Re: From the Files - Freeh and Flight 800

Marc Rotenberg wrote:
>
>FWIW, Kallstrom spent much of his time at the press
>conference this week debunking the missle theory.
>The FBI's explanation for why so many eyewitnesses
>appeared to see a missile approach the plane boils
>down to this: observers, alerted by the explosion,
>were actually observing a wing falling away from
>the plane.

To amplify this a bit: the explanation also included the
speculation of cascading fuel being ignited from the
bottom and flaming upward, which could be interpreted 
by the observers as a missile rising. 

An interesting view which I wonder if any of our scientists
here find credible. 

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall the CIA video showing
upward flaming fuel, rather it showed a billowing explosion
centered on the main fuel tank of the upturning fuselage
(as the front cabin plummeted).

Is it feasible that the fuel would ignite and flame upward 
that way or would it be too broadly dispersed by speed 
and the atmosphere to cause a coherent, shaped flame 
such as that of a missile tail? For example, would an 
adept pilot be able to tell the difference?

This is posed because of the way several theories of
the OKC blomb blast got it wrong due to overly
narrow initial interpretation as did misinterpretations
of other controversial "terrorisms."

Perhaps Tim May is correct in his assessment of Jim,
but NTSC's upcoming hearing should produce more 
reliable technical information than Kallstrom appears to 
be comfortable handling -- given his bent for melodrama 
fine details of investigation seem to be an annoyance,
although he appeared to like the assurance of the CIA's 
virtual reality.

Kallstrom also said that the case will remain open, I guess
in case Boeing or TWA or something needs to be zapped
by blind justice.

At 6:09 PM -0700 11/19/97, John Young wrote:

>Perhaps Tim May is correct in his assessment of Jim,
>but NTSC's upcoming hearing should produce more
>reliable technical information than Kallstrom appears to
>be comfortable handling -- given his bent for melodrama
>fine details of investigation seem to be an annoyance,
>although he appeared to like the assurance of the CIA's
>virtual reality.
>
>Kallstrom also said that the case will remain open, I guess
>in case Boeing or TWA or something needs to be zapped
>by blind justice.

My main point in my post was about the "clampdown on civil liberties" after
the dual "terrorist incidents" of Flight 800 and Richard Jewell, and how
those liberties are not being given back to us now that the crash of Flight
800 has been ruled a non-terrorist attack.

Analysis of the missile theory was not my main thrust.

There's always a chance it _was_ a missile, or a bomb, or somesuch. I don't
see compelling evidence. The CIA reconstruction looked quite complete and
plausible to me.

We can argue for the next 30 years about the vapor trail from the grassy
knoll, but it seems like a wild goose chase to me.

And there are much more substantiated cases of malfeasance. If 1% of the
media attention given to Flight 900 had been given to
Inslaw/Cabazon/Systematics and the Octopus/Casolaro/Contras mess, much more
useful things would be learned. Learned by the American public, that is.

For starters, folks ought to do a Web search on J. Orlin Grabbe, who was on
the Cypherpunks list a couple of years ago. Lots of interesting stuff, and
his articles are getter wider distribution now.

--Tim May




The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."