Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:12:17 -0500

CNN said that my TWA 800 research was a "sham" and a "plot."

That is a lie. Here is one of my reports. All these referenced

items are accurate. Can you find any "sham" or "plot"? If not,

what does that tell us about CNN? Spread this far and wide.

Please save this now historical report. Other reports may

be found here: http://www.copi.com/articles/Goddard




(free to forward & copy with attribute)


T W A 8 0 0 M I S S I L E T H E O R Y

- S T R O N G E R T H A N E V E R

(c) (07/17/97) Ian Williams Goddard

One year after the pulverized remains of

TWA Flight 800 plunged into the sea, it's

clearer than ever that the passengers on

board were victims of a missile strike.

While most of the 154 missile-witness

accounts taken by the FBI remain covered

up, a few accounts are available to the

public, such as the accounts of 5 pilots

who were flying in the area when TWA 800

was suddenly annihilated:


PILOT 1: Colonel William Stratemeier, Jr.


that Air National Guard C-130 pilot Colonel

Stratemeier "said he had seen what appeared

to be the trail of a shoulder-fired SAM ending

in a flash on the 747." [1] However, in the

next issue of AVIATION WEEK Stratemeier re-

cants, saying: "We did not see smoke trails

[from a missile], any ignition source from

the tail end of a rocket nor anything..."[2]

Col. Stratemeier recanted and therefore was

not hit with an FBI gag order, but the next

two ANG pilots did not recant their accounts

and therefore were hit with FBI gag orders.

PILOT 2: Captain Christian Baur


that right after the TWA 800 accident, ANG

HH-60 helicopter co-pilot Captain Baur told

federal officials: "Almost due south, there

was a hard white light, like burning pyrotech-

nics, in level flight. I was trying to figure

out what it was. It was the wrong color for

flares. It struck an object coming from the

right [TWA 800] and made it explode." [3]

PILOT 3: Major Frederick Meyer

At a press conference the day after the TWA

800 accident, ANG HH-60 helicopter pilot Major

Meyer said: "I saw something that looked to me

like a shooting star. Now you normally don't

see a shooting star when the sun is up. It was

still bright... Almost immediately thereafter,

I saw, in rapid succession, a small explosion

then a large explosion." [4] Meyer said that

the initial explosion "looked identical to

the detonation of an antiaircraft shell."[3]

PILOT 4: Vasilis Bakounis

Private Pilot and Olympic Airlines engineer

Vasilis Bakounis told the Greek publication

ELEFTHEROTYPIA [5] that as he was heading

toward Gabreski Airport on July 17, 1996,

"Suddenly I saw in the fog to my left toward

the ocean, a small flame rising quickly to-

ward the sky. Before I realized it, I saw

this flame become huge. My first thought was

that it was a flare that had been launched

from some boat... This flame then started

to quickly lose altitude and a few seconds

later there was... a second explosion."

PILOT 5: Sven Faret

Flying at 8,500 feet moments before the

cataclysmic explosion of TWA 800, private

pilot Sven Faret reported that a "short

pin-flash of light appeared on the ground,

perhaps water." [6] When asked if the flash

of light rose upwards vertically from the

earth, Sven confirmed that it did, stating

that it was "like a rocket launch at a

fireworks display" with a point-of-origin

"near the shoreline or in the water." [7]

All 5 pilots witnessed a rapidly moving

luminous and fiery object that was:

1. like a surface-to-air missile

2. like burning pyrotechnics

3. like a meteor yet not like a meteor

4. like a small flame rising quickly

5. like a rocket at a fireworks display

All 5 accounts indicate that this rapidly

moving fiery object hit TWA 800 initiating

the explosions that killed all on board.

At least 2 of the pilots saw the object

early enough in its trajectory to have

seen it rise upwards from the Earth.

The accounts of the pilots in the air are

corroborated by over 100 witnesses on the

ground who also saw a fiery object shoot

upwards and intercept TWA 800. Some of

them said that the fiery object was:

* like a flare

* like a thin white line

* like Grucci fireworks

* like a skyrocket

Most witnesses, such as Naneen Levine

on CNN [8], report that the fiery object

followed a curving trajectory as it shot

upwards toward TWA 800. There is simply

no phenomena other than the firing of a

missile that can explain all the details

reported by the witnesses who saw that

luminous object streak toward TWA 800.

When we also consider that TWA 800 wreck-

age shows the signs of missile damage,[9]

the real question is not was it a missile

that hit TWA 800, but whose missile was it.


While the number of "terrorist-missile

theories" is greater than zero, the number

of terrorists known to be in the area during

the crash is zero. Military experts have

shown that the probability that terrorists

could even deploy the military hardware

necessary to destroy TWA 800 with a missile

is near zero. In sum, the terrorist-missile

theory offers us a whole lot of nothing.

In contrast to the terrorist-missile theory,

the U.S. Navy (a) could deploy the military

hardware necessary to take out TWA 800, (b)

did deploy assets to the area that were both

below and above TWA 800 when it was hit, and

(c) did activate warning zones near TWA 800

for military exercises and live-firings. TWA

800 even changed course to avoid an active

naval-warning zone moments before it was hit.

Unlike the terrorist theory, the Navy-missile

theory is overflowing with evidence.


It is common for the guilty to try to deny the

facts that place them at the scene of the crime

or accident. The U.S. military tried to deny

the fact that it was at the scene of the TWA

800 accident. On July 23, 1996, Department of

Defense spokesman Kenneth Bacon told the press:

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. [10]

Yet after eight months of such denials, the

Navy finally admitted that naval exercises

were taking place off Long Island at the time

of the TWA 800 accident. [11] The Navy also

admitted that they had three submarines off

Long Island in the ocean below TWA 800. [11]

We know that there were at least 8 military

assets in the area of the TWA 800 accident:

1. NAVY: The ALBUQUERQUE, attack sub

2. NAVY: The TREPANG, attack sub


4. NAVY: P-3 Orion aircraft

5. NAVY: The NORMANDY, missile cruiser

6. USCG: The ADAK, CG patrol boat

7. NYANG: HC-130 aircraft

8. NYANG: HH-60 helicopter

Every asset except the Adak has either

(a) been denied to exist or (b) had its

reported location at the time of the TWA

800 accident changed by the military. For

example, while shuffling around crash-time

locations for months, the military placed

4 of its assets in 11 locations:

The Navy-missile-cruiser Normandy was:

1. 180 miles away [12]

2. 185 miles away [13]

3. over 200 miles away [11]

The Navy P-3 Orion aircraft was:

1. 15 miles to the south [14]

2. about 1 mile southwest [15]

3. 3,700 feet below TWA 800 [16]

4. 7,000 feet above TWA 800 [15]

The ANG C-130 aircraft was:

1. 10 miles offshore [17]

2. flying along the coast [18]

The ANG HH-60 helicopter was:

1. 10 miles offshore at 3,000 feet

doing search and rescue practice.[1]

2. 3 miles inland at 100 feet

doing practice landings. [19]

Are we to believe that with as many as

nine military radar systems blanketing

the area [20] it would take months for

the military to figure out where it was?

The pattern of location shifting has

been to move military assets further

away from the accident than initially

reported or further than was eventually

discovered, as in the case of the P-3,

which tapes proved was more than 10x

closer to TWA 800 than once claimed.

If the denial of evidenced proximity to

the crime scene is evidence of culpability,

then, since multiple instances of military

proximity to TWA 800 have been denied by

the military, the evidence that the mili-

tary is culpable in the downing of TWA

800 is significant. The fact that not

only assets but military exercises were

denied, makes this evidence compelling.


TWA 800 researcher Tom Shoemaker recently

discovered documents showing that both the

New York Air National Guard and the Navy

were engaged in a large-scale exercise

called "Global Yankee '96" taking place

off shore between July 16 and 26, 1996.[20]

Shoemaker's findings confirm the claim of

TWA 800 researcher James Sanders that the

Navy and the ANG were working together

at the time of the accident. [21]

While the fact that ANG pilots reported

what they saw would seem to contradict

the possibility of their culpability, it

is clear that the ANG is not being forth-

right about the locations of ANG assets

at crash time.[18,URL] It should also be

noted that ANG co-pilot Baur never said

what he saw when he had the chance to at

a press conference after the crash; that

Major Meyer suggested first and foremost

that TWA 800 was hit by a meteorite; and

that Stratemeier suggested it was hit by

a terrorist-style missile, then suddenly

claimed he saw nothing. If the Navy and/

or the ANG are guilty, then the ANG pilot

responses would be predictable misleads.

One year after the fiery demise of TWA

800, the Navy-missile theory not only

remains superior to all other TWA 800

theories, but is stronger than ever.



[1] AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY: Terrorist Fears Deepen

With 747's Destruction. E.Phillips, P.Mann (7/22/96) p.20.


Missile Theory. David Fulghum, July 29, 1996, page 32.


by Object. By David Fulghum, March 10, 1997.

[4] New York Air National Guard, 106th Rescue

Wing press conference, July 18, 1996.

[5] ELEFTHEROTYPIA. Greece, August 23, 1996.

Article by Aris Hatzigeorgiou. http://www.enet.gr

[6] Report of TWA 800 witness Sven Faret:


[7] http://www.erols.com/igoddard/sven.htm

[8] CNN: TWA 800 witness Naneen Levine illustrates missile

trajectory: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/levine.htm

[9] Debris: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/crash.htm

[10] Department of Defense press conference, July 23, 1996:


[11] NEWSDAY: TWA Probe: Submarines Off LI. By R.E. Kessler,

03/22/97. http://www.newsday.com/jet/cras0322.htm

[12] ASSOCIATED PRESS: Missile Attack a Favorite

of Conspiracy Theorists. 09/03/96.

[13] ASSOCIATED PRESS: Document Says Navy Hit

TWA Plane. By Jocelyn Noveck, 11/08/96.

[14] NEWSDAY: The Story So Far. By Craig Gordon, Lima Pleven,

08/20/96. http://www.newsday.com/jet/jemyst20.htm

[15] ASSOCIATED PRESS: FBI Says Mystery Blip on Radar Tape

is Unarmed Navy Reconnaissance Plane. 03/21/97.

[16] THE NEW AMERICAN: What Really Happened to TWA 800? By W.

Jasper, 10/14/96. http://www.jbs.org/vo12no21.htm#TWA800

[17] NYANG says that the C-130 was in the area JAWS:


NYANG rep. James Finkle says JAWS is 10 miles offshore:


[18] NYANG rep. James Finkle says the C-130 was not in JAWS:


[19] In [1] the HH-60 is reported to have been offshore with the

C-130, which the ANG says was in JAWS ten miles offshore,

but then suddenly the HH-60 was moved over Gabreski Airport:


I called AVIATION WEEK and was told that it was an NYANG

representative who told them that the HH-60 was offshore.

I was told that the NYANG rep. read the off shore 3,000

ft altitude location straight from Major Meyer's report.

[20] http://www.webexpert.net/rosedale/twacasefile/newsfour.html

Visit these pages and copy their contents:




[21] The Downing of TWA Flight 800. By James Sanders, 1997.


</smaller>A pack of "unreferenced rumors"? HA! The media's presentation

of Ian Goddard's TWA 800 inquiry is a Big Lie in full display.


Ian Goddard <<igoddard@netkonnect.net>