Any investigation of an accident or incident conducted by the Safety Board directly or pursuant to the appendix to part 800 of this chapter (except major marine investigations conducted under49 U.S.C. 1131(a)(1)(E)) has priority over all other investigations of such accident or incident conducted by other Federal agencies.
The Safety Board shall provide for the appropriate participation by other Federal agencies in any such investigation, except that such agencies may not participate in the Safety Board’s determination of the probable cause of the accident or incident. Nothing in this section impairs the authority of other Federal agencies to conduct investigations of an accident or incident under applicable provisions of law or to obtain information directly from parties involved in, and witnesses to, the transportation accident or incident, provided they do so without interfering with the Safety Board’s investigation.The Safety Board and other Federal agencies shall assure that appropriate information obtained or developed in the course of their investigations is exchanged in a timely manner.Federal Statute, esp. 49 U.S.C. 1131(a)(1)(E)
The section of Federal Law quoted above makes clear: The NTSB is the lead agency in aircraft investigations, period. Then why the encroachment of other agencies–even early, official announcements that the FBI was “taking the lead”–to the point that the NTSB felt like a second fiddle? Do federal employees not read federal statutes, do they simply not abide by them?
These are all fair questions and under the circumstances, important ones.
Note the picture above, taken from an animated mini-film produced by the CIA, yes by Central Intelligence, that recreates the explosion with a clear message: A tragedy caused by a fuel tank spark, nothing more, nothing less.
Without debating the merits for a moment, let’s back up.
Why, for the first time in its history that we know of, is the CIA weighing in on a domestic, civilian airline disaster? Who asked them to?
If the extraordinary participation of the agency was meant to dissuade the darker suspicions, notions of deep, manipulative involvement by government in an accident, well, it has the opposite effect, doesn’t it?
By all means, we understand there could be temporary involvement from some CIA specialists, asked to look at the explosions as a possible terrorist act. But after ruling that out, they should disappear, back to their very full plate of responsibilities.
The longer you look at it, the more anomalous it seems. The CIA, going to the trouble of producing of film about how the explosion had not anything to do with what that agency usually deals with. It isn’t necessarily evil, but it is bizarre, CIA involvement in the final sales pitch.
They should be able to see it raises all the wrong reds flags, deservedly or not. Who the heck’s in charge of public relations in that outfit?
Then there’s the matter of the merits. The CIA offers a plane after explosion, lighter now without a nose section, streaking upward perhaps another 4,000 feet before finally flipping, middle over tail, and plunging into the sea. Thus that several thousand foot climb accounts for the eyewitnesses who are sure they saw flame traveling upward.
With the nose broken off however the wings would presumably rise much faster, from lift, than the tail, and the flip, or stall from wings out of alignment with air, would occur it seems almost instantaneously. We might not describe the idea presented in animation as “ludicrous” as government critics have, but it doesn’t seem likely. We wonder what computer simulations, or other tragedies, offer as wisdom.
In all, for too many reasons to list here, there’s reason to doubt the official story told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We don’t necessarily allege, we certainly can’t prove a government cover-up, but be clear.
If any air disaster in history would justify a coverup in the eyes of top leaders, this is it. Can you imagine, for an instant, the public reaction to the announcement:
“A tragic cascade of mistakes in a naval training exercise resulted in a missile exploding near TWA Flight 800 and it’s subsequent destruction. Nothing we can say can convey our sorrow and apologies to the families of all victims.”
If you were the top guns in charge, would you bite the bullet and make such an announcement?
We’re by no means sure there was a cover-up, but the following comment post, again from askthepilot.com, caught our eye:
One of the mistakes people make is that they assume any cover-up would be malicious, unlawful or wrong. That’s not necessarily the case. During the course of the Manhattan project, the U.S. Government was very effective at “covering up” the construction of the nuclear bomb from the public, despite the thousands of people involved. And the reason for this is that those doing the “covering up” believed (rightly) that they were acting in furtherance of our national security.
Now is it possible the U.S. Gov’t covered up TWA Flight 800 in order to protect a national security secret? Let’s say, hypothetically, the Navy was testing a submarine launched surface to air missile that relied on highly classified technology, e.g. advanced Aegis radar tracking-targeting technology. If this super secret technology tragically malfunctioned and led to the crash of TWA Flight 800, I could imagine the President choosing to cover up the cause in an ostensible effort to protect extremely sensitive national security secrets. I could also imagine there would be loyal, patriotic Americans in the FBI who would recognize the President’s authority to make that call, and would perform their jobs as faithfully and in confidence, as ordered by the Commander in Chief.
I don’t know what happened, but it is not difficult to imagine scenarios where a cover-up could plausibly be carried out successfully and for legal (if not legitimate) reasons.
From askthepilot.com, October 27, 2013
And you, fine deductive reasoner and mystery analyst that you are, what’s your take on all this?