Discovery Channel scoops CNN

[JohnyCanuck]

Discovery Channel beats CNN to TWA 800 scoop

For the first time on national television, on January 25th 2007 and during a show called "Best Evidence," the Discovery Channel considered radar evidence of an apparent missile engagement of TWA Flight 800. The radar evidence shows wreckage exiting the plane at apparent supersonic speeds just as the jetliner lost electrical power.

This wreckage was recovered from the ocean floor by the Navy, but it disappeared from the investigation. The government has not released any statement or report that explains or contains any analysis of this wreckage, its debris field location, or its high-speed trajectory.

Flight 800 crashed off the coast of Long Island, NY in 1996 killing all 230 people onboard. Hundreds of witnesses reported seeing a streak of light in the sky before Flight 800 exploded. Two Air National Guard pilots in the air at the time identified the streak as a missile.

For the ten year anniversary of the crash, the CNN Presents show "No Survivors" looked into theories surrounding the crash. But like the government investigation, CNN neglected the radar evidence and instead showed an animation of the jetliner climbing after exploding. CNN said its animation was based on government data. But the hard radar evidence conflicts with this data, since it indicates the jetliner descended immediately.

http://cnnexposed.com/story.php?story=32

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Wow. I Can't Wait Till Feb 15th To Catch The Re-Airing Of It. Sounds Wild!

I remember at the time being convinced the witnesses were telling the truth, but admittedly haven't thought about it much since. I'm all sorts of fascinated to think about this again and see the Discovery Channel investigation on it.

Thanks!

[Bonescrat]

2. ...

"This wreckage was recovered from the ocean floor by the Navy, but it disappeared from the investigation."

Just sorta kinda disappeared?

[Rick Myers]

3. At the time the Navy was testing a new sub-launched anti-aircraft missile

The story I've heard from gov't friends is that the thing launched, and was supposed to lock onto a drone being controlled by an Orion aircraft at a distance. The missle went live but 'saw' the 747 instead of the much smaller drone. There was NO spark in a fuel tank, it was hit by a missile.

[bigwillq]

4. I watched a little bit of it last night

when I got home from the bar but then I fell asleep.

I hope it airs again.

[hippiechick]

5. CNN buys the gov't line instead of doing real investigating?

IMAGINE THAT?!?!?! :freak:

[hvn_nbr_2]

25. That would never happen.

We have a free and independent liberal press, dontcha know?
snark snark

[Bunny]

6. I saw some of that show last night, and admittedly it was pretty convincing.

But, in this day and age, I agree with Kalstrom in that it would be nearly impossible to keep an accidental missile strike secret. It would almost certainly have had dozens, if not hundreds, of people directly involved - how could they all have kept this a secret, after 10 years? There are surely military whistle blowers, aren't there?

Anyway, it was indeed interesting. I hope it gets investigated further, and if it was indeed a missile strike, this needs to be brought to light.

[Xithras]

13. Exactly, and that's what most of the conspiracy theories ignore.

There would have been a LOT of witnesses in the military, and 10 years out most of them wouldn't be in the service anymore. Considering the money that could be made by someone scooping the story, I find it hard to believe that nobody has talked yet.

According to the military, there were three vessles taking part in the exercise when 800 went down. All three were submarines, and none of the three had any anti-aircraft capability beyond deck guns. Even if you believed that there was some super secret program to put anti-aircraft missiles on subs (and why would that be a secret when everything else about them is public), there were dozens of men on each sub. Those men face no personal responsibility for the crash, so it's hard to believe that none would talk.

If you're one of the theorists that believes there was an undeclared missile frigate in the area, that number climbs into the hundreds. And if you believe the theorists who believe an aircraft carrier was in the area, that number could be 3000-5500 people (depending on whether or not the air wing was onboard).

I simply cannot believe that hundreds, much less thousands, of people could have been involved in an incident like that without a single one of them saying a word.

[razors edge]

19. How many people

on a submarine would actually know what the test missile did or didn't do? The sub could be sent to the north pole for a few months and without CNN most on the sub would not put two and two together. That leaves only a few ground radar observers to deal with, and since many witnesses claimed to see a missile hit the aircraft and were discounted by the MSM, it doesn't seam that hard to me.

[kdpeters]

26. Clearly, you've never gone up against an authoritarian government agency

Considering the money that could be made by someone scooping the story, I find it hard to believe that nobody has talked yet.

You don't know what you're talking about. Come talk to me when they accidentally gave you a concussion. Come talk to me when they tell a class room of 1st responders to leave a gay man to lie there and bleed to death -- to snickers and chuckles from your coworkers. Come talk to me when they case your home and follow you everywhere. Come talk to me when those who were once your friends can no longer risk having anything to do with you.
Well, of course the problem is with you -- the entire department has the same story. You're the crazy MFer. You try to tell people and people like you think we're crazy.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Duer 157099]

7. EVERYONE knows Discovery Channel is run by TIN FOIL hatters!

:snark:

(I also can't wait for the reply, this should be really good!)

[Joe for Clark]

8. I saw it.

They had a general (in charge of some kind of ordinance) saying it was a missle strike. That we have a new kind of ordinance that will detonate in proximity and bring down planes like that. That they do not make direct hits. And they had an FBI guy saying that it is not a missle strike.

It really raised some questions alright.

Joe

[Lurking Dem]

9. And Nelson DeMille trumped Discovery channel?

I read Night Fall a long time ago.

[high density]

10. Yeah that was a pretty good book

Lousy, predictable ending though.

[Lurking Dem]

12. Yeah but I couldn't put it down.

Even with the cheesy ending.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. Yay for "freedom of the press"

Flexing the Power of the Press

By Michelle Goldberg, AlterNet. Posted April 23, 2002.

Kristina Borjesson talks about "Into the Buzzsaw" and her excommunication from mainstream journalism after she began challenging government assertions about TWA Flight 800.

SNIP

In Borjesson's case, doing her job meant challenging the government assertion that TWA 800 crashed due to a mechanical malfunction. During her investigation, she found increasingly compelling evidence that the plane had been hit by a missile and that there were military maneuvers happening in its vicinity that were later covered up.

Collaborating with other reporters including The Press Enterprise's David Hendrix, she collected proof of official lies. Scientific tests showed that a residue found inside the cabin had the same ingredients, in the same proportions, as rocket fuel (the National Transportation Safety Board said it was glue). The FBI claimed that traces of explosives found in the cabin resulted from a spill during a bomb-sniffing exercise on the plane, but Hendrix and Borjesson later proved that the exercise had taken place on a different aircraft. The two had documents that were smuggled out of the hangar where the official investigation was taking place, including "a copy of the downed plane's debris field that undercut assertions that the center wing tank was the site of the initiating event‚ that caused the plane the explode." They had dozens of eye-witness interviews disputing the government's story, and experts who said the witnesses' descriptions were consistent with a missile.

Borjesson, who had pushed to present her information on CBS, was fired from the network, as was Paul Ragonese, the law enforcement consultant she had worked with. Astonishingly, Ragonese was replaced by James Kallstrom, the very FBI agent who had consistently tried to thwart Borjesson.

SNIP

Almost overnight, she became a journalistic pariah -- something that also happened to other reporters whose stories appear in Into the Buzzsaw. Had she known what was to come of her zeal, she says, "I don't know if I would have had the courage to do it. I was just doing my job."

http://www.alternet.org/story/12941/

[Dirty Hippie]

15. Into the Buzzsaw is a MUST READ! n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

16. I hope she sued them for wrongful discharge.

[porphyrian]

14. The lie of corporate "news" is once again exposed, but will anyone remember tomorrow? - n/t

[Selatius]

17. What's shocking is that if true, the gov't managed to keep all witnesses silent for over a decade.

Of course, it looks like the cat is out of the bag now, but 10 years is an impressive span of time if the Navy was behind the destruction of TWA 800. Unless nearly all of the hundreds of people on the naval warship were not being informed of how the missile tests went, it is a remarkable feat to keep every crew member on board silent for a decade.

[Zodiak]

22. A priori dismissals

A lot of people dismiss alternative hypotheses because it would be to "hard to keep such a thing quiet".

I am not sure we really do know how often that events like this are seen by witnesses and successfully covered up. We can sit and think that it would be hard to cover up something like this...but how hard is it? Do we really know or just assume we know?

The reliance on the "people can't keep this quiet" argument hinges on understanding how these things work instead of speculating on them. Otherwise, it is an a priori argument, which is a very weak line of reasoning that should not be used as a means of dismissal without additional evidence.

Concerning this event.....if a missile hit the plane, then we have a LOT of witnesses who kept their yaps shut. This flies in the face of the common a priori argument that you cannot keep witnesses silent for long. It would seem that you can.

[Bonobo]

18. Looks like CNN owes an aplogy to the late Pierre Salinger

the man they repeatedly slandered with accusation of conspiracy theories...

Wonder when the 9/11 lies will be shown up and (some) people will be vindicated.

[LSK]

20. Larry King is doing a show on Anna Nicole Smith

On a night when Karl Rove is subpoenaed.

How lame can you get?

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. And if they're doing this kind of thing with intelligence that involves

our national security, you KNOW they're withholding information on all sorts of things that give the corporatist an edge over all of us.

For example, just think about all the E.P.A. and F.D.A. information that's being withheld from the public. If you're a Bush crony and know there is a certain food that is dangerous to someone's health, you can get rid of the stock before anybody else learns about it.

[OregonBlue]

23. For those who say it could not have been kept quiet, do you believe the single bullet

theory too?

[knitter4democracy]

24. What about a shoulder mounted rocket launcher?

That's what I always wondered.

[reprehensor]

27. Thank you for posting this.

Too many contradictions on that one.