Flight cover-up: Part 1

Thanks to Reed Irvine, chairman of the Accuracy in Media Organization, the conspiracy surrounding the loss of TWA Flight 800 has been reinforced. Oct. 4, a Russian jet fell from the sky in pieces just off the coast of the Black Sea. Within hours of the event, U.S. officials -- through satellite imagery analysis -- claimed that a missile from the Ukraine military had shot down the jet.\nAt first, Ukraine officials denied all accusations but later assumed responsibility for the downed aircraft. You\'re probably wondering, "What does all this have to do with TWA Flight 800?" While it took only a matter of hours for U.S. officials to reveal intelligence related to the explosion of the Russian jet, that same type of intelligence has been suppressed and withheld at all cost for the past five years by U.S. officials regarding the explosion of TWA Flight 800. The government has refused to publicly release the satellite imagery in spite of its obligation to do so following the Freedom of Information Act.\nTo this day, the government has acknowledged the final synopsis of the CIA and FBI that the fuel tank exploded and, with the plane\'s front-end blown off, it rocketed up a few thousand feet in the air. This claim is so ridiculously impossible that much of the aeronautical community has laughed at it. Let\'s revisit that fateful night five years ago. \nTWA Flight 800 left Kennedy Airport bound for Paris July 17, 1996, at 8:19 p.m. Twelve minutes into the flight, while traveling eastward along the coast of Long Island, more than 730 people witnessed Flight 800 explode in midair. At 8:31 p.m. all 230 passengers aboard were killed. \nAt that exact time radar operators from the Federal Aviation Administration reported an indiscernible object ascend and meet Flight 800. This claim was later avowed by then Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, Jim Hall. Also on radar that night was an unidentified vessel that fled the scene at 30 knots. The government has stated that they have no recognition of that ship. Hold on. That ship may have been fleeing but certainly couldn\'t get away. Why were no planes sent out to meet the ship and find out its identity? I view that ship as no different than a getaway car fleeing a robbery. Why was it not pursued? After all, it was being tracked by radar. Maybe they didn\'t want to pursue the ship. \nAccording to Title 49 of the U.S. Code, the NTSB was supposed to be the "priority" investigative group at the wreckage site. Not long after the crash the Justice Department violated that code and removed the NTSB workers by force to allow the FBI and CIA space to conduct the investigation. \nIn his Sept. 19 column on the AIM Web site, Irvine focused on the senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton, George Stephanopolous; he spoke about the procedures carried out on Sept. 11 immediately following the terrorist attacks. According to Stephanopolous, the president has the ability to conference with his top officials from a secret "second situation room"; he goes on to say that this special room was used "…in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing" and "in the aftermath of the TWA Flight 800 bombing." \nCan someone explain why it\'s now called a "bombing"? Stephanopolous has failed to comment on his slip. Or was it a slip? More importantly, are all these intelligence measures taken when a typical plane falls out of the sky? \nObviously not; Flight 800 was very significant to U.S. interests, but why? What was beginning to take shape was nothing more than a government cover-up with a $40 million price tag.