explosion to reach the witnesses, and using that to correlate the witness observations with the accident sequence.[102] In all cases the witnesses could not be describing a missile approaching an intact aircraft, as the plane had already exploded before their observations began.[103]
As the investigation progressed, the NTSB decided to form a witness group to more fully address the accounts of witnesses.[104] From November 1996, through April 1997, this group reviewed witness documents on loan from the FBI (with personal information redacted), and conducted interviews with crewmembers from a New York Air National Guard HH-60 helicopter and C-130 airplane, as well as a U.S. Navy P-3 airplane that were flying in the vicinity of TWA 800 at the time of the accident.[105]
In February 1998, the FBI, having closed its active investigation, agreed to fully release the witness documents to the NTSB.[106] With access to these documents no longer controlled by the FBI, the NTSB formed a second witness group to review the documents.[106] Because of the amount of time that had elapsed (about 21 months) before the NTSB received information about the identity of the witnesses, the witness group chose not to re-interview most of the witnesses, but instead to rely on the original FBI documents as the best available evidence of the observations initially reported by the witnesses.[58] However, despite the two and a half years that had elapsed since the accident, the witness group did interview the captain of Eastwind Airlines flight 507, who was the first to report the explosion of TWA 800, because of his vantage point and experience as an airline pilot.[107]
The NTSB's review of the released witness documents determined that they contained 736 witness accounts, of which 258 were characterized as "streak of light" witnesses ("an object moving in the sky...variously described [as] a point of light, fireworks, a flare, a shooting star, or something similar."
[58] The NTSB Witness Group concluded that the streak of light reported by witnesses might have been the actual airplane during some stage of its flight before the fireball developed, noting that most of the 258 streak of light accounts were generally consistent with the calculated flightpath of the accident airplane after the CWT explosion.[59]
However, 38 witnesses described a streak of light that ascended vertically, or nearly so, and these accounts "seem[ed] to be inconsistent with the accident airplane's flightpath."[108] In addition, 18 witnesses reported seeing a streak of light that originated at the surface, or the horizon, which did not "appear to be consistent with the airplane's calculated flightpath and other known aspects of the accident sequence."[108] Regarding these differing accounts, the NTSB noted that based on their experience in previous investigations "witness reports are often inconsistent with the known facts or with other witnesses' reports of the same events."[109] The interviews conducted by the FBI focused on the possibility of a missile attack; suggested interview questions given to FBI agents such as "Where was the sun in relation to the aircraft and the missile launch point?" and "How long did the missile fly?" could have biased interviewees' responses in some cases.[110] The NTSB concluded that given the large number of witnesses in this case, they "did not expect all of the documented witness observations to be consistent with one another."[111] and "did not view these apparently anomalous witness reports as persuasive evidence that some witnesses might have observed a missile."[112]
After missile visibility tests were conducted in April 2000, at Eglin Air Force Base, Fort Walton Beach, Florida,[113] the NTSB determined that if witnesses had observed a missile attack they would have seen: (1) a light from the burning missile motor ascending very rapidly and steeply for about 8 seconds; (2) the light disappearing for up to 7 seconds; (3) upon the missile striking the aircraft and igniting the CWT another light, moving considerably more slowly and more laterally than the first, for about 30 seconds; (4) this light descending while simultaneously developing into a fireball falling toward the ocean.[112] None of the witness documents described such a scenario.[112]
Because of their unique vantage points and/or the level of precision and detail provided in their accounts, five witness accounts generated special interest:[114] the pilot of Eastwind Airlines flight 507, the crew members in the HH-60 helicopter, a streak-of-light witness aboard US Airways flight 217, a land witness on the Beach Lane Bridge in Westhampton Beach, New York as well as a witness on a boat near Great Gun Beach.[115] Advocates of a missile-attack scenario asserted that some of these witnesses observed a missile;[116] however, analysis demonstrated that the observations were not consistent with a missile attack on TWA 800, but instead were consistent with these witnesses having observed some part of the in-flight fire and breakup sequence after the CWT explosion.[116]
The NTSB concluded that "the witness observations of a streak of light were not related to a missile and that the streak of light reported by most of these witnesses was burning fuel from the accident airplane in crippled flight during some portion of the post-explosion, preimpact breakup sequence".[112] The NTSB further concluded that "the witnesses' observations of one or more fireballs were of the airplane's burning wreckage falling toward the ocean".[112]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#Analysis_of_reported_witness_observations
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
