From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@invweb.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:57:55 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: TWA FLIGHT 800 (Subject matter - Terrorism)
Message-ID: <199711140249.VAA26185@users.invweb.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following message is forwarded to you by "William H. Geiger III"
<whgiii@users.invweb.net> (listed as the From user of this message).  The
original sender (see the header, below) was <TERRORISM@mediccom.org> and
has been set as the "Reply-To" field of this message.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Return-Path: <TERRORISM@mediccom.org>
>Received: from mediccom.org (mediccom.org [206.244.73.73])
>	by users.invweb.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA19691
>	for <WHGIII@INVWEB.NET>; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:30:40 -0500
>Received: by mediccom.org (Wildcat!)
>	id Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:32:55 GMT
>Received: from portal by portal.pcps.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
> id IAA27658; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:25:20 -0500
>Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971113083334.009d0810@pcps.edu>
>X-Sender: m.innera@pcps.edu
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:33:34 -0500
>X-Old_TimeStamp: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:33:34 -0500
>To: TERRORISM@mediccom.org
>From: "Malcolm R.Innerarity" <m.innera@pcps.edu>
>Subject: TWA FLIGHT 800 (Subject matter - Terrorism)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Sender: <TERRORISM@mediccom.org>
>Reply-To: <TERRORISM@mediccom.org>
>Errors-To: <TERRORISM@mediccom.org>
>Status:   

Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 23:23:33 -0800
From: ewolfe@involved.com (Ed Wolfe)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I)

From: Ian Goddard <igoddard@netkonnect.net>
 

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

<smaller>


</smaller>

        ______________________________________

       (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:



        FIVE PILOTS - FIVE MISSILE WITNESSES


        PILOT 1: Colonel William Stratemeier, Jr.


        AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY reported

        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


        AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY reports

        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.



        TERRORISTS OR THE U.S. NAVY?


        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.



        THE NAVY SHUFFLE


        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

        3. NAVY: The WYOMING, ICBM 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.



        CONNECTING THE DOTS


        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.


_____________________________________________________________

REFERENCES___________________________________________________


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

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

[2] AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY: ANG Eyewitnesses Reject

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

[3] AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY: ANG Pilot: Jet Hit

    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:

    http://www.webexpert.net/rosedale/twacasefile/aviator.html

[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:

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

[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:

http://www.infoshop.com/106rescue/html/twa800-pres/sld002.html

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

     http://www.webexpert.net/rosedale/twacasefile/jolly14.html

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

     http://www.webexpert.net/rosedale/twacasefile/jolly14.html

[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:

     http://www.webexpert.net/rosedale/twacasefile/jolly14.html

     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:

     http://www.ang.af.mil/angrc-xo/xoom/aargy96.htm

     http://www.ang.af.mil/angrc-xo/glbynk/partcpnt.htm

     http://www.rl.af.mil/Lab/C3/current-events/gy_rap1.jpg

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

<smaller>


</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>


- -- 
Ultimately, a nation of people are governed 
as they wish to be governed. - Jon Dougherty


======================================================================
To post a new message to the list, send E-mail terrorism@mediccom.org.
To unsubscribe, send E-mail to listserv@mediccom.org with the following
text in the message body: UNSUBSCRIBE terrorism
To send a message to the list administrator, send E-mail to
churton.budd@mediccom.org.
======================================================================

- -----------------------------------------------------
 -- End of forwarded message
- -----------------------------------------------------
- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNGu76I9Co1n+aLhhAQF02gP/adjnKWVLcdiF5dYV4UtvGek1r+mTwaU0
xATgDsTYWqs8I+w1vLg/x7xPWGzrsKQ4fFB3xUhHEqH3K37qvZOeKUeTSK/fNo5/
mliaI1PW6rkh6U9i1aT6sR/t5FvmQDaBvFRWmI2UB/5ILOK9fR2haKVNTowYkdpr
GWRc4BBhdxk=
=9S2q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----