The term “cover-up” has never been used officially by the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization (FIRO), of which I have been a member since 1999. Privately, many members (myself included) hold the view that the American government has actively concealed the facts about the disaster — which occurred on 17 July 1996. As the anniversary approaches this year, it appears that the Federal government is stooping to a new low with regard to the disinformation regarding the cause of the 747 crash.

There are several definitions for the word “sham”, which applies to the shameful ritual that our government is using to perpetuate the myth that Flight 800 suddenly exploded all by itself — because of a “spark” in its center fuel tank. Some of the definitions for the word “sham” are noted below. The word “sham” can be a verb or a noun, depending on how it is used. For the purpose of this column, it is both.

• feign: make believe with the intent to deceive; "He feigned that he was ill"; "He shammed a headache"
• fake: something that is a counterfeit; not what it seems to be
• A sham device or procedure is one type of placebo. When the treatment under study is a procedure or device (not a drug or other substance), a sham procedure or device may be designed that resembles the active treatment but does not have any active treatment qualities. (This definition comes from a Web site called “Spine Universe”, which discussed using magnets to treat pain caused by spinal problems.)

For the purposes of this commentary, the particular sham at issue is that the government – specifically, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – is actively trying to improve aircraft safety by preventing the type of “spark” that led to the in-flight explosion of TWA Flight 800. But, there are several facts that get in the way of this bureaucratic sham. Let’s take a look.

This time last year, MND published my exclusive, “ Flight 800: Whe-e-e-r-e’s the piece?!” In it, evidence was presented to show that the government had “confirmed recovered” a piece of wreckage that radar tapes showed left the body of Flight 800 at supersonic speed – prior to the fuel tank explosion. That would lead any reasonable person to conclude that this piece of wreckage was a crucial key to the crash investigation. But, while Navy documents charted the location of this intriguing piece of evidence, charts from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) do not mention this piece. To date, none of the “mainstream” news outlets have focused on this important piece of evidence, nor on its seeming disappearance. And, no “mainstream” news outlet has challenged the assertions in my article, “TWA Flight 800: The Dog Still Stinks”. (Ironically, author James Sanders was convicted of tampering with crash evidence because he had evidence. So far, no one has been charged with tampering by losing an important piece of evidence. It’s an amazing parallel to the Sandy Berger incident -- which occurred a few days after these two articles were published last year.)

This same pattern of missing evidence extends to other pieces, as tracked by Dr. Thomas Stalcup. In an anniversary interview with Fox-25 TV News in Boston last year, Stalcup stated that pieces with an explosive signature were withheld from the NTSB. Rather than the Navy, Stalcup says the culprit was the FBI. Stalcup has a doctorate in physics, and is the founding president of FIRO. How could two large Federal agencies, with totally different chains of command, both engage in withholding aircraft crash evidence from another Federal agency that is tasked with investigating aircraft crashes? And, why don’t elected government leaders seem concerned?

In an ironic case of “victim becomes abuser”, the NTSB is now assisting in the sham that a poorly-designed fuel tank brought down Flight 800. According to numerous news reports, the NTSB is accusing the FAA of not doing enough to compel the airline industry to overhaul the “flawed” fuel tanks. Of course, there is no flaw in the fuel tanks. (For over 29 years prior to the Flight 800 crash, with over a million sorties, not one 747 had ever “spontaneously exploded”. And, wiring had run through fuel tanks – in cars as well as airplanes – long before the design of the Boeing 747. The NTSB is fully aware of these facts.) But, the government spin doctors don’t want to let pesky little facts get in the way of their story.

In prior versions of this saga, the NTSB was the “victim”. They were merely trying to investigate the cause of the crash, and deliver the data to decision makers within aviation. They were the victim of the FBI, which withheld evidence. They were the victim of the FAA, whose regulations were not stringent enough to have prevented the crash. They were the victim of the “conspiracy theorists”, whose constant harping about a missile was preventing them from getting to the “truth”. (The NTSB was so worried about this last point that eyewitnesses of the crash were barred from the NTSB’s 1997 meeting in Baltimore about Flight 800. And, NTSB officials had guards physically carry 80-year-old Reed Irvine out of the meeting, because he tried to speak contrary to the official story.) Now, the NTSB appears to be “taking the lead” in this matter by “accusing” the FAA of “dragging its feet” on new design requirements for fuel tanks.

The reality is that fuel tank designs are already safe. (See also: pages 4-5 of this NTSB Safety Recommendation.) And, the fuel itself is already safe. The center fuel tank of a 747 has an air-conditioning unit inside the fuel tank; but, the tank does not explode from the operation of this unit. Jet fuel is very difficult to ignite, unless it is sprayed into a mist with the correct proportion of oxygen in the air. When I was in the Air Force, I knew guys that had doused their cigarettes in open tanks of liquid jet fuel – just because they could. Given the millions of passenger-miles that are flown every day, on a wide variety of aircraft, isn’t it interesting that other aircraft do not “spontaneously explode”? For the NTSB to state that “more needs to be done” to make fuel tanks safer is almost as ludicrous as suggesting that all people should refrain from eating because sometimes people die after a meal.

This latest wave of news stories about fuel tank design flaws gives rise to an interesting question: why now? Were the NTSB comments triggered by a sudden rise in spontaneous explosions? If so, then why have we not heard about them? A search of Google News shows numerous stories about fuel tank dangers. But, the vast majority of the stories are verbatim from an AP story. Their story apparently originated from a top-level NTSB press briefing. So, why is it not listed on the NTSB Press Release page? Why would the NTSB release comments that seem to have a degree of deniability?

According to the FAA’s own documents, a Final Rule on air transport aircraft fuel tanks was issued on 30 July 2004. That rule extended the “special maintenance program requirements” until December of 2008. And, another rule on “aging aircraft” was finalized on 06 May 2005. In other words, there is nothing newsworthy about the NTSB’s recently published comments -- except, of course, for the fact that the comments are timed to soften the impact of any upcoming anniversary articles about Flight 800.

People that have tried to raise questions about Flight 800 in the past – most notably, James Sanders – have been subject to ridicule, harassment, and even prosecution. We have been branded as “Internet kooks” and “conspiracy theorists”. And, this was years before the current plight of reporter Judith Miller has caused editors to suppress investigative news stories for fear of prosecution.

The more evidence that comes to light, the less the official story can be supported by that evidence. And, if the official story is not true, then what is true? Was the airliner shot out of the sky by a missile? And, if so, then who fired the missile? At one point, the NTSB did take the missile question seriously, because they conducted test firings to compare observer reports with the Flight 800 eyewitness reports. Interestingly, the radar track of the test missiles resembles the “mystery” radar tracks approaching Flight 800.

In the NTSB’s own latest summary of aviation accidents, there is no mention of fuel tank problems. A review of the NTSB Safety Recommendation Letters (searched by the words “fuel tank”) shows no official recommendations related to Flight 800. And, in an NTSB report of an accident involving a fuel storage tank on the ground, the cause of the fire appears to have been electricity from the outside. No amount of tinkering with the inside of the huge storage tank could have prevented that fire. And, no amount of tinkering with aircraft fuel tank wiring will make airliners safe from missile attacks.

One could speculate about the coincidental timing of the elevated terrorist alerts that began around Christmas last year, and the release of FAA "inerting system" test results just prior to those threats. And, that speculation could be increased by the coincidental timing of the non-newsworthy NTSB comments (“… at a press conference last year”??), and the recent news that terrorists plan to strike inside the United States again soon. (We should learn to prepare for more than one attack; and, such attacks will be better coordinated than in the past.) Are news stories about Flight 800’s fuel tanks intentionally timed to coincide with terrorist bombing events? And, if the stories are intentionally timed to divert public attention away from terrorist threats, then will this method become a routine practice for our government? I don’t know; but, the available evidence begs the question.

One fact stands out, though. The government knows that fuel tank modifications won’t prevent missile attacks, such as the attack that downed TWA Flight 800. And, that is why their sham is shameful.

In the ultimate sham, the day after the Flight 800 crash, President Bill Clinton showed his “kindness” by visiting with the victims’ families. The problem is that Clinton knew the cause of the crash, but said nothing. Now, under a different president, the sham continues.

22 Aug 2000. See this report from Accuracy in Media.

The regurgitated AP reports said that the Flight 800 disaster resulted in 346 deaths. Then, in another paragraph, AP stated correctly that 230 people died aboard Flight 800. The 346 deaths are from three “spontaneous explosions” that have occurred within the past 15 years. The other two were in Asia. And, several sources suspect that the Asian explosions were terrorist-related — possibly in connection with Philippine separatists, linked to Operation Bojinka.

See pages 2-3 of this 1996 NTSB report. Of the three fuel tank explosions, one (Philippines, 1990) cause was “unknown”, one (Colombia, 1989) was a bomb, and one (Spain, 1976) was most likely a lightning strike.

See the essay on “Designed Abuses”, by former Vice-Presidential candidate Dr. Chuck Baldwin.

Immediately after the sham CIA-produced “zoom-climb” video, Boeing tried to distance itself from the video by stating that the company was “unaware of the data” used to produce it. (See page 17 of Captain Ray Lahr’s court papers.) But, the day after this latest sham NTSB press conference, Boeing announced that they had successfully completed a “design review” for space-based defense communications systems. As a key contractor in the half-billion-dollar test, they stand to gain a much larger profit if they are chosen as the prime contractor for the acquisition and operation phase. Is this the cost of silence regarding the fuel-tank sham?

Tom Kovach