What Airline Whistleblowers Say About the New Theory on Flight 800

[think]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by In_The_Wind (a host of the General Discussion forum).

What Airline Whistleblowers Have to Say About the New Theory on Flight 800

There may be enough smoking guns to warrant reopening the investigation

By William J. McGee @williamjmcgee - June 25, 2013

I’ve had members of Congress ignore my interview requests and seen my Freedom of Information Act petitions go unanswered, so I’ve learned that sometimes former insiders are our only hope for getting information. Last week came news of yet another group of whistleblowers, a cadre of six government and non-government experts who served the National Transportation Safety Board when that independent federal agency investigated the explosion of a Boeing 747 off the coast of Long Island in July 1996. They are the protagonists of a new documentary, TWA Flight 800, that will air July 17 on EPIX-TV. After four years of investigation, the NTSB claimed the cause of Flight 800′s explosion was a mechanical defect, but the new documentary, written and directed by journalist Kristina Borjesson, claims the FBI, NTSB and other government agencies may have covered up that the plane was brought down by a missile strike. Participants in the film have called on the NTSB to reopen the case based on altered physical evidence, suppressed data, and unexamined testimony from hundreds of eyewitnesses.

Of course, in a healthy and functioning democracy, we shouldn’t need whistleblowers—government employees who uncover waste, fraud, or abuse would be supported straight through to the Oval Office. But many of us know better, especially when it comes to the airline industry. When my book, Attention All Passengers: The Airlines’ Dangerous Descent—and How to Reclaim Our Skies, was published last year and I thanked “the brave men and women who are Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation Security Administration, and airline whistleblowers,” I was not overstating their importance. These whistleblowers confirmed such problems as defective airline maintenance outsourcing, FAA oversight failures, TSA waste, and many other important findings.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/25/what-airline-whistleblowers-have-to-say-about-the-new-theory-on-flight-800/#ixzz2aMIxs3lJ

The author:

William J. McGee

William J. McGee is an aviation journalist and the author of Attention All Passengers: The Airlines’ Dangerous Descent – and How to Reclaim Our Skies, to be published on June 26, 2012. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation in 2010 chose McGee to be the lone consumer advocate on the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee. He also writes a monthly travel column for USAToday.com and has contributed to Condé Nast Traveler, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Money and New York. Prior to becoming a journalist, McGee spent nearly seven years in airline flight operations management; he is an FAA-licensed aircraft dispatcher and served in the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/contributor/william-j-mcgee/#ixzz2aMIMs97x

[cthulu2016]

1. Maybe it was shot down by ancient astronauts... or vaccines

[SoapBox]

2. ROFL

...exactly.

[chimpymustgo]

3. The author mentions the kneejerk rush to slam the movie, sight unseen. I look forward to seeing it.

-edit-

Although I’m not ready to support all the film’s premises, after watching the documentary, I believe there are enough smoking guns to warrant an unbiased reexamination. What surprises me, although I suppose it shouldn’t, is the rush to slam the movie sight unseen. Last week one major news site was in near hysterics about the documentary, employing the term “conspiracy” ten times and cattily referencing it “on an obscure cable channel,” yet stacking the deck by quoting biased sources. When I talked to the movie’s creator, Kristina Borjesson, she wasn’t surprised, noting that reexamining hot topics “discredits previous reporting.” She also defends her film’s witnesses by noting that several did speak out during the investigation, and one former NTSB accident investigator, Hank Hughes, even testified before Congress in 1999.

I also contacted John King, a former Eastern Air Lines mechanic turned whistleblower, and it turns out that he claims he was rebuffed when trying to present data supporting alternate theories to the FBI during the TWA 800 investigation. “The media have a long, sordid history of ignoring these events,” says King. It’s time that journalists and government officials alike recognize the best way to quell public doubts is to encourage further investigation. And let the results speak for themselves.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/25/what-airline-whistleblowers-have-to-say-about-the-new-theory-on-flight-800/#ixzz2aMMDOAAm

[think]

12. The documentary is by Kristina Borjesson, an Emmy award winning journalist

But now I guess anyone who can scream tin foil hat can discredit her without discussing the documentary based on it's merits....

[intaglio]

47. Being an award winner is no guarantee if accuracy or probity

Bob Woodward is a perfect example.

[burnodo]

5. kicking based solely on your nonsensical retort

[HappyMe]

7. I heard it was shot down

by vaccinated, kazoo playing aliens. Or maybe Decepticons.

[JackRiddler]

37. On cue with ignorant prattle.

The nice thing in it for you is you needn't waste time reading.

[cthulu2016]

46. Smug snark from conspiracy theorists comes with the territory

Conspiracy theorists magically know all sorts of thigs... like who has seen what, who reads what, who is ignorant of what, etc..

The only possible explanation for someone thinking X is crap is that they are ignorant.

A perfect, circular conspiracy mindset.

[Agschmid]

50. Yup.

[Archae]

4. Why this sudden interest in Flight 800?

I think I know.

When did it occur?
1996.

Who was President at the time?

[think]

10. WTF? Do you see Clinton's name mentioned anywhere?

[BootinUp]

6. This is classic conspiracy kookery, probably mixed with

some worthwhile information.

[think]

26. Are eyewitness claims by Air National Guard helicopter pilot, Major Fred Meyer

also just "kookery"?

There are over 200 other witnesses claiming to have seen this. How many eyewitnesses does one need post a topic for discussion and NOT have it be called TIN FOIL HAT conspiracy trash?

[cthulu2016]

35. No, but reliance on them IS kookery

Thousands of people seeing a rainbow does not support the theory that the rainbow is a bridge to Asgard.

I have never doubted that there was a real world phenomenon that had the appearance of a missile moving toward the plane.

It was widely reported the day of the crash, and was the basis for major new security restrictions on air travelers.

The original theory was a missile. The theory did not hold up.

[Agschmid]

51. Well said.

[MineralMan]

8. More CT stuff? We have a group for that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

General Discussion's SOP prohibits Conspiracy Theory stuff. Thanks.

[think]

9. Time magazine is now CT?

[MineralMan]

13. No. The article is. Time posts all sorts of stuff.

Time Ideas is for "provocative" stuff from all over the web.

[think]

14. And Kristina Borjesson; emmy award winning journalist; is now Alex Jones?

[MineralMan]

16. Nope. She is what she is.

There's money to be made in conspiracy theory stuff, no doubt about it.

[think]

17. So she's an award winning journalist tacitly dismissed as CT. Nice......

[MineralMan]

18. There are many awards in the journalism field.

I've won some of them, myself. They are meaningless, since they apply only to specific work considered for that award. Many journalists have done excellent work, only to follow that with crap on other occasions. An award guarantees nothing about future work.

[chimpymustgo]

20. NO. It's a documentary piecing together EVIDENCE by an award-winning filmmaker.

[MineralMan]

21. :shrug:

[chimpymustgo]

22. "There may be enough smoking guns to warrant reopening the investigation."

Why the hostility to re-opening the investigation? Why not answer the questions?

[MineralMan]

24. Classic CT phraseology.

"Why won't they tell us the truth? Why don't they investigate further?"

Same old bullshit. There was a 4-year investigation already. Conspiracy theorists never accept the results of investigations. It would spoil their fun (and money-making opportunities).

[chimpymustgo]

25. Still unclear why you're so threatened by it.

[MineralMan]

29. Threatened? Threatened how?

I'm merely annoyed by it. Very little threatens me.

[tumtum]

27. +1000.

It was thoroughly investigated by no less than the FBI, CIA, FAA, NTSB, who found NO evidence of a missile strike, moreover, the so called eyewitness accounts were shaky at best.
Pierre Salinger was humiliated over his insistence that this was a US Navy missile that shot the aircraft down.

[think]

28. Over 200 witnesses claim to have seen this including this guy:

Is this classic CT phraseology too?

[MineralMan]

30. Did he testify during the investigation?

There's a question to answer.

[think]

33. If you'd watched this video you'd know none of the witnesses were

allowed to testify even though ALL those witnesses reported this information to the FBI.

Thanks for playing....

[chimpymustgo]

53. The witnesses were NOT ALLOWED to testify. Yet a CIA "simulation" was inserted as the "truth."

Why wouldn't they let these WITNESSES even testify? Do you trust the CIA to "explain" this? Did you watch the video?

[Agschmid]

31. Please read the post above yours...

[cthulu2016]

38. A million would have seen it if a million had been looking

There was something to see. A real world phenomenon. That was not doubted at the time and I see no reason to doubt it today.

But if it was not a missile then it really doesn't matter how many people saw it.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

11. 8 + 0 + 0

equals 8.

In numerology, 8 has traits of drive, ambition, authority, efficiency, organization, management, discipline and control.

In conclusion:

[Logical]

15. Creative Speculation Shit. n-t

[reformist2]

19. This was a great case for those who love to trash eyewitness testimony.

[think]

23. Eyewitnesses like Air National Guard helicopter pilot, Major Fred Meyer:

[Agschmid]

32. Why are you reporting the same video?

I think once would have been enough for arguments sake...

[think]

34. Why is everyone screaming tin foil hat without watching it?

[Agschmid]

36. I watched it.

Witness accounts are unreliable... Do these people off the street understand the mechanics of aviation engineering? Yes the man in the video does but the others you mention... Likely not.

Could anyone off the street identify the differences in platform view of a 747 or an a340?

[think]

39. The ex military pilot didn't know what he saw?

wow.. OK.....

[Agschmid]

43. If you want people to watch your video...

It is only fair you read their posts... So I'll just copy and paste what I wrote and then bold the important part for you...

"Witness accounts are unreliable... Do these people off the street understand the mechanics of aviation engineering? Yes the man in the video does but the others you mention... Likely not."

[think]

45. If you believe 200 witnesses are not reliable then please don't watch the video...

[Agschmid]

48. Guess we are equally closed minded then...

I feel there is no way they are reliable... You feel there is no way they could not be.

Eyewitnesses are Unreliable

Stanford study... Also unreliable.

To be fair I also googled "eyewitnesses are reliable" ... Funny story here is the first link:



We are not going to agree but I understand your viewpoint, and how tough it is to see the other side.

[reformist2]

41. Eyewitness accounts are often quite reliable, especially when 200 see the same thing.

[Agschmid]

44. Did the 200 people talk first...

And no I don't mean a group huddle...

Were the witness accounts taken instantly without time for them to see something on the news and "tweak" their story? Or to talk to family members who may have "seen" the same thing?

Ever play a game of telephone?

[tumtum]

42. As did I.

It was all pure junk science, shaky eyewitness accounts, and speculative bullshit.

[reformist2]

40. His credibility is 1000x that of some gov't official who wasn't even there.

[Agschmid]

49. Hyperbole.

Call it as I see it.

[reformist2]

52. 100x?

[Logical]

54. And MANY other pilots saw NO MISSILE! Jesus, give it a rest. n-t

[think]

57. And evidence that the author of the documentary had was confiscated

Shame on her for getting evidence.....

[treestar]

56. Who or what had motive to shoot it down?

That corollary about the Razor applies.