TWA 800 Read online

  PRAISE FOR

  TWA 800

  “Jack Cashill has researched, organized, and documented all aspects of this intrigue in an outstanding and readable style. He has provided the needed resolution to finally end the TWA 800 conspiracy. It is—by far—the most thorough, insightful, and believable accounting of that tragedy.”

  —VERNON GROSE, former NTSB board member and CNN commentator on TWA 800

  “In this extraordinary book, Jack Cashill—America’s greatest investigative reporter—provides new and overwhelming evidence that the official explanation [of TWA 800] from the Clintons couldn’t possibly be true, and that something is very, very wrong at both the FBI and the CIA.”

  —HERBERT E. MEYER, former National Intelligence Council vice chairman

  “Jack Cashill has done it again. He is one of the great investigative journalists in America, at a time that it has become a lost art. In his new book, TWA 800: The Crash, the Cover-Up and the Conspiracy, he walks us through one of the most important and revealing stories of the last twenty years…. He also presents new evidence and fresh perspectives, linking the cover-up to today’s presidential race.”

  —ROGER ARONOFF, editor of Accuracy in Media and producer of the award-winning documentary TWA 800: The Search for the Truth

  “Jack Cashill has worked tirelessly for almost twenty years to bring the truth of what really happened to TWA Flight 800 to the public, and most of all, to the families who lost loved ones on that flight. Because I lost my son, Yon Rojany, that fateful night of July 17, 1996—and never believed the government line about a spark in the center fuel tank—I am forever indebted to Jack. This book is a compelling read laying out the facts of what really happened. It is a book you won’t be able to put down. Thank you, Jack!”

  —LISA MICHELSON, family member of TWA 800 victim

  “A transparent fraud exposed! In 2003 Jack and I wrote First Strike, an account of the TWA Flight 800 shoot-down, exposing evidence uncovered as of 2003. Now, in 2016, Cashill tells a compelling story based on evidence uncovered over the last nineteen plus years. It is a book that should be a runaway best seller—but will not. Dominant eastern media, led by the New York Times, has far too much to lose, as do the National Security State and important political players from 1996.”

  —JAMES SANDERS, author of The Downing of TWA Flight 800

  “Outstanding! Co-counsel Mark Lane and I had the honor of bringing Jim and Liz Sanders’ civil rights lawsuit against eight government officials who participated in the cover-up. Later, I had the pleasure of prosecuting Ray Lahr’s FOIA lawsuit. Astonishingly, to keep the truth of the missile strike from the American people, the government concealed all the physical evidence, and the eyewitness accounts, with the cooperation of the media. In TWA 800, Jack Cashill proves it, succinctly.”

  —JOHN CLARKE, attorney

  Copyright © 2016 by Jack Cashill

  All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with a review written for inclusion in a magazine, newspaper, website, or broadcast.

  Regnery History™ is a trademark of Salem Communications Holding Corporation; Regnery® is a registered trademark of Salem Communications Holding Corporation

  First e-book edition 2016: ISBN 978-1-62157-546-7

  Originally published in hardcover, 2016

  The Library of Congress has cataloged the hardcover edition as follows:

  Names: Cashill, Jack.

  Title: TWA 800: the crash, the cover-up, and the conspiracy / Jack Cashill.

  Description: Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2016.

  Identifiers: LCCN 2016004757

  Subjects: LCSH: TWA Flight 800 Crash, 1996. | Aircraft accidents--New York (State)--Long Island Region. | Aircraft accidents--North Atlantic Ocean. | Aircraft accidents--Investigation--United States. | Conspiracies. | BISAC: HISTORY / United States / 20th Century. | TRANSPORTATION / Aviation / History.

  Classification: LCC TL553.525.N7 C37 2016 | DDC 363.12/465--dc23

  LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016004757

  Published in the United States by

  Regnery History

  An imprint of Regnery Publishing

  A Division of Salem Media Group

  300 New Jersey Ave NW

  Washington, DC 20001

  www.RegneryHistory.com

  Manufactured in the United States of America

  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

  Books are available in quantity for promotional or premium use. For information on discounts and terms, please visit our website: www.Regnery.com.

  Distributed to the trade by

  Perseus Distribution

  250 West 57th Street

  New York, NY 10107

  To James and Elizabeth Sanders

  CONTENTS

  ONE THE BREACH

  TWO CONSPIRACY THEORIST

  THREE THE BEST PEOPLE

  FOUR THE VIDEO

  FIVE THE MAN ON THE BRIDGE

  SIX INTELLIGENCE MEDAL OF MERIT

  SEVEN THE GOOD BUREAUCRAT

  EIGHT RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM

  NINE SEPTEMBER 11

  TEN FIT TO PRINT

  ELEVEN BLACK HOLE

  TWELVE DOG DAYS

  THIRTEEN LOST AT SEA

  FOURTEEN MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON

  FIFTEEN THE FIXERS

  SIXTEEN ENGINE TROUBLE

  SEVENTEEN BENGHAZI MOMENT

  EIGHTEEN PROCRUSTES

  NINETEEN THE SMOKING GUN

  NOTES

  INDEX

  At 8:19 p.m. on July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 left JFK Airport bound for Paris. At 8:31 p.m. the plane was destroyed ten miles off the popular South Shore of Long Island. The FBI would interview more than 250 people who saw an object streaking toward the plane.

  Chapter: ONE

  THE BREACH

  But you also had systemically a wall that was in place between the criminal side and the intelligence side. What’s in a criminal case doesn’t cross over that line. Ironclad regulations, so that even people in the criminal division and the intelligence divisions of the FBI couldn’t talk to each other, let alone talk to us or us talk to them.1

  —Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, before the 9/11 Commission, March 24, 2004

  “Jack Cashill?”

  I took the call in my Kansas City office on my landline. I still had one. It was the spring of 2009.

  “You got ’im.”

  “This is witness number seventy-three. Do you know who I am?”

  I did indeed. She was arguably the single most important eyewitness to the destruction of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island thirteen years earlier. During those years her identity eluded the many independent researchers into the crash, myself included. As she told me, physicist Tom Stalcup, among the more dedicated of those researchers, had recently tracked her down. Before that contact, she had no idea how crucial was her testimony. Once she learned, she wanted to learn more and called me, since I had co-authored a book on TWA 800 with James Sanders called First Strike.

  “Do you remember what I told the FBI?” she asked.

  “I certainly do.” I could almost recite it. “Upside down Nike swoosh, correct?”

  “That’s me.”

  On July 17, 1996, Sandy—not her real name—was visiting friends on Long Island. They were relatives of her fiancé who was working in New York City. That evening Sandy and her two friends drove to a beach near the Moriches Inlet on the South Shore of Long Island. Just a few
minutes after sunset, the FBI would report, “She observed an aircraft climbing in the sky, traveling from her right to her left.” This would have been from the west, JFK airport in New York City, towards the east, eventually Paris, the original destination of the ill-fated 747 with 230 souls on board.

  The sun was setting behind her. “While keeping her eyes on the aircraft,” the FBI report continued, “she observed a ‘red streak’ moving up from the ground toward the aircraft at an approximately 45 degree angle. The ‘red streak’ was leaving a light gray colored smoke trail. The ‘red streak’ went passed [sic] the right side and above the aircraft before arcing back toward the aircraft’s right wing.”

  According to the FBI, Sandy described the arc’s shape “as resembling an upside down NIKE swoosh logo.” The smoke trail, light gray in color, widened as it approached the aircraft. Agent Lee Butler interviewed Sandy at her North Carolina home three days after the disaster and wrote down Sandy’s account on a “302,” the standard FBI report form. “She never took her eyes off the aircraft during this time,” the 302 continued. “At the instant the smoke trail ended at the aircraft’s right wing, she heard a loud sharp noise which sounded like a firecracker had just exploded at her feet. She then observed a fire at the aircraft followed by one or two secondary explosions which had a deeper sound. She then observed the front of the aircraft separate from the back. She then observed burning pieces of debris falling from the aircraft.”

  Weeks before the FBI and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) were able to piece together the break-up sequence of the aircraft, Sandy had nailed it. She was the perfect eyewitness. She worked in the travel industry. She had a long-standing interest in aviation. She tracked the plane and the “flare” as separate objects. She read no more into the explosion than what she could observe. At the Moriches Inlet, she was as close to the actual site of the explosion as any other witness, less than ten miles away. And she was not grandstanding. Just the opposite. Her friends and her fiancé were dead set against her cooperating with the FBI. The following day agent Mary Doran called and asked Sandy to talk to her friends. Doran wanted their accounts as well. Sandy balked. As she told Doran, her friends were “really upset” she had given their names to the FBI. “They did not want to have any involvement whatsoever with the FBI,” she added. Sandy’s fiancé sided with his relatives, so much so that she feared he would break off the engagement if the FBI contacted them.2

  Sandy would marry her fiancé. At the time she called me, he was being treated for cancer in a hospital about an hour up the road from my Kansas City office. Had her husband been healthy, she would not have dared to follow up. He wanted her to have nothing to do with the case, but now there was a story she felt the need to share.

  It involved her second interview. As reported on an FBI 302, agents Steven Bongardt and Theodore Otto visited Sandy at her North Carolina home on April 29, 1997, and produced a report more detailed than Agent Butler’s from July 1996. Sandy covered much of the same territory, but her account was not as precise as it had been during the first interview nine months earlier. In that earlier interview, she claimed the object hit the right wing. This time “she could not recall which of the wings” was struck. Nor did she repeat her claim that the object came “up from the ground.” In this second account, she only claimed to have seen the object in mid-flight.

  Unlike Agent Butler, Bongardt and Otto asked her what kind of object she had observed. “She replied that she believed she witnessed a missile,” the agents reported, “which had been fired from a boat which was located somewhere on the Atlantic Ocean.” By this time the idea that a missile struck TWA 800 had been shuttled off to the netherworld of the conspiracy theorist. A month earlier, the CIA and the FBI concurred that a sighting like hers was an optical illusion. The agents did not include the “missile” detail to make Sandy look astute. They included it to make her look flighty. They also suggested a reason why her initial account might be unreliable. Although denying she was “inebriated” at the time of the crash, Sandy did admit that “she had consumed two (2) ‘Long Island Ice Tea’ cocktails” earlier that evening. This admission rendered her initial account suspect.3

  At the time, the FBI did not make audio recordings of interviews. A secretary simply took the handwritten 302s and typed them up. Sandy had only recently read the two separate 302s. She was still fuming when I talked to her. She had real problems with that second one.

  “I don’t even know what a ‘Long Island Ice Tea’ is,” she told me.

  “Could it have been another drink?” I asked.

  “No,” she told me. “I don’t drink, not at all. And there’s something else you don’t know, something stranger.”

  “Tell me.”

  “There was no second interview. They made it all up.”

  “There’s something you may not know.” I added. “You’re not the only witness they did that to.”

  As Sandy was learning, she was one of more than 700 witnesses to the crash or its aftermath that the FBI interviewed. The fact that her two friends refused to be interviewed suggests that there were many more who saw the incident but refused to cooperate. By the National Transportation Safety Board’s count she was one of 258 eyewitnesses who saw a rising streak of light and one of fifty-six who traced that light to the ground or the horizon.4 She had no idea there were so many. Few people did. Of the fifty-six, the New York Times, which more or less owned the story, interviewed exactly none after the first two days of the investigation and those in the first two days only cursorily.

  While Sandy and her friends were enjoying the summer evening at the Moriches Inlet, Bill and Hillary Clinton were working the rope line at the Women’s Leadership Forum of the Democratic National Committee. At 8:35 p.m., four minutes after TWA 800 was blown out of the sky, a motorcade whisked the Clintons to the White House. They arrived at 8:45 p.m. and made their way to the family residence.5 Soon after they arrived, Clinton’s chief of staff Leon Panetta called the president with the grim news out of Long Island.6

  By 9 p.m. the White House was abuzz with talk of the disaster. In his bestselling 2004 memoir, Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke provided the most detailed account of that evening. At the time, Clarke served as chairman of the Coordinating Security Group (CSG) on terrorism. Within thirty minutes of the plane’s crash, wrote Clarke, he had called a meeting of the CSG in the White House Situation Room. This involved the FBI, the CIA, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the departments of State and Defense, the Pentagon, and the Coast Guard.7 “The investigation [looked] at almost every possibility including a state actor,” said Panetta. From the beginning, no one considered this an ordinary plane crash.

  For reasons unknown but easily imagined, the president chose not to join Clarke and the other anxious officials in the Situation Room, located in the White House’s basement. Instead, as Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson confirmed, the Clintons spent the evening on the second floor in the family residence. Patterson believes there was another person with the Clintons, Sandy Berger, the deputy national security advisor. At the time, Patterson carried the nuclear football for the president, which kept him in close proximity. That night, he too was in the White House, but he was not involved in any relevant discussions.8

  That same night, Captain Ray Ott and his crew on a Navy surveillance plane, the P-3 Orion, were flying almost directly above the 747 when it exploded. After circling for a half hour and shooting video of the debris field, the plane quit the scene and headed south two hundred miles on a routine sub-hunting exercise. No entity in the military arsenal was as capable of hunting down any suspected terrorists as the P-3, but Ott had orders to do otherwise.9

  For the next six hours the Clintons gathered information and evaluated possible responses. The response Clarke dreaded most went by the cryptic name, the “Eisenhower option.” According to Clarke, Clinton argued for a “massive attack” against Iran if American interests were to be
attacked again as they had been in June when terrorists blew up the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen American servicemen. “Clearly,” Panetta would later tell CNN, “if we had determined that this was a foreign act or a terrorist [sic] similar to what had happened to 9/11 that President Clinton would not have hesitated to take action.”10 So charged was the atmosphere following TWA 800’s destruction that Clarke called this moment in history, “The Almost War, 1996.”

  This was exactly the kind of crisis the president feared most. He had even given it a generic name, “Greg Norman.” Clinton and golfer Greg Norman were buddies. A few months earlier, in April 1996, Norman took a six-stroke lead into the final round of the Masters and blew it. Clinton worried that his campaign might suffer a similar fate. He told press aide Mike McCurry, “That’s going to be the new theme for the campaign, that we’re not going to allow ourselves to be Greg Normanized.”11 He and Hillary had spent the last sixteen months scrambling out of the crater left by the disastrous 1994 mid-term elections. Now with a lead in the polls seemingly as solid as Norman’s at the Masters, Clinton would leave nothing to chance. “We could have a major crisis go bad on us,” he worried.12 “Greg Norman,” he reminded his staff over and over. “Greg Norman.”13

  By 3 a.m. the Clintons had settled on a strategy, one even bolder than it might have seemed to those not in the know. At that fabled hour—the one Hillary would mythologize in her run against Barack Obama—Bill called Berger’s boss, National Security Advisor Tony Lake, with the following message: “Dust off the contingency plans.”14 For the time being, the president, in private at least, would blame terrorists for the attack, Iran the chief suspect among them.

  The apolitical Lake may not have known any more than this. Only a handful of people did. Evidence strongly suggests that a trusted source in the U.S. Navy received orders to secure the plane’s black boxes and to silence his colleagues. The Department of Justice got the word to have the FBI take the investigation over from the National Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB. Although arguably illegal, this move was made publicly. Less public but even more suspect was the intervention of the CIA. Very quietly, as a treasure trove of recently unearthed CIA documents confirm, the CIA was allowed to breach the storied “wall” that prevented the nation’s intelligence arm from collaborating with its prosecutorial arm. The agency involved itself on day one of the investigation and ultimately seized control. Ironically, the same Justice Department official who authorized the wall in 1995 was one of the select few chosen to oversee its violation.