T W A 8 0 0 M I S S I L E T H E O R Y
S T R O N G E R T H A N E V E R
(c) (07/17/97) Ian Williams Goddard
One year after the pulverized remains of TWA Flight 800 plunged into the sea, it's clearer than ever that the passengers on board were victims of a missile strike.
While most of the 154 missile-witness accounts taken by the FBI remain covered up, a few accounts are available to the public, such as the accounts of 5 pilots who were flying in the area when TWA 800 was suddenly annihilated:
FIVE PILOTS - FIVE MISSILE WITNESSES
PILOT 1: Colonel William Stratemeier, Jr.
AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY reported that Air National Guard C-130 pilot Colonel Stratemeier "said he had seen what appeared to be the trail of a shoulder-fired SAM ending in a flash on the 747."  However, in the next issue of AVIATION WEEK Stratemeier re- cants, saying: "We did not see smoke trails [from a missile], any ignition source from the tail end of a rocket nor anything..."
Col. Stratemeier recanted and therefore was not hit with an FBI gag order, but the next two ANG pilots did not recant their accounts and therefore were hit with FBI gag orders.
PILOT 2: Captain Christian Baur
AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY reports that right after the TWA 800 accident, ANG HH-60 helicopter co-pilot Captain Baur told federal officials: "Almost due south, there was a hard white light, like burning pyrotech- nics, in level flight. I was trying to figure out what it was. It was the wrong color for flares. It struck an object coming from the right [TWA 800] and made it explode." 
PILOT 3: Major Frederick Meyer
At a press conference the day after the TWA 800 accident, ANG HH-60 helicopter pilot Major Meyer said: "I saw something that looked to me like a shooting star. Now you normally don't see a shooting star when the sun is up. It was still bright... Almost immediately thereafter, I saw, in rapid succession, a small explosion then a large explosion."  Meyer said that the initial explosion "looked identical to the detonation of an antiaircraft shell."
PILOT 4: Vasilis Bakounis
Private Pilot and Olympic Airlines engineer Vasilis Bakounis told the Greek publication ELEFTHEROTYPIA  that as he was heading toward Gabreski Airport on July 17, 1996, "Suddenly I saw in the fog to my left toward the ocean, a small flame rising quickly to- ward the sky. Before I realized it, I saw this flame become huge. My first thought was that it was a flare that had been launched from some boat... This flame then started to quickly lose altitude and a few seconds later there was... a second explosion."
PILOT 5: Sven Faret
Flying at 8,500 feet moments before the cataclysmic explosion of TWA 800, private pilot Sven Faret reported that a "short pin-flash of light appeared on the ground, perhaps water."  When asked if the flash of light rose upwards vertically from the earth, Sven confirmed that it did, stating that it was "like a rocket launch at a fireworks display" with a point-of-origin "near the shoreline or in the water." 
All 5 pilots witnessed a rapidly moving luminous and fiery object that was:
1. like a surface-to-air missile 2. like burning pyrotechnics 3. like a meteor yet not like a meteor 4. like a small flame rising quickly 5. like a rocket at a fireworks display
All 5 accounts indicate that this rapidly moving fiery object hit TWA 800 initiating the explosions that killed all on board. At least 2 of the pilots saw the object early enough in its trajectory to have seen it rise upwards from the Earth.
The accounts of the pilots in the air are corroborated by over 100 witnesses on the ground who also saw a fiery object shoot upwards and intercept TWA 800. Some of them said that the fiery object was:
* like a flare
* like a thin white line
* like Grucci fireworks
* like a skyrocket
Most witnesses, such as Naneen Levine on CNN , report that the fiery object followed a curving trajectory as it shot upwards toward TWA 800. There is simply no phenomena other than the firing of a missile that can explain all the details reported by the witnesses who saw that luminous object streak toward TWA 800.
When we also consider that TWA 800 wreck- age shows the signs of missile damage, the real question is not was it a missile that hit TWA 800, but whose missile was it.
TERRORISTS OR THE U.S. NAVY?
While the number of "terrorist-missile theories" is greater than zero, the number of terrorists known to be in the area during the crash is zero. Military experts have shown that the probability that terrorists could even deploy the military hardware necessary to destroy TWA 800 with a missile is near zero. In sum, the terrorist-missile theory offers us a whole lot of nothing.
In contrast to the terrorist-missile theory, the U.S. Navy (a) could deploy the military hardware necessary to take out TWA 800, (b) did deploy assets to the area that were both below and above TWA 800 when it was hit, and (c) did activate warning zones near TWA 800 for military exercises and live-firings. TWA 800 even changed course to avoid an active naval-warning zone moments before it was hit. Unlike the terrorist theory, the Navy-missile theory is overflowing with evidence.
THE NAVY SHUFFLE
It is common for the guilty to try to deny the facts that place them at the scene of the crime or accident. The U.S. military tried to deny the fact that it was at the scene of the TWA 800 accident. On July 23, 1996, Department of Defense spokesman Kenneth Bacon told the press:
I'm not aware [that] there were any military exercises in the area. I've been told by the Joint [Chiefs of] Staff that there were not. 
Yet after eight months of such denials, the Navy finally admitted that naval exercises were taking place off Long Island at the time of the TWA 800 accident.  The Navy also admitted that they had three submarines off Long Island in the ocean below TWA 800. 
We know that there were at least 8 military assets in the area of the TWA 800 accident:
1. NAVY: The ALBUQUERQUE, attack sub 2. NAVY: The TREPANG, attack sub 3. NAVY: The WYOMING, ICBM sub 4. NAVY: P-3 Orion aircraft 5. NAVY: The NORMANDY, missile cruiser 6. USCG: The ADAK, CG patrol boat 7. NYANG: HC-130 aircraft 8. NYANG: HH-60 helicopter
Every asset except the Adak has either (a) been denied to exist or (b) had its reported location at the time of the TWA 800 accident changed by the military. For example, while shuffling around crash-time locations for months, the military placed 4 of its assets in 11 locations:
The Navy-missile-cruiser Normandy was: 1. 180 miles away  2. 185 miles away  3. over 200 miles away 
The Navy P-3 Orion aircraft was: 1. 15 miles to the south  2. about 1 mile southwest  3. 3,700 feet below TWA 800  4. 7,000 feet above TWA 800 
The ANG C-130 aircraft was: 1. 10 miles offshore  2. flying along the coast 
The ANG HH-60 helicopter was: 1. 10 miles offshore at 3,000 feet doing search and rescue practice. 2. 3 miles inland at 100 feet doing practice landings. 
Are we to believe that with as many as nine military radar systems blanketing the area  it would take months for the military to figure out where it was? The pattern of location shifting has been to move military assets further away from the accident than initially reported or further than was eventually discovered, as in the case of the P-3, which tapes proved was more than 10x closer to TWA 800 than once claimed.
If the denial of evidenced proximity to the crime scene is evidence of culpability, then, since multiple instances of military proximity to TWA 800 have been denied by the military, the evidence that the mili- tary is culpable in the downing of TWA 800 is significant. The fact that not only assets but military exercises were denied, makes this evidence compelling.
CONNECTING THE DOTS
TWA 800 researcher Tom Shoemaker recently discovered documents showing that both the New York Air National Guard and the Navy were engaged in a large-scale exercise called "Global Yankee '96" taking place off shore between July 16 and 26, 1996.
Shoemaker's findings confirm the claim of TWA 800 researcher James Sanders that the Navy and the ANG were working together at the time of the accident. 
While the fact that ANG pilots reported what they saw would seem to contradict the possibility of their culpability, it is clear that the ANG is not being forth- right about the locations of ANG assets at crash time.[18,URL] It should also be noted that ANG co-pilot Baur never said what he saw when he had the chance to at a press conference after the crash; that Major Meyer suggested first and foremost that TWA 800 was hit by a meteorite; and that Stratemeier suggested it was hit by a terrorist-style missile, then suddenly claimed he saw nothing. If the Navy and/ or the ANG are guilty, then the ANG pilot responses would be predictable misleads. One year after the fiery demise of TWA 800, the Navy-missile theory not only remains superior to all other TWA 800 theories, but is stronger than ever.
_____________________________________________________________ REFERENCES___________________________________________________  AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY: Terrorist Fears Deepen With 747's Destruction. E.Phillips, P.Mann (7/22/96) p.20.  AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY: ANG Eyewitnesses Reject Missile Theory. David Fulghum, July 29, 1996, page 32.  AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY: ANG Pilot: Jet Hit by Object. By David Fulghum, March 10, 1997.  New York Air National Guard, 106th Rescue Wing press conference, July 18, 1996.  ELEFTHEROTYPIA. Greece, August 23, 1996. Article by Aris Hatzigeorgiou. http://www.enet.gr  Report of TWA 800 witness Sven Faret: http://www.webexpert.net/rosedale/twacasefile/aviator.html  http://www.erols.com/igoddard/sven.htm  CNN: TWA 800 witness Naneen Levine illustrates missile trajectory: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/levine.htm  Debris: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/crash.htm  Department of Defense press conference, July 23, 1996: http://www.dtic.mil/defenselink/news/Jul96/t072396_t0723asd.html  NEWSDAY: TWA Probe: Submarines Off LI. By R.E. Kessler, 03/22/97. http://www.newsday.com/jet/cras0322.htm  ASSOCIATED PRESS: Missile Attack a Favorite of Conspiracy Theorists. 09/03/96.  ASSOCIATED PRESS: Document Says Navy Hit TWA Plane. By Jocelyn Noveck, 11/08/96.  NEWSDAY: The Story So Far. By Craig Gordon, Lima Pleven, 08/20/96. http://www.newsday.com/jet/jemyst20.htm  ASSOCIATED PRESS: FBI Says Mystery Blip on Radar Tape is Unarmed Navy Reconnaissance Plane. 03/21/97.  THE NEW AMERICAN: What Really Happened to TWA 800? By W. Jasper, 10/14/96. http://www.jbs.org/vo12no21.htm#TWA800  NYANG says that the C-130 was in the area JAWS: http://www.infoshop.com/106rescue/html/twa800-pres/sld002.html NYANG rep. James Finkle says JAWS is 10 miles offshore: http://www.webexpert.net/rosedale/twacasefile/jolly14.html  NYANG rep. James Finkle says the C-130 was not in JAWS: http://www.webexpert.net/rosedale/twacasefile/jolly14.html  In  the HH-60 is reported to have been offshore with the C-130, which the ANG says was in JAWS ten miles offshore, but then suddenly the HH-60 was moved over Gabreski Airport: http://www.webexpert.net/rosedale/twacasefile/jolly14.html I called AVIATION WEEK and was told that it was an NYANG representative who told them that the HH-60 was offshore. I was told that the NYANG rep. read the off shore 3,000 ft altitude location straight from Major Meyer's report.  http://www.webexpert.net/rosedale/twacasefile/newsfour.html Visit these pages and copy their contents: http://www.ang.af.mil/angrc-xo/xoom/aargy96.htm http://www.ang.af.mil/angrc-xo/glbynk/partcpnt.htm http://www.rl.af.mil/Lab/C3/current-events/gy_rap1.jpg  The Downing of TWA Flight 800. By James Sanders, 1997.