Re: TWA 800: FBI slams missile theory

Peter James (
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:44:07 +0100


I recently joined your newsgroup and this is my first posting. Hope I've
done it correctly.

I was sent this by eMail about ten days ago from a friend in LA. It makes
interesting reading.,,,,
Subject: RE: TWA ....fatal incident(Some News) (fwd)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 96 19:12:42 PDT
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: SelectMAIL 1.0
content-length: 7625

--- Begin Included Message ---

>From POP3-Server@gandalf Fri Sep 6 19:08:15 1996
Received: from by (5.
id AA16291; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 18:08:27 -0700
Received: by (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA04285; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 18:09:17 +0800
Return-Path: <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: TWA ....fatal incident(Some News) (fwd)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 18:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: (Ravi Nirgudkar), swapna.peg@axcess.,,, anunoy@starfury.,,,,, (Priya
Pandey), (Anuraj Gambhir), (Devika Ghaisas),
au (roopa), (Samita Bawa), (Nitin Nigam)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 6381

I received the following information via fax. The source is a
747 Captain, but I cannot say anymore. His sources are reportedly reliable
with inside information. He has transmitted the information already to ABC
News. If this story is true (and the pieces do seem to fit), there is
obviously a very tight cover-up in progress which would include our
Commander in Chief.... Here is the story as it came across my fax:

"TWA flight 800 was SHOT DOWN by a US NAVY AEGIS MISSILE fired from a
guided missile ship which was in area W-105 about 30 miles from where TWA
flight 800 exploded. W-105 is a Warning Area off the southeast cost of
Island and is used by the military for military operations including
missile firing. It is believed that, while W-105 is a rather large area,
budget constraints have dictated that missile firings be done closer to
land so that the flight time for the P-3 monitor and tracking aircraft can
be reduced.

Guided missile ships conduct practice firings on a regular basis and Navy
P-3 radar planes track and evaluate the missile shots with their onboard
instrumentation. A P-3 aircraft was on a southwest heading about over the
top of TWA 800. There was a US Air Flight coming from the Southeast
descending towards Providence, RI that had been cleared to 21,000 feet and
Air Traffic Control (ATC) had determined that there would be a conflict. As
a result of the traffic conflict, the TWA flight was restricted to 13,000
feet. ATC then requested the US Air flight to to turn on his landing
lights. If TWA could see his lights and identify him visually, the
controller could safely clear the TWA flight to continue his climb The P-3
was SKIN PAINT or a non-beacon target. (This means that his transponder
was turned OFF.

Transponders reply to ATC radar and show a well defined radar target on the
controller's scope, complete with ID and altitude. All civilian aircraft
and airliners are required to fly with them when in controlled airspace. A
skin paint target probably would not even be visible to the controller.)
The P-3 made NO calls to ATC. After the explosion, he continued his flight
to the west and then called ATC and asked if they would like him to turn
around and assist with the "accident".

You will remember that the first announcement about this accident came
from the Pentagon. The spokesman mentioned that they were sending the Navy
to the crash site. They immediately sent a Navy Captain, who was replaced
the very next day by a one star Admiral from Norfolk. That admiral is still
on the scene as of 8-23-96. At least 5 Aegis destroyers are based in
Norfolk. The FBI has conducted about 3,000 eye witness interviews and the
NTSB has not been able to be a part of these interviews nor have they any
access to the contents of them.

Some of those eyewitnesses reported seeing lights. Those were probably the
landing lights of the US Air plane. The NTSB is there in name ONLY. All
announcement made by Mr.Bob Francis say absolutely nothing and notice that
the FBI is always standing beside or behind Mr Francis and it would appear
that his job is to make sure that nothing is said that would give away "THE
BIG SECRET!" Here is a list of the Aegis Destroyers based at
Norfolk.....could one of them be the one which fired the fatal shot? USS
Ramage, USS Arligh Burke (DDG 51), USS Barry (DDG 52), USS Stout (DDG 55),
USS Mitscher (DDG 57) and USS Laboon (DDG 58). USS Ramage has a crew of
22 officers and 315 enlisted personnel." That is the gist of the
story...... again he and his source wish to remain annonymous.

Questions arise...... how could they keep it quiet this long. Certainly
people in the P-3 and the Destroyer would talk? Why keep it quiet when it
is bound to come out, and can't be covered for ever? But, remember that
this is an election year. The Navy has had a very tough time in recent
years and is very sensitive to its reputation. The administration has
dealt very harshly with it. Generals and Admirals have been fired with
little notice. Sources which are very, very familiar with the 747 report
that a mechanical cause is almost impossible, especially since the data and
voice recorders give no information. A mechanical or structural failure
would have given some warning to the pilots if only a few seconds. The
primary cause had to be a large explosion.

The chemical traces found which are consistant with a bomb are also
consistant with the explosive compounds used in military missiles. Aegis
missiles, unlike Stinger missiles and those likely to be used by a
terrorist, are not heat seekers. Thus, the recovery of intact engines do
not explain away an Aegis missile hit. The airplane would not be
pressurised (at least not very much) at that low altitude. Therefore, a
small bomb in the cabin would likely not have such immediate catastrophic
effect. Large cargo hold bombs have all but been ruled out. The pieces
fit..... all except the reasons for the cover up.

Time will tell..............
| Nishikant Nigam (AMTS) - ATM Signalling Group - UNI Signalling
> | Trillium Digital Systems, Inc. | Email :
> | 11812, San Vicente Blvd., | Ph : +1 310 479 0500 (W)
>x266 |
> | Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90049 | : +1 310 820 2118
>(Home) |
> | USA | Fax : +1 310 575 0172
> |
> | | WWW : http://www.trillium.
>com/ |

I showed the information to a friend in England who is an ex USAF fighter
pilot, only 40 so he's reasonably current. This was his take:

1. Is one to presume that ABC have been warned off divulving *any* info?

2. He questions the assumption that a small bomb in the cabin would likely
not have had such immediate effect, stating that fuel-load and impact point
of the missile would have had a major bearing.

3. Was the planned IFF system not developed/implemented within the Aegis
Weapons System for the designator (P3) to activate? If it was, a weapons
system fault occurred. If not, grave human error - DDG *must* activate
prior to missile release.

4. Why did the P3 not seek ID of TWA 800 directly? It could still have
remained skin paint to ATC

This reply came back from Ron at Trillium, the original source:

Your Aegis story has been extremely well received.
Unfortunately that means most people I have passed it along
too are conspiracy theorists. Hasan says he has always suspected
such, however, cites humanistic tendencies of sailors as a reason
for Navy silence not being plausible. I would cite the possible
monetary rewards from tabloid journals. Rick Collins, himself a
former pilot has also believed it was a missile. He cites fellow
pilots' observation and an apparent picture which a couple
had taken at a function at waters edge which contained an object
heading skyward with a firey plume. Apparently the picture received
cursory mention on some news programs and the FBI has the originals.
Nanci is intrigued by the story and will talk it up in Russia to see
if there is any affirmation from intelligence circles.

This was another reply with additional info that I received:

Subject: RE: TWA ....fatal incident(Some News) (fwd)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 10:05:28 PDT

Peter, Richard, the following is
additional commentary from people
in my office concerning the
TWA-missile theory....

> From Mon Sep 9 14:26 PDT 1996
> Let's say the military budget is reduced (we all know it is),
> and this translates into testing in a smaller range. Why
> would the space chosen be closer to land, and closer to the
> airspace of our busiest national and international airport, and
> other airports as well (you mentioned Provedence RI).

Without discounting any of the questions you have raised (which I think
are valid), let me add a data point to this discussion. About a week
ago, I read in the L.A.Times that the captain of a commercial airplane
reported seeing a missile fly by his plane, somewhere in the Carolinas.
This was a missile testing area as well. I was quite taken aback to read
this since I would imagine that such testing would occur well out of the
way of commercial air traffic. But since it happened, I am less
surprised by the story that Nishi sent out. In fact, in the same new
article, it was mentioned that questions were raised about the
possibility of a test missile having hit the TWA plane, but officials
denied that there were any test missiles involved in the crash.

-- Rajeev
--- End Included Message ---

Enjoy your next flight everyone...

Read "Virtually Alive" on:

"Outside of a dog, a book is about the best friend a man can have.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.*"
- Groucho Marx

* But not of course if you're reading Host on a laptop