SwiftVets.com

[Rdtf]

[manelly]

[shawa]

Apparently, some damning evidence (recovered parts of the plane) were
whisked away by the FBI, never to be seen again!

[Rdtf]

I can't tell if this is already here - my apologies if so -

The Jr. Senator from Mass. is quoted here:

[manelly]

Dick Morris also refers to Flt 800 as a terrorist act

Transcript segment from:
Show: FOX ON THE RECORD WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN>

Date: February 7, 2002

[SBD]

September 18, 1996, Wednesday
COMMITTEE HEARING

HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
HOLDS HEARING ON THE DOWNING REPORT OF THE BOMBING OF KHOBAR TOWERS NEAR DHAHRAN, SAUDI ARABIA


CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Shalikashvili, you know I consider you a friend and I also consider you a soldier because I've witnessed over the last couple of years your diligence to stay out of politics and take care of our troops and do what's right.

And I would say, General Downing, other than the Navy's going to kick your rear end in the next football game, that...

DOWNING: It will be the first time in four years or five years if that happens, I might add.

(LAUGHTER)

CUNNINGHAM: We're due, sir. We're due.

But let me just say that the tactical changes that you're making, I think are noteworthy and I think from the administration. But I think we're a country that where we should be controlling the flow of the river instead of swimming upstream.

And let me be specific.

First of all, there is a fundamentalist mood not just in Bosnia and Europe and Russia and Turkey and the United States that I don't feel that we're meeting adequately, that -- just like the drug program that, in my opinion, the administration has grossly not overseen to the problems worldwide that where you're talking about tactics and you talk about that first of all that the sanctions against Iran and Iraq -- I mean, they're still full speed.

CUNNINGHAM: That's not enough. And it's like saying that, "Well, we're going to stop interdiction for drugs and that's going to make it go away."

There's a much bigger picture, and I know all of you realize that.

But I've got a book here that lists by name many of the terrorist that are still in Bosnia today from Hamas and mujaheddin, from Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan and so on. While you got a few hundred of them that were escorted out after the Dayton accord, you still have Islamic fundamentalist units in Bosnia.

And just like TWA 800, the arms that the president sent there that violated the agreement the Congress made and sent arms to Bosnia -- I just had the delegation from Yugoslavia in the back room -- those arms are going to end up all over Europe, and they're going to end up against the United States. From the Hamas, from the mujaheddin. And the things like TWA are going to escalate in this country because of our policies, and that's why I say you're swimming upstream.

Secondly is that I see a bigger picture and a real problem. Russia today, if Yeltsin fell, is scared together of the fundamentalist and Islamic movement within their country. You look at Turkey. They're going toward fundamentalism.

You look at a lot of areas, even in our own country with Farrakhan trying to accept a billion dollars from Libya. I mean, those are real problems that we're not addressing.

And what you're trying to do is great. But when you've got a dam bursting, trying to swim upstream and maybe put a little dam isn't going to work.

There is a whole movement out there against Christianity, against Israel, and against the west. And unless we really adhere to that, I think we're in big trouble. And our little efforts that we're trying to make tactically, we're going to be in big trouble.

You talk about training. You know, I talked to Captain O'Grady. You know, when you talk about the superior training. The Air Force doesn't have F-16s now in its adversary program. It's flying -- the 64th and 65th are gone. The only adversary we have in the Navy now is Top Gun. And you know what we're flying instead of F-16s, simulating Su-29 and MiG-29 and Su-27? Pre-Vietnam A-4s and F-5s because of the Defense cuts.

The president is looking at adding $6.5 billion in spending to let us -- pull us out of hostage, the Congress. but out of that $6.5 billion, he wants $3.5 billion out of Defense, General Shalikashvili.

And I know in your own accords, you know, the modernization and everything, but these are the things that we really need to look at.

And I laud Secretary Perry for your work overseas and these things, but unless we look at this thing in a bigger picture, we're going to be in deep trouble in this country.

CUNNINGHAM: And focus on it, we know where a lot of those folks are. We could have still had sanctions on Saddam Hussein, we'd still be there. Until we really start getting tough on these things, I think.

But I look at things even like the shoot down of the helicopters and who took the heat for that, the air crews, the F-15s. But yet it was the United Nations that didn't coordinate with AWACS, didn't coordinate with the helicopters, didn't coordinate with the F-15 drivers. And did the UN take a heat for it, no. You lost some of your good military guys that are professionals that sit out there and fight for this.

And I would just ask you to expand this and take a look because both in our training, the moral of the armed forces. And I don't care what you say, I talk to these kids everyday, including Admiral Boorda that we lost -- who was a good friend of all of us.

I think we've got a bigger problem here but I laud you for attacking that portion of the puzzle, but it's just one piece in the puzzle, sir. Thank you.

SBD

[FreeFall]

I just remember something I read in Yossef Bodansky's book, Bin Laden, the Man who Declared war on America. This book was published in 1999 by the way. I found this blurb at http://hometown.aol.com/missiletwa800/claims.htm

Perhaps you should read Yossef Bodansky's book - "bin Laden - The Man who Declared War on America". Bodansky is the Director of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and in this capacity is a key advisor to the highest echelons of the U.S. Government. In his book Bodansky writes that there were two key events "on the eve" of the TWA 800 downing.

First he describes an editorial in the London Islamist paper 'al-Quds al-Arabi' that spelled out the reasons behind the escalating terrorist attacks on the United States which concluded by mentioning the bombings in Riyadh and Khobar as the beginning of these attacks. The editor of al-Quds al-Arabi, Abdul-Bari Atwan, is personally close to Osama bin Laden.

Bodansky indicates that the second key event was a fax received by al-Hayah in London through al-Safir in Beirut in which on July 16 the Islamic Change Movement - the Jihad Wing in the Arabian Peninsula took credit for both the Riyadh and Khobar Towers bombings . A warning was then issued by the same group on July 17 stating that "the mujahideen will give their harshest reply to the threats of the foolish U.S. President. Everybody will be surprised by the magnitude of the reply. ... The invaders must be prepared to leave, either dead or alive. Their time is at the morning-dawn. Is not the morning-dawn near?". TWA 800 exploded in the early morning in the United Kingdom. On July 18, this group issued a statement accepting responsibility for the TWA 800 downing. The leaders the Islamic Change Movement had participated in a June 1996 terrorist planning meeting held in Tehran and on July 20, 1996 it attended a follow-up conference in Tehran in which the Islamic Change Movement was singled out for "recent achievements".

We can guess what the "recent achievements" were!

[FreeFall]

Also remembered this, found at http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/13/twa800.htm. This is by the late great Willam S. Donaldson III, USN Cmdr. He was a critic of the official TWA 800 investigation as well.

4. When Mr. Clinton signed the Iran, Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, a decision was made by the Iranian Supreme Council to approve attacks on major American targets. Terrorist surrogate groups from nine countries were summoned to Tehran to meet with Iranian officials in June of 1996. Later that month, a huge truck bomb was deployed against the US Air Force barracks complex at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Three weeks later, TWA Flight 800 was shot down only hours after an explicit warning of an attack was received in London and Washington that taunted the President.

See above for info about the warnings.

[shawa]

THIS IS AMAZING!!
This gentleman nails it!! He's got the goods on the government coverup!!
He is a USN Retired Aviation Mishap Analyst, who knows from which he speaks and it appears to me that he must have had some whistleblowers supplying leads and evidence!!

He wrote the following letter to Boeing and TWA: (emphasis mine)

[SBD]

May 13, 1997, Tuesday
NEWS CONFERENCE

WEBWIRE-HOLDS NEWS CONFERENCE TO REPEAT HIS ASSERTION THAT TWA FLIGHT 800 WAS SHOT DOWN BY A MISSILE

SPEAKER:
PIERRE SALINGER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY

LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C.

FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY AND OTHERS HOLD A NEWSCONFERENCE ON THE DOWNING OF FLIGHT TWA 800

SPEAKERS: PIERRE SALINGER, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST AND FORMER PRESS SECRETARY TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

JAMES SANDERS, AUTHOR, THE DOWNING OF TWA FLIGHT 800

GLEN SCHULZE, AVIATION RADAR EXPERT

PAUL DINAS, KENSINGTON PUBLISHING CORP.

DINAS: Thanks for coming this afternoon. I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Paul Dinas. I'm the editor in chief of Kensington Books, the publisher of The Downing of TWA Flight 800. And we'd like to welcome you here today to cover this event.

We called this press conference today in response to what we believe is the ongoing efforts by the federal government to cover up the truth about what really happened in the tragic air disaster that caused the deaths of 230 innocent people nearly one year ago aboard Flight TWA 800.

We believe that a missile brought down TWA Flight 800. And The Downing of TWA by Jim Sanders is the first book-length work that has seriously analyzed all the available data in support of the missile theory.


The author, Jim Sanders, has been stalked by federal agencies. His journalistic privilege to protect his sources has been jeopardized and threatened, his evidence confiscated. His publisher was subpoenaed by the FBI for documents relating to the book.


National media venues have been canceled at the last minute because the federal authorities have refused to participate with Sanders in an honest discussion of the facts.


Disinformation and intimidation by the FBI and other agencies have prevented the truth to be revealed to the American people -- until now, until the publication of The Downing of TWA Flight 800.


Today, Jim Sanders is here to answer questions. He is joined by Pierre Salinger, one of the earliest and strongest voices in support of the missile theory, and Glen Schulze, aviation radar tape expert and a former Defense Department consultant who has studied the data available on TWA Flight 800 extensively.


What we'd like to do today is to have each of these men give a brief statement and then open up the floor for questions.


There are books and supporting documentation on the far table back there, which you are welcome to take with you. And I'd like to introduce now Jim Sanders, the author of The Downing of TWA Flight 800.


SANDERS: I'm here primarily to answer questions. And originally, when this was called, it was to go over the FAA radar tapes. But since the photos have -- the NTSB photos -- have started coming out of the right and left side of Flight 800 here, I think I brought enough technical information along to bore most of you and answer some serious questions to others after this is over.


I would like to -- one of the things I hope people would like to talk to me about when we're answering questions are the eight pages from the TAGS report that are not addressed. These -- everything that feel off the plane before the center wing tank exploded -- are not addressed in the government's own sequencing report.


The plane went 4,700 feet with this stuff falling off it, with seats over these three rows right here going out the left side of the plane, not the right side of the plane, proving as a for instance, this hole right here was a later happening because if this hole during the decompression had opened up, of course, you would have had bodies,
seats, and cabin debris coming out both sides of the plane when it -- for the first eight second -- it came out exclusively from the left side of the plane.


And the other things that need to be pointed out -- when you look at this, you will notice that surrounding the center wing tank here the catastrophic event that's supposed to have started everything is nothing but what looks like white tags. They're actually green tags, which means it fell at the last.


It was among the last debris to fall -- not among the first debris to fall.


If you look down here towards the bottom, the one hole that's not addressed in this entire thing -- down here, surrounding it are red tags from the R-2 (ph) door right here down to here where this hole is -- those were the initial things to fall off the airplane.


And then in front of that is the yellow tags where the front end of the plane -- eight seconds into the breakup -- finally left the body of the aircraft.


Those kinds of things are what I would hope to be answering after we get done talking about the radar tapes.



SANDERS: Thank you.


DINAS: Glen Schulze, a radar tape expert, has a brief statement about the radar tape material.


SCHULZE: These are the famous nine video radar frame images that were published in the Paris Match magazine in March 13 of this year. And I'm going to base most of my remarks on these nine frames plus the statement from the FBI, Mr. Kallstrom, that occurred eight days later on the 21st of March regarding the analysis of these frames. In fact, he actually used some of these frames to analyze what happened that night.


In order to fully analyze these nine frames, you need to know -- you need to have a road map of what these symbols mean. And that's where I'm going to be critical of the FBI's analysis, because they apparently did not have the correct symbology.


It took me a little while to find the correct symbols. I know the FAA and the NTSB have Web sites, which have interesting information on what's happening inside their agencies. So I thought I could quickly go there and find symbologies that would help me figure out what a forward-stroke bar meant, which Mr. Kallstrom calls a "cigar," and what the other symbols meant.


I had to finally resort to a public bookstore, Barnes and Noble in Denver, and this is a book by Mr. Paul Illman, who's an ex-TWA employee, just by happenstance, entitled "Aeronautical Knowledge" -- third edition -- "A Pilot's Handbook."


On page 289, you have the two most common air traffic controller radar screen symbologies and their definitions. They describe the five different type target symbols and they describe the various alpha-numeric codes that are affixed to those symbols.


With this chart -- with this symbology chart, which by the way, I've checked with Mr. Illman before I arrived, before I left for this meeting, and he assures me that he's working on a current edition, which will be the fourth out of this series, and that these charts are correct. These charts come straight from the FAA library.


Eight days after those nine frames were displayed in the Paris Match magazine, James Kallstrom made the following statement. He said that the "blip belonged to an unarmed Navy P-3 Orion that was flying at 20,000 feet, with the knowledge of the air traffic controllers, but without a working transponder."


"Without a working transponder" turns out to be a symbol of a single dot or a small cross for the FAA's own symbology chart. The symbol that Mr. Kallstrom was referring to was a forward stroke. A forward stroke symbol means that the plans has a beacon transponder, exactly opposite to what Mr. Kallstrom said.


Secondly, he said it was flying with the air traffic controllers' knowledge. The forward stroke also indicates an uncorrelated target. "Uncorrelated" means the air traffic controllers have no previous knowledge of the flight plan of that tape -- of that plane. So Mr. Kallstrom is wrong on both accounts.


He further goes on and says, "when your transponder is not on, it shows on the radar screen as a solid line." That is not correct. It shows on as a dot or a small cross.


Now, the -- up to this point, this is a factual challenge to the information developed from the Paris Match frames now. This is Mr. Kallstrom analyzing the Paris Match frames. In that process, I think he validates the Paris Match frames, as well as the geometrical analysis that I have performed on the images from that tape plus another tape.


Based on this, we think the whole question of the radar tapes from TWA 800 needs to be critically reviewed. Thank you, Paul.



DINAS: Then we have Pierre Salinger to make a brief statement.


SALINGER: Thank you. I just want to add a few things on the radar tape situation, because what Mr. Schulze is saying is of high importance, because when Richard Russell got the radar tape, he brought in three specialists, who were radar specialists, to look at that tape and to give him information that he had in his mind that he was seeing a missile on that tape and that that missile was touching TWA 800. The E-3 specialist confirmed what he had told him.


And the second thing that was interesting that happened was when Richard Russell came to Europe to join us, we were preparing our work for the Paris Match. Obviously, we had our -- I mean, I had my first look at the radar tape, and we were studying it. And then, of course, we brought Paris Match in to see the tape. And we allowed them to photograph almost every four seconds pieces of that tape.


I mean, this is part of what Mr. Schulze is showing you. But they have probably 55 or 60 photos that are very important that show what's going on.


But what was interesting was that they said, listen, before we publish this, we've got to get a French radar specialist to take a look at this tape, because we want to confirm it from our standpoint, from our side, what you're saying that this is a missile going up in this tape. He brought in this fellow. We said, fine.


He brought in this radar specialist. He looked at it for about 45 minutes, and he says, listen, everything that these guys are saying is absolutely true. That's why Paris Match went forward on publishing this whole thing, which has played a very important role.


And as Mr. Schulze has told you, the fact that the FBI has been saying that what we're saying about it is wrong -- I hate to say this -- but what they're saying is wrong, and what we're saying is right, is what's seen on this radar tape.


I just want to tell you one kind of weird story, because it's one that could very well happen in the United States as well. I don't know how many of you know something that happened in 1969.


There was a young man. And I know his -- it's not his mother, because she's not married to his father, but she knew him. And what happened is that he in November was in Corsica, and he went on a flight to Nice, because he wanted to see some friends.


The flight was about halfway across the Mediterranean when it exploded, and it plunged into the sea. Obviously, it plunged much deeper into the sea than TWA 800.


Of course, people in France were very interested. How did this happen? How did this happen? It went on year after year after year after year. And ten years later, the French government came out with a report saying, ah, we apologize. We forgot to tell you that we shot that plane down with a missile.


Let's hope it's not going to take ten years to find out the truth about TWA 800.


DINAS: OK. I'd like to open the floor for questions. And if it gets to be too crazy, I'll moderate.


QUESTION: Mister -- I'm sorry -- Schulze, if you're an expert on radar tapes -- and I don't even know if, you know, it's proper to get into a debate over technicalities that nobody in this room's a specialist in. But if you're an expert on radar tapes -- which by the way, is not reflected on your resume -- why do you need public literature to find out symbolism?



QUESTION: What exactly is your background? Your resume indicates you did some telemetry work and some sonar expertise.


SCHULZE: And...


QUESTION: And secondly, a two part -- you know, they were saying a lot of other things also that don't indicate this was a missile, that all these things are far apart and were overlaid.


SCHULZE: Let me answer the resume question first, and then we'll come back to the second question. In the mid-1950s, right after graduating with a degree in electrical engineering, I was -- found myself stationed at the courtesy of the U.S. Army in a White Sands missile range.


At that point in time, my assignment was a -- my MOS was 1394, which stands for electronic engineering assistant. My task at that point was debugging a chain radar system network which had over-the- horizon capability.


This was at White Sands, New Mexico. And if you're familiar with the White Sands range, that range is 90 miles long. If you're launching from the main camp C station, and you're trying to lock a radar on it up at Oscara (ph) Peak -- which is 90 miles away -- your radar antennas will be pointed into the desert floor about 100 yards in front of the site.


As the missile is launched, the radar at C station will track it because it has the closest range. It's radar coordinates were digitized. This is back in 1953. Digital radar data was transmitted by microwave to five uprange stations -- Alamogordo, Oscara (ph) Peak, and North Oscara (ph) Peak, and South Oscara (ph) Peak.


The chain network functioned to automatically reposition the upbringing stations on target through this digital radar system. When the system was installed, it did not work for the first two years.


The system was finally debugged by seven corporals in the U.S. Army. And these seven corporals all received letters of commendation from the commanding officer of the 4th Army. I was the lead engineer in that team of seven corporals.


In the mid-1970s, I was invited to the FAA engineering facility in Atlantic City to see if it was possible to digitally record the radar images from controller screens. This is 20 years ago, 1975.


The -- that invitation was extended to three different companies. I was the lead application engineer on one. We went in and spent about four weeks that summer connecting to their equipment and playing back tapes, as did the other two vendors.


All three vendors passed the test. A procurement speck was written with my help and was to come forth as a publication from the FAA as a request to quote. Three months passed, no request to quote. Six months passed, no request to quote. Nine months passed, no request to quote.


When we finally got to the lead engineer, and said, what's happened to your request to quote for these record -- recorder systems. We were looking to sell hundreds of them. He said the attorneys inside the FAA thought it was not a good idea to have a tape recording record of what the controllers were seeing during an incident.


From that time on, I've had other radar stints (ph), but I'll just let it with those two. Now, I don't -- didn't quite follow your other question about overlays and things.


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) even granting what you're saying is correct -- whatever -- are you saying that that indicates either that the government was wrong in its interpretation, or based on your expertise, that that shows there was a missile there?


SCHULZE: The only expertise it took for me to find out that the FBI was falsely interpreting those symbols was to not be intimidated by the question of looking at radar tapes, which I was dying to see because I had hoped that they would be doing that back in 1975 for the public safety.



SCHULZE: So all I did was take the symbols in the standard FR -- FAA manuals and see how they interpreted, along with what Kallstrom had said, and he was exactly mistaken. He was confusing non-beaconed target blips with beaconed target blips.


Now, if that is not understandable, then we have no hope, then, to convey this to the public. When you can't tell the difference between a target that is doing an electronic handshake with the FAA ground station and one that is, and you can't tell a correlated one from an uncorrelated one, you can't analyze those tapes.


QUESTION: Does that mean the government's wrong? Are you saying that that shows there's a missile?


SCHULZE: To me, it shows that the whole question of how deeply have those radar tapes been analyzed is up for grabs. Now, let me give you another little philosophy of mine on what I think this means. It means that the original explanation that Kallstrom gave on the 21st of March successfully erased from people's memories and from the table the question of what two FAA controllers said the night of the 17th and the morning of the 18th of July.


On the 17th of -- the evening of the 17th, one of the FAA controllers was quoted in the press as saying, "There was a mysterious blip that merged with TWA 800." The next morning, a call was received at one of the NTSB offices by an FAA controller -- both of these were out of the New York control center. He was the first one to use the word missile in this story, as I go back and look at my information. He was quoted as saying to the NTSB, there is evidence that TWA may have been hit by a missile.


Now, all I'm doing with my radar analysis is bringing these two statements back on the table, because Kallstrom's explanation of the Paris Match frames does not carry any water with me.


QUESTION: I really don't want to be argumentative, but every time we write one of these stories, and it's denied by the government, all the families call us up, and say, why are you putting you through this torture again? And you're -- once again, I just want to make it clear -- I'm here in part because you were identified as a radar expert. And by your own admission, you know, you've had very limited experience in radar. And your knowledge and analysis is based on some public document.


I mean, so -- how would -- what do you say to the families? I don't think it's fair to say you are a radar expert.


SCHULZE: I appreciate your comments about the family. Before I made this trip, I talked with John and Eleanor Seaman, who are members of one of the TWA families. And they told me that when conferences like this are held, it is tough on the TWA families. But I had to make a decision, what's tougher? To let this go on and on for ten months without a resolution.


Now, what's your definition of a radar expert?


QUESTION: I would think it was somebody who doesn't have to go to a public library to get out a book, somebody who could look at a radar screen and identify what's going on by itself.


SCHULZE: Well, I was suspicious before I went to the library. But when I come to a press conference, I want to be prepared with something that is not challengeable. Now, isn't it the subject, why did Mr. Kallstrom identify these targets as not having their beacons turned on when the frames he's analyzing clearly have them? Isn't that the subject? To me, that's the subject.


Now, as regarding the definition of an expert -- let me help you out with a definition here. I think if you take a cut of the public, and you have, say, 100,000 people -- just people walking around on the street -- I think I would rank at the top of those 100,000 people in being able to look at these charts, convert these charts into terminologies that I think you people can understand.


So in that regard I think I don't need to be a radar designer, but I need to understand radar, and I need not to be intimidated when I see these frames come to me in Paris Match.


Yes.


QUESTION: Do these frames show a missile?


SCHULZE: I can't say that. The first time I used missile in my explanation was when I quoted the FAA controller who called in the next day and said, a missile may have struck TWA 800.



SCHULZE: All I'm saying is that that statement plus the previous statement the night before that a target -- a mysterious target -- merged with TWA should be brought back on the table. They have not been explained.


QUESTION: Do these frames show a mysterious target?


SCHULZE: This frame shows mysterious, unidentified targets, yes.


QUESTION: Did you listen to the cockpit voice recorders (OFF- MIKE)?


SCHULZE: No, I have not.


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE).


SCHULZE: Sure.


QUESTION: I've had long conversations with the captain down there in Florida that released this original...


SCHULZE: Captain Russell.


QUESTION: Right. And I'm a retired Navy commander, and I've got a lot of experience with radar and a lot of experience with missiles.


What he told me -- just to relieve the assault on your position here -- I'm very much convinced it was a missile because what I -- what I got from that conversation was that he showed three consecutive skin paint radar returns on an unidentified object, airborne, that was traveling faster than Mach 1.


Anything else -- now, is that your view? Do you agree with what...


SCHULZE: Yes. I agree with that.


QUESTION: OK. Now, unless we had a pair of supersonic airliner arriving at New York, putting the brakes on in seconds, there was something out there travelling that fast. And anybody in this room that doesn't believe that, they need to go into the science books.


And I'll tell you something else, scientifically. That airplane did not blow up at 13,800 feet from that tank. It's a physical impossibility. If you do -- if you go into the math, the tank temperature has to be at 138 degrees Fahrenheit in order to get the vapor pressure that's explosive.



We're being led down a primrose path by the government. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion that you gentlemen have come to here, but I think the airplane was shot down. I think all those eyewitnesses that saw it saw exactly what they would see with a successful engagement of a surface-to-air missile. I don't think the...


QUESTION: Excuse me, could I ask a question please? If we could return to the press conference, can I ask Mr. Sanders a question?


On this fifth item in the sequence -- sixth item in the sequence of events about the vibration travelling at 2,000 feet per second -- travelled through the 747's frame. A bomb vibration travels at less than 350 feet per second.


Could you explain how you came to that conclusion, whether you are -- what you are measuring? Whether you're measuring cabin air or whether you're measuring -- how do you know the difference, and how do you know how fast the bomb vibration travels?


SANDERS: Because the investigators who went to the meeting and went through this process in January, I had sources on the inside who gave me the analysis that was given to them that night as they went through the entire process. And what he...


QUESTION: There's no proof from an engineering standpoint how you calculate the speed of sound being transferred through aluminum...


SANDERS: No, I don't know. I'm not an engineer. I'm getting from them, on the inside, as they were advised of this at a meeting in Washington, DC. What was explained to me as a layman is you do have sound waves going through the air versus vibrations going through the frame and that through the frame is by far the faster.


QUESTION: Right.


SANDERS: And I was told that it was measured at 2,000 feet per second. And that was, you know, that was a round figure, obviously. And the question was, well, what would it be if it was a bomb? And they said, less than 350. My recollection is they said 340 feet per second, of which there's considerable experience.


QUESTION: In other words, the source of the noise changes the rate at which it moves through the -- through the frame of the airplane? Is that what you're saying?


SANDERS: The source of the noise -- well, I would imagine that the incident...


QUESTION: ... The cockpit voice recorder captures the sound.


SANDERS: Right.


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) it captures vibration. The source of the vibration, whether it was a bomb or whether it was something physically striking the frame, changes the speed at which that (OFF- MIKE)...



SANDERS: (OFF-MIKE) I was advised two things. One is that the actual -- sorry about that, whoever that is -- the actual sound itself was an unique sound that had never been heard before.



SANDERS: And that the speed of the vibration was something that they had never encountered before.


QUESTION: Speed meaning its frequency?


SANDERS: No, feet per second.


QUESTION: Well, how do you know what that was?


SANDERS: I was told that by people after they came back from...


QUESTION: How did they know what that was?


SANDERS: (OFF-MIKE) they were the ones at the meeting going over it.


QUESTION: And these are government people, you say?


SANDERS: Yes, these are investigators inside the investigation that were there. They specifically went down to Washington, DC, for a briefing. There were more than 20 of them. Some of this is been out in public, because you get more than 20 investigators who aren't in a particularly good mood anyway, from what I was told, and some of this -- part of this did end up in the press earlier. But the 2,000 feet per second, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't.


QUESTION: Why hasn't the audio version of the cockpit voice recorder been released?


SANDERS: I could only guess at that. If it had been released, then independent analysis could be done on this very question. Now, whether it's going to be released, I don't know.


QUESTION: Has TWA, in any way, directly or indirectly, encouraged you or paid for any one of you or your associates for any research that's being conducted in your book?


SANDERS: I can only speak for myself. Absolutely not.


SCHULZE: Absolutely not. No.


QUESTION: Mr. Schulze, don't you work for a firm that specializes in airplane (OFF-MIKE)?


SCHULZE: No, I do not.


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE).



SCHULZE: Kirtland (ph) Packard is a law firm in Los Angeles that I did some previous aviation accident work for.


QUESTION: They're the leading aviation negligence firm on the West Coast?


SCHULZE: It is. Do I work for them? I did two small investigations of aviation accidents in California for them. That last one was five years ago.


DINAS: Would you mind if I jumped in here for a second? It might be useful to show -- to give a track on how Glen actually came to be here today. I mean, it's a very useful story, and it's something that relates directly to this whole controversy.


Glen was, you know -- is an expert, and he wrote to Jim Sanders via our company. He did a detailed 5-7 page report on his own -- on his own motivation relating to this radar issue. It came to Jim through our publicity department, and that's how we got in contact with Glen. Glen is -- was a concerned citizen, as we all are, very concerned about that this information that's being promulgated by the government sources. And that's why he contacted us, and as a result, he is here today. So I just want to lay that on the table now. Thanks.


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Mr. Sanders, I saw three or so reports over the weekend about how the government's trying to wrap this thing up. Not one of the reports mentioned the eyewitnesses who saw either a missile or a streak of light going towards the plane. How do you think the government is going to discredit those accounts?


SANDERS: I think they're going to try to ignore them, and unless you people of the press force them to address each and every one of them, they can simply ignore it, because there's much more than what you've just said.


First of all, those areas went hot -- those military areas south and east of Long Island went hot that night, and they lied about it. They told Dave Hendricks, who got a heads up from a Navy -- long-time Navy source of his, within 72 hours that those areas -- it was specifically, this Navy source said, W-105 -- had gone hot that night and friendly fire had brought the plane down.


So Dave immediately called up the FBI and the Navy, and asked them about it. And they said, well, no, nothing of any consequence was going on that night. After that, the FAA -- someone inside the FAA gave Dave the documents proving that those areas went hot that night. He calls up the Navy and says: I'm going to fax you these documents. I want a comment. And the Navy said: if you send them, we will throw them away. We will not comments. Call the FBI.



SANDERS: The FBI, Kallstrom's PR man, whose name escapes me -- it starts with a "V" -- told him the exact same thing.


So it starts with that night, with those things being hot. Those are key questions. There was the 34 highly credible -- that's the government's own word. Their military missile experts interviewed the 154 people who came forward. They said these are 34 highly credible witnesses that saw a missile come rise out of the ocean and strike Flight 800.


And you, of course, have Chris Bauer. In my mind, it should have been front page news across America when Chris Bauer, captain in the 106th Air National Guard -- finally, the information that I have known about from the inside from the investigators that we had as sources had -- apologized for that -- had -- for months, I had known that Chris Bauer had said that he saw a missile going east to west, and he saw it impact Flight 800. That finally came out through an "Aviation Week" story through an interview with Major Meyer (ph) who was in the plane at same time. And it...


QUESTION: The co-pilot said the opposite. Could you explain that?


SANDERS: His co-pilot -- his co-pilot said he took his eye off the ball. He did not see anything impact Flight 800.


QUESTION: The co-pilot gave a completely contradictory account.


(UNKNOWN): They both said there was something streaking towards the plane, then striking it.


(UNKNOWN): It was the direction that was contrary.


SANDERS: Right. That -- that -- you know, whether it was east to west or west to east, Captain Bauer saw it the whole time in. Major Meyer (ph), by his own admission -- and I've gone back and listened to that tape again, because they -- Meyer (ph) was asked about it within 24 hours on tape. Bauer didn't -- was not asked anything about it at that time. And it's only this where it's come out.


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) that's the problem. I mean, you're a wonderful guy and it's fun talking to you, but you talk about Bauer and you leave Meyer (ph) out. I mean, you have two guys sitting in the same plane, looking in the same direction, and they both report contrary things. And you chose to talk about...


SANDERS: There's 34 highly credible witnesses who say the same thing as Bauer. And Bauer is the one who, to this day, cannot talk to the press. So I think that's highly relevant. Meyer can (ph); Bauer can't. I think you all know what his story is.


I mean, it's not like we're hiding that one. I mean, that one's been out there for a long time. We're just trying to put out what is being said by Bauer.


(UNKNOWN): They both saw a streak of light.


SALINGER: I want to add to this. This is one of the most important things on this case. Now, we have documents on some of these people who have given their evidence on the missiles that are going up. I think that the Senate Intelligence Committee could start next week and have hearings and bring in those people who have been hidden away by the government and let them testify before the public and explain what they saw and what happened at that very night.


And bring in other witnesses who have also disappeared. Let's go this into a big event and have the Senate Intelligence Committee do a study.


QUESTION: Mr. Salinger, are you being paid anything by Kensington Publishers, or Mr. Schulze, for that matter?


SALINGER: Not a word. I haven't been paid by anybody to do this investigation. I'm doing it for myself. Oh, wait a minute. I have to tell you the truth. I did get paid a little bit by Paris Match. Not very much.


QUESTION: Mr. Salinger, which witnesses have disappeared?


SALINGER: Well, I'm not going to talk about those witnesses that disappeared. But if the Senate Intelligence Committee comes up tomorrow morning, I'll give them the names.


SCHULZE: I'm not being paid by Kensington Press. They have picked up my expenses.


QUESTION: I've got a question here, Mr. Schulze. I'm sorry I missed your presentation. Maybe you've already covered this. But can one of you tell us what the qualifications are of James Hall to be an aircraft accident investigator?



SCHULZE: All I can say is he's a political appointee, and that's the only comment I have.


SANDERS: I'm not aware of his qualifications in that or Kallstrom's either for that matter.


QUESTION: Well, what could I haul up -- he sent a letter to the FAA asking them to agree that there was no evidence of a missile. Have you talked about that, the FAA (OFF-MIKE) prior to that letter?


SANDERS: No, that hasn't been discussed yet.


QUESTION: Will you discuss that, because I think here's the NTSB meeting leaning on the FAA to say that the radar tape shows no missile, and the FAA apparently did not go along with that.


SANDERS: It is a rather interesting series. You have the NTSB chairman's report of November 15 that says that the FAA technicians at the scene analyzed it and believed that a missile intercepted Flight 800's path, and that information was first sent to the White House.


On December 26 -- and also there was an assignment given out for an NTSB person to write a letter to the FAA and at that -- the letter is just incredible in terms of it -- to paraphrase it -- and I don't think you'll find any disagreement on that. It says, here's what we want you to say, ain't nothing to this whole thing. And the significant part of the response is that the technicians will not go along with it. They clearly wouldn't go along with it.


I strongly believed that they would have gotten that statement if the technicians themselves, the FAA technicians, would have said, OK, we'll go along with it. But they didn't. So it is really an extraordinary series of letters.


QUESTION: What in your view is the government's motive for engaging in this cover-up and threatening of witnesses and the disappearance of witnesses? Is it connected to the Whitewater?


(LAUGHTER)


I mean, what is happening here?


SANDERS: In terms of threats, I can only discuss myself and my wife. And after that, it went to the White House. Their own documents -- and the FAA has backed this up in their documents. It went to the White House. It entered the political realm. It certainly entered the national security realm, and that will be the last question that can possibly answered in this entire investigation.



SCHULZE: The question about letters being exchanged back and forth between the NTSB and the FAA -- the FAA responding letter, which was just described by Mr. Sanders, also had a recognition that the controllers that night were very stressed out because they had seen what they thought was almost a near miss. Now, I haven't seen this in any of the U.S. presses -- that along with all of the other clouds we have hanging over TWA 800, we now have the controllers saying that there was almost a near miss that night.


Now, those of you that read the West Coast papers will know that last week over in Los Angeles two jumbo jets -- one a 747 that had just spent 10 hours in the air coming from Amsterdam, KLM, and another jumbo jet, an (OFF-MIKE), coming from Japan; total of 754 people on board -- showed up as a near miss on a controller's screen, and they went into orbit, as reported by their lead technician. These things are important.


By the way, these two planes came -- later, by analyses, came to within an estimated 200 to 400 feet of each other both trying to land on one of the same runways -- one of the parallel runways in Los Angeles. So radar blips do merge on radar screens, and they do mean something.


QUESTION: What would this show? I mean, if you were to prove that there was, that a missile was fired at a TWA flight, what would it show?



QUESTION: And why would the government be so interested in hiding this?


SANDERS: I think the "why" question cannot be answered until everything is on the table. I just don't see any possible way -- I wish I had a National Security Council source; I don't. Even then, I'm not sure you'd get the entire thing, because when politics and national security all come together, outside-the-Beltway logic doesn't apply. I challenge anybody to seriously question that.


So trying to use everyday logic to figure out why on earth people do the things that they do in this element, this realm, I just don't think it can be done at this point.


QUESTION: You say in your book that the Navy was testing its state-of-the-art Aegis system, and that when the missile was fired at a drone plane, that the radar just froze or locked. If this was the -- you said this was the pride and joy of the U.S. Navy, this particular system. Well, how could it all of a sudden just freeze?


SANDERS: Well, it's an extraordinary program. It started informally back in the '80s when the Vincennes shot down the wide-body Iranian airliner and one of our destroyers or cruisers was hit accidentally by an Exocet missile. An awful lot of thinking and preparation went into that, and I understand that actually they've been working on something like this at some level since the 1950s.


But it is quite a program for the future. We assume -- the Navy through its literature and the Army and the Air Force -- they assume that we are going to have combat in shallow waters such as the Arabian Sea. And right now, without the protection of a radar and software system -- because the software system controls the radars, and it makes the decision on the shoot, don't shoot, and even which ship...


(AUDIO GAP)


... before they could sign it off for combat. And that included the electronic jamming. That included launch of a drone over land clutter. It included having civilian aircraft within range of the radar. And it included having our military aircraft in a situation where the radar then had to -- and the software then had to be able to distinguish between the bad guys, the friendlies and the commercials.


And all of these things were there that night. That's why I point at the CEC (ph). It had to have been signed off by September, and that's why that's in there.


QUESTION: But what went wrong? I mean, you're saying this is the pride and joy of the U.S. Navy. (OFF-MIKE) system is practically foolproof. And then, all of a sudden, this one night it just freezes?


SANDERS: Well, I don't think I said it was foolproof. I hope someday that it is foolproof, because it's something that's going to save an awful lot of lives. No question about that. But what in fact happened -- it didn't freeze. I mean, you add new elements to each test to get more and more realistic for combat. And if you launch that missile and you lose your radars from electronic jamming, you've lost control of your missiles under combat conditions.


So -- yes.


QUESTION: I heard a story the other day. I'm sorry I wasn't paying very much attention to it, but maybe you can clear it up. It had something to do with a material that was found amongst the remains of Flight 800 that someone said may have been the remnants of missile fuel, and perhaps, the government response was something about it being glue for the seats.


SANDERS I think that's one of the controversies that I think we -- we definitely need congressional hearings. I received -- I did not go steal it, and I did not conceal it; a couple of legal points here -- I received two pieces of residue from rows 17, 18 and 19. Let me show you.


I don't know if from back there you can see this.



SANDERS: But these black spots here -- this is where investigators inside the hangar, after they were made aware, they saw a difference in some of the seats from the others. And they saw reddish-orange residue in a very limited area.


I specifically asked them to go eyeball it and give me the row and seat numbers on them. These were the row and seat numbers they gave me -- in row 17, 18 and 19. And then they go, oh, by the way, in August the FBI took samples from row 17, 18 and 19. They didn't take them from throughout the airplane, and there wasn't a reddish-orange from throughout the airplane. It was in three rows.


I had it analyzed, and I don't see it right here. But give me a second because I think copies of this are back there. It's important to go through what's in this glue.


First, we talked to Webber Seats, and Webber Seats said, well, 25 years ago, you know, they put the seats in the plane. Twenty-five years ago, they said, yes, there was glue in the seats. What was it? It's contact cement. Go down to your hardware store and look on the label -- it's contact cement.


I said, well, does it have chromium in it? They said it's contact cement. You know, so does it have chromium, silver, copper, boron, manganese, nickel, antimony, titanium, lead, aluminum, iron, zinc, calcium -- does it have any of these things in there? No.


So I think we have a very clear -- either I'm wrong or they're wrong. I had it analyzed. I gave the other sample to CBS News, and when Kallstrom found out about it, he had four samples analyzed. He knew what was in there, and he promised CBS News that he'd raid that place. From a producer, I got that. From two...


(AUDIT GAP)


... it is theoretically possible that if a Libyan sub popped up there that they might want to call that national security, yes. But that's a stretch at this point.


QUESTION: Mr. Sanders, have you or any of your associates listened to the cockpit voice recording?


SANDERS: I have spoken to investigators who have heard it. They did not hear it originally, but they did hear it in the months afterwards. I do not -- I was trying to run down somebody that was there when it was opened to hear it originally and in the very early tapes. I was not able to do that. So I just have a verbal rundown on what was there months after.



QUESTION: No one that you've been working with to your knowledge has ever listened to these tapes themselves?


SANDERS: No, I do know people that have listened to them in the weeks and months afterwards. I just don't know anybody that was there when they first reviewed them. That's something I would very much like to do. It's just one of those things that needs to be done.


If I was a federal investigator, the first thing I'd do is pull those tapes, ensure whoever might be skeptical about anything that might be on the tapes, because you can analyze them and tell whether or not they've been spliced -- and I'm not suggesting that they have been. But that's something that has to be done. And then you very carefully, obviously, go over every aspect of the tape. That's one of those things I don't have the ability to do at this point.


QUESTION: Are you suggesting, when you're talking about the samples with the residue on them, are you saying that CBS surrendered those to the FBI because the FBI was going to come in and raid the place and forcibly take them away?



SANDERS: Yes.


QUESTION: Without a subpoena? Or...


SANDERS: Well, I...


QUESTION: This was a news organization. (OFF-MIKE) protected, aren't they, by...


SANDERS: I'm quite confident they either had or were imminently able to have a subpoena on that one. I mean, the Brooklyn grand jury is sitting right there. And they got a subpoena for me, that they had to pull back after I hired an attorney in New York, because simply, by their own rules and regulations, it was not a legal subpoena.


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) could they get a subpoena to come in and search a CBS office?


SANDERS: Apparently, they thought they could. You can't...


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) thought they could?


SANDERS: Even Jim Kallstrom on his worst day is not going to go raid CBS without the legal authority, I wouldn't think.


QUESTION: I would think that would be a great story if they said, go ahead, boys, we're going to have the photographers here. We're putting...


SANDERS: I was looking forward to it. I was laughing with my source inside CBS when we -- when she first got her first two heads up -- you know, her sources, inside Kallstrom's own team -- two of them independently came to her and said, the place is going to raided. She told me about it, and we were literally laughing about it.


I said, let me check with my lawyer because he has good sources over there, too. And he came back and confirmed it. We just couldn't believe it was going to happen.


SALINGER: I have to tell you a funny story to respond to what you're saying. It was in 1992 -- no, 1991, I guess -- that I'm the only person that interrogated the two Libyan suspects in the Pan Am 103 case. I spent time. I put them on TV for two hours. I came back to London, where I was based for ABC News. And suddenly, I was subpoenaed by the British government to turn over all of the tapes, turn over all the information I had.


You know what I discovered? The Americans had told the British to do it because the Americans knew they couldn't do it because of the First Amendment. And so the British did it instead of the Americans.


QUESTION: So you would say that these -- that they didn't have the authority to subpoena that material?


SALINGER: I think that it would have been very difficult for them to subpoena. What they might have done, though, is talked them into giving it away.


QUESTION: CBS wouldn't...


SALINGER: Yes.


QUESTION: ... agree to violate its commitment to (OFF-MIKE)?


SALINGER: I don't -- I don't know, but I think something maybe -- maybe happened that gave it away. But I'm not sure that they could do a subpoena.


DINAS: I might be able to answer that because I was directly involved in this and gave many interviews to the press regarding this. It's the fact, that yes, in fact, CBS was talked into giving those bits of evidence from a source they were investigating for either a news -- a news special on this controversy or to work with "60 Minutes."


And my understanding from the producer whom I've spoken with was that this producer was a young producer and was working with Jim over the months -- behind -- trying to get this information into the major news media. And then when -- when the -- wherever they got wind of it -- whether it was the NTSB or the FBI got wind of the fact that two of the samples from the seat material were in their possession, they sent agents up and went right through the line of command, who then contacted the CBS attorney.


The CBS attorney said, we don't want to mess with federal authorities. We don't want to jeopardize our Pentagon contacts. Give over that material. This is directly -- I was directly involved in this.


And this is the reason why: It's -- it was obnoxious that a major news organization who had been working with a journalist for weeks on a very sensitive story that was critical of the government turned over this material to the very people they were, hopefully, going to be exercising their journalistic right in being critical of.


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) isn't it fair to say that -- that the reason -- the reason the government claims they have a grand jury in Brooklyn is not to suppress evidence but to investigate the theft of evidence?


DINAS: Yes, that's their argument. Their argument is, yes, this was -- this was a theft of evidence.


QUESTION: How do you feel about the fact that -- what the government claims is we don't -- once again, Jim is one of the more charming people we've ever met.



QUESTION: We don't care what he says. But how can you have the system where somebody steals evidence of an investigation and hands it over to whomever?


DINAS: Well, that would make sense, that would make sense if it were the single sensitive bit of evidence that they have regarding this issue. These were two one-inch strips of material from a seat, right, material that was taken from a hangar that had yards and yards -- maybe even a full, you know, a full battalion of this kind of material at their disposal to be analyzed? It was analyzed.


Two one-inch strips in no way hampers a serious investigation. What it does do is it blows the lid off an aspect of that investigation by the government that they don't want to be in the public eye. And that's one of the things I should mention about -- the publication of this book.


This book is not meant to prove anything. Jim is a journalist, and he's a researcher. This book is not meant to conclusively say it was a missile. All this book is meant to do is to open an honest and frank discussion about the cause of this disaster in the -- in front of the American people.


The government has systematically denied this right, has refused to debate Jim in public, has refused to even mention this book. They have only intimidated him and his wife. They have subpoenaed the publisher, myself included. This has been a direct campaign for one year to not answer the hard questions. That's why this book was published -- to get people working on answering the hard questions; getting the investigation out in the open; and not investigating any (OFF-MIKE) theory from meteors to a gas bubble out of the ocean; and really focusing on what the debris trail indicates, what the radar indicates, what the eyewitnesses indicate. This is really the purpose of this book.


And this is why Jim's efforts and Pierre's effort and Glenn's effort, and all the concerned citizens that are -- that we've been in touch with and are in support of this book -- this is the purpose of this publication, is to have an open and frank discussion.


QUESTION: Mr. Sanders, how do you account for the fact that none of the bodies of passengers seated in those rows exhibit the kinds of burns or other injuries that would be associated with close proximity to a missile exhaust?


SANDERS: In rows 17, 18 and 19 -- I'd have to go back and look at that. Essentially, the only bodies on the plane, except for two,
that showed burns are what they called -- it's not my term -- floaters, those that were blown out of the plane in the early stages, in those first eight seconds.


None of the -- well, two of the bodies that did not exit at that time according to the coroner's documents we have show burns. But that is a rather amazing thing that there is essentially no burns from anyone inside the fuselage, whether it -- whether it has to do with the blow up of the center wing tank or has to do with the missile passing through. Plus, the missile did pass through underneath row 17, 18, 19, not inside the -- the passenger cabin itself. And those rows, essentially, immediately began to exit out the left side of the airplane.


When you look at -- there's a full color schematic of -- of -- of Flight 800 that was done on a computer by the coroner that shows body damage and seat damage. And you'll see that the three rows with the least damage of all are those three rows in row 17, 18 and 19 that exited immediately after the impact.


QUESTION: The book argues that the missile would have calculated the center of mass with the heat signatures on the airplane, and that center of mass would've been just forward of the wing. All the engines are basically hung off the wing as it sweeps back. Wouldn't the center of mass be further after the...


SANDERS: If it were an (OFF-MIKE) that would be the -- infrared -- yes, that would be the argument.



SANDERS: And I went through this in great detail with investigators who were involved in that, because that's what I had assumed. And, they said, no, that after all of their investigation on this and going through it that the signature was towards the front. I'm quite surprised myself. That's not my analysis; that's analysis given to me by people on the teams who were looking into that.


QUESTION: I'm curious as to what it is in the documents you obtained that you feel indicates that the ATC data was sent first to the White House and that it indicated that the controllers observed a missile or something else striking 800, because I've read your excerpt of the chairman's report and the letters from Dr. Loeb (ph) and the reply from the FAA. Can't seem to find anything there that indicates (a) that it went to the White House first, or (b) that...


SANDERS: I'll read it to you. Give me a second. I'm not the most organized person sometimes.


Under the November 15 chairman's report, when they were reporting -- the different teams were reporting, under "Fire and Explosion," which is Dr. Merrick Berkes (ph), it in sentence two is talking about Merrick Berkes (ph). He also indicates -- oh, excuse me. I'm giving you the wrong one. I'm answering another question that you haven't asked yet that we hope you do. Give me a second to get to page four. I'm sorry.


Be a darn good question if somebody asked it.


(LAUGHTER)


SANDERS: You want to ask it? "The letter will reference the technician who did the analysis resulting in conflicting radar tracks that indicated a missile. It will also inquire why that information was reported to the White House and sent to the FAA technical center before the safety board was given access to the data."


Now, this is reiterated in follow-on letters that said -- the FAA says, yes, we did indeed send it as soon as possible to the White House because of what the possible significance of this was. It's very clear in the letter. I can dial through here and find the FAA response, I believe, but I mean, it's very clear that it went to the White House.


QUESTION: That letter also indicates that once the tape was examined by FAA experts who are expert in radar data, they concluded that there was, in fact, no missile track on that tape. Isn't that right?



SANDERS: There was a general statement said that -- I can't remember; there's a two word phrase that was in there. But it also says that those technicians wouldn't back off of what -- would not agree with that assessment. And this is just another one of those areas. Is this a PR statement by management over there? Or is that what they really believe? And those are the kind of questions that can only be answered if we have a legitimate investigation.


QUESTION: What's your great question?


(LAUGHTER)


SANDERS: Let me see if I can even remember it. Oh, yes, I can remember it. Does the NTSB have any evidence whatsoever that takes their hypothesis that static electricity caused all this to a theory -- a theory having some microscopic bit of evidence to back it up? And in fact, their own statements says that there is -- let me read it; don't want to paraphrase it.


Let me read two sentences: Merrick (ph) indicated that, to date -- that's Dr. Merrick (ph) Berkes (ph) -- his group has seen no evidence of erosion or pitting in any of the wreckage. He also indicated that they have not discovered any static or fuel transfer problems with the center wing tank. You know, that's not they discovered a little bit, and we're just trying to get over that hump. They don't have anything.


Pardon me?


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) what's the date?


SANDERS: November 15, and there is -- and that stands unopposed.



SANDERS: You know, they have not produced a shred of evidence to say that, well, we finally got that first shred. It's just that the center wing tank blew up somewhere along the line. So there is nothing more recent.


(UNKNOWN): Here's the White House response from...


SANDERS: Oh, yes, we already passed that, but that's fine.


QUESTION: Mr. Sanders, have you made any -- have you or the publishers made any effort to use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the rest of the documents such as these two that you had leaked from the FAA? I understand they had those meetings on a regular basis. Under the FOIA, they would be -- they should be available, should they not?


SANDERS: Right. I've spent almost 12 years learning the FOIA process, and a very detailed plan of action is under development and should be completed within the next few days, because we want to split it into what you realistically can get now, which is quite limited, versus once the FBI says we're pulling out of here. They're going to leave the door open, absolutely guarantee it. They will not absolutely -- it's a mechanical, and there's no other possibility.


If they say that, we all get to line up at their front door the next day for documents, because if they don't leave the door open, virtually everything except witnesses' names and a few things like that we all get to get a hole of them. So that simply won't happen.


So yes, it's a very technical process, and it costs a lot of money when you use attorneys to do it. So the answer is -- very long answer of saying, yes, that's in the process right now.


QUESTION: You might consider getting in touch with Larry Claven (ph) of Judicial Watch. He's had a great deal of success getting FOIAs very expeditiously.


SANDERS: Right, I understand that. Timing is everything.


QUESTION: You've got in your book a chart that seems to bolster your case that this was a friendly fire missile. That includes a special box south of the crash site that you indicate went active 8:00 p.m. on July 17, about a half-hour before 800 was shot down. But your documentation in the back of the book seems to indicate that that box didn't go active until 9:00 p.m., a half-hour after 800 got shot down.


SANDERS: No, if it's London time, it went active 8:00 p.m.. In fact, when I initially saw that document, I argued it (OFF-MIKE), because I was counting up on my fingers from the times I've gone to Britain and France. And we looked it up. But no, it's 8:00 p.m..


QUESTION: The Navy references to Zulu, which is Greenwich mean time, the universal time coordinate, which normally is five hours ahead of East Coast time except for Eastern daylight time. And July 17 wasn't (ph) Eastern daylight time when it's four hours ahead, because obviously, in the spring hour clock moves ahead one hour. So the reference there seems to be that the area went active four hours prior to the 01:00 Zulu, which would be 9 o'clock (OFF-MIKE).


SANDERS: Well, there was a lot of work done on that by the Riverside Press Enterprise before I got involved in it, and that -- this is the first time anyone's even said anything about it, because after doing an enormous amount of checking on it -- and I did question them myself on that. And no, the answer came back it was 8:00 p.m. that night. And that has not encountered any questioning from the government side whatever.


But it's also interesting that that document came out of Fax Pack (ph) down in Oceania, Virginia, which is where the military has their own traffic controllers and where the CEC (ph) program plugs into the air traffic control networks there and has its own independent monitoring system.


So you have a tremendous number of radar systems covering that area and personnel covering that area that particular evening, which doesn't respond to the Zulu time.


QUESTION: Isn't that the military facility that's normally responsible for coordinating offshore military aviation activities with the FAA?


SANDERS: In -- in the norm, right.


Yes.


DINAS: We have time for like one or two more questions.



QUESTION: There have been reports about other countries' satellite photography type -- took pictures of a missile hitting a plane. I think there was a Canadian -- there was a story about Canadian photographs and (OFF-MIKE) photograph, and another one, maybe Russian, that Mr. Salinger knows about. What's going to happen to those pictures?


SANDERS: The -- I'm not sure I can find my -- I don't know what has happened to those. I do know that in the chairman's report that it mentions two different types of -- of -- let me see if I can find it here real quickly. I think it's on page three or page four -- on page three.


"The FBI and the DIA have indicated to him that there is a possibility that geo-synchronous satellite centers may have picked up either radio transmissions or infrared emissions related to this accident." And I haven't seen anything other than some casual statements on that. So I don't know.


DINAS: Any more questions? Well, thanks for coming today. We appreciate your support.


END


NOTES:
Unknown - Indicates Speaker Unkown
Inaudible - Could not make out what was being said.
off mike - Indicates could not make out what was being said.

SBD

[FreeFall]

Found this over at the Site Institute, the terrorists are still talking about taking down aircraft with missiles:

http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=publications32505&Category=publications&Subcategory=0

[docford]

A friend of mine was part of the Assault Craft Unit out of Little Creek that worked on the TWA 800 salvage. At the time he told me that the divers photographed and recovered parts of a SAM missile tail assembly from the sea floor.
_________________
Doc Ford
HMC (SW) USN

[Rdtf]

Thanks yall for finding this thread - I was lookin' for it