Widespread media reports originating from
   CNN claiming that I admitted my investigation
   of the TWA 800 Navy-missile theory was a hoax
   are a hoax. I never said that. My inquiry has
   been honest and I have at all times stood by
   the truthfulness of my reports. As all can see,
   my TWA 800 reports are meticulously referenced
   research documents filled with facts, the mean-
   ing of which you are free to decide for your-
   self. This short reports make a case that no
   rational person would reject prior to review
   or could easily dismiss after careful review.

   Read this reports and then ask yourself: why has
   the government and the mass media conducted
   a year-long effort to portray it as a hoax?

                   T W A   F L I G H T   8 0 0

                             A N D

              F A C T S   P E R T A I N I N G   T O

               U S  N A V Y  C U L P A B I L I T Y

        By Ian Williams Goddard

        Contents:

        I.   MILITARY CULPABILITY
        II.  WITNESS REPORTS
        III. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

        I. MILITARY CULPABILITY

        FACT 1: July 17th breaking news reports, rarely to
        resurface, stated that naval maneuvers were being
        conducted off-shore near the explosion of TWA flight
        800, which killed 230 people around 8:31 PM, EDT.

        FACT 2: Confirming early reports, TWA 800 exploded
        near the naval warning zones W-105 and W-107, both
        of which were activated for military maneuvers on
        the night of the explosion.  The professional avia-  
        tion publication Aerospace Daily (08/28/96) reports:

                [ Area W-105 ] is designed to keep
                aircraft departing New York safely
                north of any military activity...

                FAA sources and the Navy acknowledged
                yesterday...that the area known as
                Whiskey 105, or W-105, was activated
                at the time of the TWA accident...

        The New American (10/14/96) reports that the FAA's
        "Warning and Restricted Areas Information Log" shows
        that nearby W-107 was also activated at the same time.

        FACT 3: The Airman's Information Manual (3:33) states
        that the hazards of Warning Areas are to be considered
        the same as those of Restricted Areas. The Manual (3:32)
        defines the hazards of Restricted Areas as follows:

                [Restricted Areas] denote the existence
                of unusual, often invisible, hazards
                to aircraft, such as artillery firing,
                aerial gunnery, or guided missiles.

        FACT 4: At a Department of Defense press conference
        on July 23, 1996, DoD spokesman Kenneth Bacon said:

                I'm not aware [that] there were any
                military exercises in the area. I've
                been told by the Joint [Chiefs of]
                Staff that there were not.

        However, after eight months of such denials, on March
        22, 1997, Newsday reported that the Navy finally ad-
        mitted that there were (a) military exercises and (b)
        three Navy submarines in the area at the time of the
        TWA 800 accident. While U.S. submarines are not known
        deploy antiaircraft missiles, the Discovery Channel's
        program "Sharks of Steel" (06/09/97) stated that:

              The submarine has always been shrouded
              in secrecy... its capabilities undis-
              closed, unseen, unheard, undiscussed.

        Considering (a) that many witness accounts suggest
        that a submarine could have been the source of the
        "skyrocket" seen to hit TWA 800, (b) that there were
        three submarines offshore at the time, and (c) that
        the capabilities of submarines are top secret, if
        a sub-launched SAM did hit TWA 800, the Navy could
        not admit it due to "national security" issues
        pertaining to top-secret Navy capabilities.

        FACT 5: Not only were military zones next to TWA 800
        activated, but TWA 800 changed its course to avoid the
        activated military zones only moments before a missile
        was seen streaking toward and hitting TWA 800. As the
        NBC program Unsolved Mysteries (04/04/97) put it:

                Military exercises were being con-
                ducted off the Long Island coast on
                the night of the crash. In fact, TWA
                800 diverted from its original flight
                path to avoid a restricted area.

        This clearly indicates that there was awareness of
        some threat to the safety of TWA 800 imposed by its
        proximity to the activated military zones. With these
        preconditions, is it a big surprise that a military
        missile flies out of the area and hits TWA 800?

        FACT 6: Radar detected an object merging into TWA
        flight 800 before the explosion. As the Associated
        Press (07/19/96) reported:

                Radar detected a blip merging with
                the jet shortly before the explo-
                sion, something that could indi-
                cate a missile hit.

        However, Pentagon officials, asking the AP not to re-
        veal their names,  condemned the blip as "spurious."
        Radar and satellite-image evidence remains concealed.

        FACT 7: Satellite images also proved that a soph-
        isticated guided missile tracked and hit TWA 800.
        As the Times of London (07/22/96) reported:

                An American spy satellite position-
                ed over the Brookhaven National Lab-
                oratory on Long Island is said to
                have yielded important information
                about the crash. A law enforcement
                official told the New York Post
                that the satellite pictures show
                an object racing up to the TWA jet,
                passing it, then changing course
                and smashing into it.

        About the spy satellite over the area, the Boston
        Globe (07/24/96) reported: "the satellite was pro-
        bably the CIA's Satellite Data System II...equipped
        with a long-range, high-resolution TV camera with
        a sensor, known as the Heritage, that detects ob-
        jects by the heat they emit."

        The existence of such images was also confirmed in-
        dependently by Newsday, which reported (09/01/96)
        that the images show "something rising, tracking to-
        ward the plane, circling to the front of the plane
        and then disappearing in the plane's underbelly."

        It's hard to imagine what more proof of a missile
        hit, and by default of a cover-up, would be needed.
        Unfortunately the FBI keeps all the radar and sat-
        ellite images hidden.  They also rounded up all
        the negatives of key photographs taken that night.

        FACT 8: A few miles to the north, and within a few
        minutes, of the TWA 800 crash, Linda Kabot took a
        photograph of what appears to be a Tomahawk cruise
        missile flying low over Southampton only a few yards
        from the ocean. It is possible that such as cruise
        missile may have been the intended drone, or test
        target, for the missile that many saw hit TWA 800.
        In fact, The Independent (07/24/96) of East Hampton
        reported that witnesses saw a "smaller plane" fly-
        ing near TWA 800 around the time of the crash.

        The image to the left is the object Ms. Kabot photo-
        graphed. The object to the right is an exact scaled
        3D model of a Tomahawk cruise missile I made, placed
        at an identical point of view. It's quite obvious.

        Missile defense against incoming ballistic and cruise
        missiles is the latest "arms race." If there were mis-
        sile test firings in the area reserved for military op-
        erations off the NY coast, it would likely be part of
        the anticruise-missile missile tests.  If so, and if
        the intended cruise drone was missed but TWA 800 hit,
        then a stray cruise missile should be observed flying
        out of that zone. Such a cruise missile was observed.

        Not only is there photographic evidence but there are
        eyewitness reports of what fits a Cruise-Missile pro-
        file to a tee:  The Boston Globe  (07/24/96),  which
        states that in addition to seeing "a brilliant flare-
        like glow that streaked toward the plane," witnesses
        also gave "reports of a low-flying aircraft without
        lights cruising off shore."  That fits a CM profile.

        For further analysis of the Kabot photo.
         http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm

        FACT 9: Only hours after the crash, investigative
        sources stated that "The leading theory is that the
        airliner was destroyed by a...anti-aircraft missile"
        (Reuters, 07/18/96). Yet White House spokesman Mike
        McCurry attacked those in-the-know, saying, "There's
        no American official with half a brain that ought
        to be speculating on anything of that nature."

        FACT 10: Some residents were not surprised by the
        massive explosion of TWA 800 because military oper-
        ations in the area are not unusual.  As the East
        Hampton, New York paper The Independent (07/24/96)
        learned from a South Beach resident, John Bauman,
        "people continued fishing" after the blast think-
        ing it was probably "the Westhampton Air Force
        Base doing some kind of testing offshore."

        FACT 11: The Jerusalem Post (07/21/96) says French
        Defense Ministry agents believe that flight 800 was
        shot-down by a Navy missile. While many victims
...

read more »

Ian Goddard <igodd...@erols.com> (Ian Goddard) wrote:

Year long?  They only said it was a hoax after your recent retraction.
You say it was based on an incorrect reading of your statement, and I
see no reason to doubt you.  But if you read the following statement
written by you, one has to wander.

And I might ask why you changed your mind again?  (see below):

And while I'm at it, let me make a few comments about your
meticulously collected "facts".  (Sorry this runs so long, but I
thought it proper to quote the exact wording so you can judge
yourselves).

Not all together true.  The "fact" is that the warning area was open
(or was about to open).  The actual exercise could have been planned
much later, or even far from the flight path from JFK.

To be a useful fact, you need to find out how often the area is open,
what it is used for, what was planned that night, etc.  As you state
the "fact", it's nearly useless.

Same fact as #1 with contridiction of "rarely to resurface".

Seems logical to list the most dangerous possibilities in the manual.
I assume you don't mean to imply that missile exercises were
definitely planned that day based on this?

What denials?  You said in an earlier "fact" that the open warning
areas were reported in August of 1996!!

Please.  If you have to make up facts, we could all be experts on this
or any other topic.  You have to do better than "since I can't prove
sub-SAMs don't exist, I can pretend they do".

By the way, this pretty much contradicts your SM-2 Block IV theory
later on.

Here you are taking sloppy language from an entertainment program, and
using it as a "fact"?  Surely you can find an official source that
claims the aircraft "Changed it's course".

It looks to me like "Unsolved Mysteries" was trying to say the
outbound flight paths change, or can be changed, when the warning
areas are open.  NOT that they got an in flight, frantic call to
Change course!!

By the way, the last sentence looks more like commentary than "Fact".

Sounds like a wash.  One claim that the radar showed something, one
that it didn't.
Also, I'd like the source of the AP report.  Crediting it to AP sounds
good in your little story, but the AP obviously got it from somewhere
else, and that source may be Ian Goddard for all we know.  It's either
sloppy reporting by AP, or by Ian Goddard.

Let's look at your opening statement here:  "Satellite images also
proved that a sophisticated guided missile tracked and hit TWA 800."
Proved?  It looks like a third or fourth hand report to me!

Brookhaven - Law enforcement official - New York Post - Times of
London

I'd rather hear it from the horses mouth, if you don't mind.  (You
could apply this critique to most of your facts, but this is probably
the worst example).

...

read more »

The four pigs minus one.

Do you really want rivero armed with the truth?

John

Permit me to disagree with both of you.  No offense.

1) Witnesses saw something that could have been a missile (other

The only other interpretations put forward are the CIA's epic and
Kallstrom's cigar, both silly. I would add "only" after "could" and delete
the statement in parens.

2) The Navy may have been in the area at the time of the crash, but no
credible

3) The FBI and NTSB have found no evidence of missile damage or parts in
the

Replace "found" in 2 and 3 with "reported" and then delete

That should do it. Now, if we can resolve item 1, the rest

.4) That's all folks.

Was that REALLY on the end of the CIA cartoon? The CIA will

First, let me agree with everyone who says that the final report on TWA 800
is bullshit.  I do have a nagging question, though.

Why does it have to be a Navy missile?  It sounds good for a conspiracy
theory.  But weapons test ranges are tightly controlled, especially with
regards to airspace conflictions.  I know this, as I have been flying for 8
years on wet fire ranges around the country.
Every time someone even came close to the range, it was shut down.  

So what precludes the possibility of this being a terrorist act?  Stinger
manpads have gone missing from Afghanistan, and God knows what all the
Russians have been selling of late.  Shoulder-fired missiles are in the
hands of terrorists, without a doubt.  How hard would it be for a group to
rent a boat, pop the plane, and disappear?  I admit that 12000ft is a
rather high shot, but for a non-evasive target in a climb, no
counter-measures, and four nice hot engines to look at?  It is possible.

Why couldn't it be a domestic terrorist group?  Wouldn't that be just as
embarrassing for the US?  Especially so soon after Oklahoma City?  Or
another group of terrorists?  I just can not believe that the US Navy is
guilty in any fashion in this.  No single member of the military, even a
squid, would allow something like this to happen.

Can someone post some facts as to why they believe the Navy is guilty in
this?  You'll have to make them extremely convincing.  Just the fact that a
ship is in the area won't cut it.  Also, is there anyone out there who
agrees with me?

--
Bobby Barton
indy@ don't spam me cfi.net

--cut--
 >
 >Can someone post some facts as to why they believe the Navy is guilty in
 >this?  You'll have to make them extremely convincing.  Just the fact that a
 >ship is in the area won't cut it.  Also, is there anyone out there who
 >agrees with me?
 >
 >--
 >Bobby Barton
 >indy@ don't spam me cfi.net
Bobby you're about 6 - 8 months late on this (maybe more)...this was hashed
and rehashed then the hash was trashed and the thrash was twisted and
reheated and after all the thrashing nobody was one whit the wiser, but if
you wanna get it all upchucked again have at my son...
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada,
VE1EO.

Bobby Barton <i...@cfi.net> wrote in article
<01bcfb94$3c7eb640$356524d1@->...

Final report?  The investigation is ongoing; no final report has been
issued.

All four engines were recovered and showed no evidence of missile damage.
It is also unlikely that a shoulder-fired missile hitting an engine would
cause an immediate explosion of sufficient intensity to cause immediate
interruption of the CVR and FDR.

There are two large problems with it being terrorism (domestic or
international).  First, no one has claimed responsibility.  Second, without
the Navy firing the missile, there is even less of a motive for the Navy,
NTSB, CIA, FBI, Boeing, ALPA, Pratt and Whitney (?), TWA and others to
support a coverup.

I agree- the Navy did not do this.

--Mark Rogers

On 28 Nov 1997 18:17:23 GMT, "Mark Rogers" <mmrog...@tcsn.net> wrote:

It is very likely that the attachment pins would have dropped the
engine.  That would only have caused the airplane to return to JFK.

The only coverup is that the SN of the airplane that crashed does not
match the SN shown in the registration.  The airplane that crashed was
only a few weeks out of retrofit.  It had just been added to TWA's
fleet.

John

   IAN: Actually it's Jane's Fighting
   Ships 1996-97, published in 1996,
   which states that the USS Normandy
   deployed the SM2-(IV) in 1996.

   First the Normanday was 180 miles
   away from TWA 800 at crash time:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul96/t072396_t0723asd.html

   However, after we observed that the
   SM2-(IVA) could cover that distance,
   the Normandy suddenly became over
   200 miles away at crash time:

http://www.newsday.com/jet/cras0322.htm

*******************************************************************
Visit  Ian Williams Goddard  ------>  http://www.erols.com/igoddard
___________________________________________________________________

Don't know about you, but I haven't seen a final report yet.  Just a
final FBI finding of no criminal act.....and by extention, no missile.

Glad someone came along to bring this up again.  I think those of us
who are argueing against a "Navy Missile" tend to get cought up in the
missile proponents game.  This is a major point, yet we spend so much
time attempting to answer the conspiracy points, that we forget to
press some very good points on our side!!  (Unfortunately, there does
seem to be "sides".)

And let's not forget the NTSB and FBI aren't exactly slouches either.
Remember that no physical evidence of a missile has been presented by
anyone who has had access to the 747 itself.  That's the best evidence
that there was no missile at all, terrorist or otherwise.

And as Mr. Beaman has pointed out, the terrorist theory has been put
forward, and has been found lacking as well.  Thankfully, those
proponents have been thoughtful enough to go think about it some more.

You won't get any of the evidence you request.  The whole Friendly
Fire theory is built on a healthy dose of circumstantial evidence
(mostly in the form of newspaper clippings), a heavy dose of
anti-government sentiment, and a dash of anti-mass-media bitching.

And as far as agreeing with you:  Depends on which of the points you
brought up.

No, there has been no final report.
No, it probably isn't a terrorist missile.
No, it probably wasn't a missile at all.
Yes, the Navy is being unfairly blamed.
No, nobody will agree with anyone on all points of any post ever
written on this topic.  ;)

And yes, I won't spam you.  ;)

Ian Goddard <igodd...@erols.com> (Ian Goddard) wrote:

Sorry, but either you are "quoting" them wrong, or Jane's is wrong.

I don't have Jane's nearby, but I have a feeling it says something
along the lines of "SM-2 Blk IV can be (or will be) deployed on DDG 51
class destroyers."

Independent knowledge (mine) tells me that Normandy did not have Blk
IV missiles, and in fact, no east coast ship has EVER had a Blk IV on
board.  No, I can't prove it to you.

I know you won't believe this, but you can't prove anything with press
reports.  They can be wrong, and quoting them is about as useless as
quoting me.

I think most folks have standardized on 185 miles, so as coverup
attempts go, it pretty much failed.  (BTW, a missile flying 185 miles
wouldn't have much of a "streak of light" left anymore, so it's a moot
point).

  IAN: I just got back from the library. I hate
  to admit I made an error, but alas, I did. Jane's
  indicates that in fact the SM-2(IV) was only on
  the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) in 1996, not on the
  USS Normandy (CG-60).

  I realize I'll probably be ridiculed to the ends
  of the earth and framed as a fraud for my having
  found that error (thanks to Oddwells' constructive
  input), but I find,  report, and correct it anyway.
  As the record will indicate, I have always published
  errata notices following the discovery of any errors
  in my reports, as embarrassing as that can be. The
  same level of social responsibility is not to be
  found in the major media, who try to frame me
  as an irresponsible rumor and hoax monger.

*******************************************************************
Visit  Ian Williams Goddard  ------>  http://www.erols.com/igoddard
___________________________________________________________________

I think a 747 is kind of large for a single shoulder-fired missile to
bring down, certinaly too big to bring down so fast the pilot wouldn't
have a chance to radio what was happening.  Shoulder-fired missiles go
for the engines.  On an airliner like a 747, with the engines hanging out
on pods below the wings, you can have one blow up and the thing still
flies.  Stingers are meant to take out tactical aircraft like military
fighters, with their engines buried in the fuselage.  If it blows, lots
of damage to the airframe.

   Eric

--
epawt...@vt.edu----------------------------------------------------

  IAN: Maybe you missed it, but last time I said
  I made a mistake (promoting the Navy-missile
  theory), I was framed as a fraud. Saying that
  it was a mistake was not saying it was a lie
  or that it was definitely false. Obviously I
  cannot know if it did or did not happen, just
  gather evidence pointing one way or another.
  I felt it was a mistake to be so one-sided,
  but that is also not wrong, just not wise.

  I felt that in the big picture, it's OK to
  be one-sided so long as others are making the
  other side. I tend to make the case that others
  reject, just to try to balance things out.

  IAN: One thing I've learned is that what military
  folks countering the theory say about military
  capabilities rarely pans out. In the case above,
  I was looking up info on the ESSM months ago and
  read in Jane's that the SM-2(IV) was being used on
  CG-70, I erred in thinking that was the Normandy,
  CG-60, and made a note in my note-pad to that
  effect, but yesterday I went to the library to
  get the exact quote and noticed the error and
  reported it right away.

  A good example of why it is better to quote
  the source verbatim than make a quick note.

   IAN: Well, you did your best to sour my
   notification of errata. Anyway, the SM-2(IV)
   thing is a periphery detail. The missile seen
   was fired closer to shore than TWA 800, there
   may hay been another missile, but it was also
   probably fired much closer than the Normandy.

*******************************************************************
Visit  Ian Williams Goddard  ------>  http://www.erols.com/igoddard
___________________________________________________________________

Well, when it actually happened, there was a news report here in the
UK that a large Islamic terrorist group HAD claimed responsibility. This
was in the first day or two after the crash. I never heard anything
about it after that. Maybe they just wanted it to appear as if it
was so.

Perhaps there isn't a cover up. Parhaps a missile hit the fuselage,
didn't explode, went off somewhere to never be recovered. Perhaps
it didn't leave any evidence. Perhaps it did leave some residue which
could easily have been something else.

Just speculation.

--
Paul

Paul Sengupta <paul.sengu...@nospam.guildford.ericsson.se> wrote in article
<3485A4D9.794BD...@nospam.guildford.ericsson.se>...

If the missile passed through the fuselage and didn't explode, you would
have evidence of this on the CVR and FDR, not normal flight suddenly
interrupted by large explosive event, which is what occurred.

--Mark Rogers