The government of the United States is desperate to maintain its cover-up of the true cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800. The airliner exploded in flight over the Atlantic Ocean on the evening of 17 July 1996, a few miles south of Long Island. The official government story is that a spark inside the fuel tank ignited the fuel-air mixture. But, there is overwhelming evidence that Flight 800 was downed by a missile. And, there is continuing evidence that the government is relentless in maintaining its sham about the fuel tank, regardless of the facts. It has also become apparent that the “mainstream” news media is a long-standing accomplice in this cover-up.

On the 13 of this month, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) put out an official press release. In the release, Acting Chairman Mark V. Rosenker expressed his agency’s disappointment that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has not done more to regulate away the cause of crashes like Flight 800. Specifically, according to the release, the Board sent a letter to FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey on the 12 th of this month.

But, on the 6 th of this month, the NTSB had already held a press conference on the topic of FAA fuel tank regulations. So, what changed? Only two minor details changed: 1) a letter, versus verbal accusations; and, 2) the person making the accusations. On the 6 th, Daniel D. Campbell, managing director of the NTSB verbally accused the FAA of foot-dragging on fuel tank regulations. On the 12 th, the board chairman sent a letter to the administrator of the FAA. But, the essence of the topic was exactly the same. Given the huge amount of evidence pointing to a missile, why didn’t the reporters present ask questions about whether the fuel tank was really the cause of the crash? And, why was the second release newsworthy at all?

I’ve been involved in public relations in various roles since 1974. Newsroom editors are quite vigilant about redundant stories – especially so close together in time. So, what made this pair of stories any different? The only explanation that makes sense is that the “mainstream” news media are willing accomplices in the government’s cover-up of the facts regarding Flight 800. If they expose the truth about the cover-up, then the government will no longer spoon-feed stories to them. Then, certain reporters would have to actually go out and do research for a change. (Would the situation be the same if Flight 800 had been shot down while a conservative president was in office? Unfortunately, I believe that it would. As an institution, the “mainstream” news has become lazy.)

In my recent column, “ Flight 800: The Shameful Sham”, I pointed out that original the story was not newsworthy of a press conference. Nothing had changed with regard to fuel-tank technology or regulation. Lamenting the lack of changes is not the normal role of a government agency – especially when the lamentation is directed against another government agency. Inter-agency squabbles are not the normal grist for large newspapers. So, why did they publish it? But, having published it, why did major news organizations publish a modified version of the same story only a week later? (Many people in public relations – especially in volunteer organizations, where I’ve done most of my PR time – have a difficult time getting a story published even once.)

“The Shameful Sham” also pointed out that the first NTSB lament (06 July) was not posted on that agency’s official Web page of press releases. It appears that, by sending out a new release on the same topic a week later (and, this time, posting it on their official page), the NTSB has gone into “spin mode” – trying to cover up the fact that their first statement looked too much like a cover-up attempt.

Family members of the crash victims will gather on Long Island on the upcoming anniversary of the crash. It appears that the government is rubbing fresh salt into the emotional wounds of those family members. That is the very thing that government spokesmen accused us independent researchers of doing. The difference is that independent researchers were coming forward with facts that had been suppressed by the government. The government is coming forward with hollow laments, in an effort to further suppress the facts. Which action is more insulting to the family members?

In both press events, the NTSB said that fuel tanks are no safer now than they were when Flight 800 crashed in 1996. Apparently, the “mainstream” media swallowed the notion that fuel tanks weren’t safe in 1996. But, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, the 747 airframe had been flying for 29 years prior to the Flight 800 disaster, without a single event of “spontaneous explosion”. Thus, fuel tanks were already safe in 1996. (And, even as they make the spurious assertion about lack of safety, the NTSB also admitted that the FAA has overseen over 60 specification changes since the disaster.) So, precisely why is the NTSB whining about fuel tanks now?

The only apparent reasons to whine about fuel tanks now are 1) to pounce upon the emotional vulnerability of victim family members, and 2) to keep fuel-tank fears in the minds of the public – just in case another airliner is hit by a missile sometime soon. I’ll go one step further now than I did in my last article, by making this recommendation. Perhaps frequent flyers should infer a heightened terrorist alert from the presence of increased government statements about airliner fuel tanks. (If another airliner explodes in flight within the next 90 days, then readers should conclude that I was right – just as I was right in correctly predicting the date of an al-Qaeda attack, based on Islamic dates.)

I dare anyone in the “mainstream” media to ask the tough questions – such as those presented by James Sanders, Jack Cashill, and me – with regard to the evidence surrounding the Flight 800 disaster. If they won’t, then they are willing helpers in a shameful cover-up. Citizens have the opportunity to “vote with their wallets” regarding the news media. Don’t continue to support “mainstream” news organizations that continue to support a government cover-up. If you don’t know your newspapers position on Flight 800, then write a letter to the editor and ask them. And, I challenge citizens to write their Congressman about Flight 800 and the cover-up. If you don’t like the answers that your representatives give you, then maybe it’s time to replace them with people that will pursue the truth.

Tom Kovach