É morto all'età di 78 anni l'ex Assistente Direttore dell'FBI James Kallstrom, uno degli agenti più famosi del bureau noto per le sue molte apparizioni sui media e per le indagini di alto profilo in cui è stato coinvolto.
Nato il 6 maggio del 1943 a Worcester, nel Massachusetts, si laureò alla University of Massachusetts Amherst nel 1966 e subito dopo entrò nei Marines dove rimase fino al 1970 quando lasciò con il grado di capitano, in questo quadriennio fu inviato due volte in Vietnam durante la guerra.
Dal 1970 al 1997 lavorò all'FBI. Fu agente supervisore dell'indagine contro Cosa Nostra a New York che portò nel 1985 al processo alla cosiddetta Commissione Mafiosa che vide come imputati i boss delle cinque famiglie mafiose più influenti di New York (Gambino, Genovese, Colombo, Lucchese e Bonanno). Fu anche il coordinatore della sorveglianza nell'indagine Pizza Connection che nel 1987 portò al processo contro ventidue mafiosi di origine siciliana.
Divenne responsabile dell'ufficio di New York, il più grande di tutti gli Stati Uniti, nel 1995 e l'anno seguente fu investigatore capo nell'indagine sull'esplosione del volo TWA 800 (all'epoca il secondo più grave incidente aereo della storia americana) le cui conclusioni portarono a importanti migliorie nella sicurezza aerea. A metà degli anni 90 fu anche uno dei fondatori dell'organizzazione Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation che si occupa di fornire aiuti economici per lo studio ai figli di militari o agenti delle forze dell'ordine morti in servizio.
Si ritirò dall'FBI il 31 dicembre del 1997 e lavorò per quattro anni nell'ambito della finanza per una società privata. Tornò nel settore pubblico dopo l'11 settembre come capo dell'ufficio per la sicurezza pubblica di New York. Ricoprì il ruolo fino al 2002 quando divenne consulente senior sull'antiterrorismo dello Stato di New York per il governo.
James Kallstrom partecipò anche a numerosi documentari sulle indagini in cui fu coinvolto e fu anche presentatore del programma The FBI Files di Discovery Channel.
Fonti:
Visualizzazione post con etichetta TWA 800. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta TWA 800. Mostra tutti i post
6 luglio 2021
6 marzo 2021
TWA 800: an interview with former FBI special agent Neil Moran
An Italian translation is available here.
We offer today our readers the personal account of former FBI special agent Neil Moran who was involved in the investigation for the explosion of flight TWA 800 since the very beginning.
We would like to thank Neil Moran for his kindness and availability.
Nastro di Mobius: Would you like to give us an overview of what your role in the investigation for TWA 800 was?
Neil Moran: TWA Flight 800 was a very significant investigation and when big cases like this develop the FBI refers to them as “specials” to which they often designate with internal code names. To give you some context, another big case in which I was involved early in my career was the Lufthansa Robbery, which occurred in December 1978. At that time, it was the largest cash robbery in the history of the United States. I happened to be on the Truck Hijacking Squad working out of the Queens office the morning the robbery occurred. We all came into the office in the morning and our boss said, “Get out to JFK” which was only six or eight miles “and go to the Lufthansa terminal. Something's happening, it’s chaotic out there, the cops have responded but there could be a federal violation.” In the days afterward it was front page news in every domestic and international newspaper. Six million dollars in 1978 was a large amount of money. Many people from the New York Office began to assist our squad, which was handling the investigation. Eventually, as the weeks and months passed, the case quieted down somewhat, and the investigation became more focused.
It was like that with TWA flight 800 as well. In the days following the crash, calls were coming in from everywhere. People were claiming: “I saw this”, “I saw that”, “I saw something shoot it out of the sky”, “I saw a boat in the Atlantic Ocean”, “I saw missiles go up in the air”, “It was the military”. So, all these leads obviously need to be tracked down. As with any disaster of this nature, the cause needs to be determined. Two federal violations that mandate the FBI’s involvement at the outset of an investigation like this are terrorism and crime aboard aircraft.
Did somebody place a bomb on board as has occurred in the past or was it a terrorist group that had not yet claim responsibility? The FBI and other agencies needed to nail this down, so each squad in the office had to devote many people at the outset. Several hundred FBI agents from the New York Office were assigned to varying roles immediately following the crash. Leads came in, usually over the phone. I spent the first couple of days interviewing people, primarily in Suffolk County, New York, as to what they saw. Dozens and dozens of agents doing the same, trying to find any pattern or any commonality that could make sense and lead the investigation in a certain direction.
After the first couple of days, more specific assignments began to take shape at the direction of those handling the case. People were needed to work with the Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy on the retrieval of parts of the downed aircraft. The FBI was being assisted in this effort by many federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. This was truly a collaborative effort by just about every law enforcement entity in the New York metro area. Personnel were also assigned at an airplane hangar in Calverton, New York, near the crash site where it had arranged to transport the parts of the aircraft that were being retrieved each day. People assigned to the airplane hangar were also designated to identify the belongings of passengers, where those items were being transported after being recovered from the ocean floor. Others were assigned to the morgue, and there were those agents continuing to run down leads and conduct interviews. That is how people like me initially were assigned. The first task I had after those initial interviews was working the overnight shift at the hangar in Calverton along with several other agents and members of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Military trucks would arrive fully loaded with parts retrieved from the ocean floor and literally dump those parts at the hangar. Everything needless to say was soaking wet. It was our job to identify to what section of the aircraft each part belonged and eventually, week by week, NTSB and FAA reconstructed the aircraft inside the hangar, as best they could, from those parts that were recovered.
After several weeks, the belongings of the deceased passengers began to accumulate and were gathered in another section of the hangar. That was another assignment that I had, once again during the overnight shift. I was asked to go through a big room full of belongings, most of which were suitcases, to try and identify possessions of deceased passengers, which were eventually to be given to loved ones.
When you work the overnight shift, you are normally arriving home at 9:00 AM or 10:00 AM in the morning. Whatever time you get home you might have something eat then go to bed. Working that shift is very different from being in the office or working during the day when perhaps several hundred people are coming and going to and from the hangar. You tend to hear more about any headway being made in the investigation, whereas in the overnight hours, things are decidedly quieter with far fewer people assigned. I became as curious as the public about the investigation because literally, I was “in the dark” working at night. So, I very much looked forward every afternoon to waking up and watching the daily press conferences, which were given by our then assistant director in charge Jim Kallstrom and NTSB chairman Jim Hall. They were broadcast nationally by CNN and all the big networks every afternoon at 3:00 PM or 4:00 PM and watching those briefings kept me abreast of what was going on, but they were often heartbreaking to watch.
As the weeks went on and things somewhat died from a media perspective, the case was no longer front-page news, so the news began to focus on people that were lost, the 230 passengers, and their backgrounds. One story I vividly recall was the sixteen students, who were members of the French Club at Montoursville Area High School, in Pennsylvania. The students and their five chaperones were traveling to Paris for their class trip. They were all killed in the crash. These were only teenagers and had all their lives ahead of them and suddenly they were gone.
One of the first nights that I was assigned to going through the passenger’s possessions, I had seen a piece on television about a woman named Pamela Lychner from Houston, Texas. They had shown a picture of her. I believe she was in her mid to late 30s and had two young daughters with whom she was traveling. Her husband had either missed the flight or had a business commitment at the last minute and was going to join them after their arrival in Paris. The three of them perished. I remember from watching the piece, that Ms. Lychner was attractive and had striking blond hair. A real estate agent in the early 1990s, she and her husband had bought a vacant house, which they put up for sale, when a prospective buyer contacted them. The couple met the prospective buyer and during the tour of the house while the husband was occupied in another area, the prospective buyer attempted to sexually assault Ms. Lychner. He was a convicted sexual offender. Criminal charges were filed against the individual and he got sentenced to twenty years in jail. Two years later, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice sent a letter to Ms. Lychner, notifying her that the state nominated the man convicted as a candidate for early release. She was outraged. Pam Lychner soon became an advocate for women who were victims of sexual assault and wound-up contacting members of the U.S. Senate, Senator Phil Graham and - you are not going to believe this – now President of the U.S., Joe Biden. The senators wrote legislation, which was subsequently passed by Congress and later called The Pam Lychner Act. This created a sexual offender database in the U.S., which is still in existence today. I watched the piece and was very moved by the whole story. Amazingly, either that night or the night after, I unzipped a suitcase at the hangar and found a wallet amid soaking wet clothing and there was Pam Lychner’s driver’s license and Texas gun permit. It was the eeriest thing I recall happening during my time working on the case.
Stories like this aired on television several other times. I had watched a piece one afternoon on a young couple who had just gotten engaged and were taking a trip to Paris. A day or two later I found the woman’s handbag with her identification.
I would often meet and speak with colleagues during the course of the midnight shift. People from ATF, the New York City Police Department Bomb Squad, FBI Bomb techs from Washington DC, and I was naturally curious about the progress of the investigation. I would ask, “What do you think? Are you seeing anything that is leading you to believe that there may have been a bomb planted on board or that someone fired a missile at the plane?” They would reply, “We haven't seen any bomb residue. This very well may have been mechanical, but we're really not sure.” None of them were certain at this stage.
After several months went by, the manpower in the investigation began to be dramatically reduced. This occurs in any big case where supervisors are asked to devote their people to another squad. Each unit in the office has its own caseload and when you do not have everyone devoting their time to that caseload, those investigations suffer. TWA Flight 800 was not being covered in the media with the intensity it had been in the early days and the investigation was in the hands of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, so gradually people like me began to spend less time working on the case.
It was finally determined that the cause of the aircraft explosion of Flight 800 was a spark that ignited the center fuel tank. The FBI was able to say that there had been no indication that the explosion could be linked to an act of terrorism. Our boss, Jim Kallstrom certainly could not appear on national television and say “This definitely wasn't terrorism” a week after it happened. The FBI wanted to be very careful about determining a cause and they wanted all the agencies involved to be on the same page, among them, NTSB, FAA, ATF, and the New York City Bomb Squad. This was certainly a multi-agency effort, there was no question about that.
Nastro di Mobius: How was the collaboration between different agencies? Was it smooth and easy or were there conflicts?
Neil Moran: I can’t speak from a higher level of the executive leadership of the various agencies, but from my perspective, as is usually the case the collaboration was good and that's usually the way a lot of these investigations proceed. The “worker bees”, the people like me sifting through soaking wet suitcases and airplane debris, that only days before were at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, generally get along very well with the people with whom they are working. Sometimes in these major investigations, at a higher-level of leadership, egos come into play, along with interagency jealousies and things can get a little bit testy, but I don't recall hearing any horror stories about agencies feeling that they had been mistreated or left out of the effort, although I am sure there were some.
Nastro di Mobius: How was this case unique compared to others you’ve been involved with throughout your career?
Neil Moran: Other big cases, like the one I mentioned earlier, the Lufthansa Robbery, didn't have 230 victims lying at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. This investigation was much different; it’s something most FBI agents don't get to work on during the course of a career but working in the New York Office certainly affords FBI agents the opportunity to work on many significant investigations, which often garner national and international attention.
It was interesting talking to colleagues with whom I worked at that time as to what they were doing in their respective assignments. A fellow on my squad was assigned to the morgue, where bodies and body parts were arriving every day. I recall him saying that it was absolutely the worst that thing he's ever experienced and could not picture having a more depressing assignment. He said that he was having trouble sleeping at night because of the things he saw each day. This certainly was a very unique case, and not something that when you're going through your sixteen weeks of training at the FBI Academy in Quantico, that the instructors are preparing you for in the future. TWA Flight 800 was like nothing in which I was ever involved and no doubt any of the people that were assigned would tell you the same thing.
It was a very multifaceted case and you really did need the collaboration and cooperation of all the different agencies working together because I don't think that FBI agents will ever claim to be experts at putting planes back together.
Nastro di Mobius: What was the feeling among the investigators about the cause of the disaster before it was clear what the cause was?
Neil Moran: I'll go back to casual conversations I had with people at 2:00 AM and 3:00 AM in the morning on a coffee break at the hangar. I had worked with a fellow that got transferred from New York to Washington DC and I hadn't seen him probably in ten years. I wondered what happened to him with his career and it turned out he was an FBI bomb tech. We chatted over coffee in the wee hours of the morning and I remember asking, “What do you think?” and he replied, “We don't see any indication here of a bomb, we don’t see any bomb residue.” I also heard the same from a number of people, as I said, from members of the New York City Police Department Bomb Squad, ATF, and other FBI agents. Some people did say “This is probably some sort of a mechanical malfunction” and that's what it turned out to be.
Nastro di Mobius: Is it common in your experience that eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts?
Neil Moran: Absolutely, yes. When I was a new agent in 1975 New York was a hotbed in the country for bank robberies. The New York Office had two bank robbery squads to handle the hundreds of investigations at the time. These guys were working 7 days a week 365 days a year responding to bank robberies, conducting investigations, and making arrests. The bank robbery people had something called “Bank Robbery Rover”. I wasn’t assigned to the bank robbery squad, but in my first weeks as an agent I was assigned to the Bank Robbery Rover on several occasions. I remember showing up at a bank in the Bronx, not too far from the neighborhood where I was raised, on the other side of the Bronx River Parkway, and a senior member of the squad said, “I'm glad you guys got here, I really need help in separating these witnesses. Don't let them talk to each other or they are going to hear one another’s accounts”. Once we began interviewing the witnesses it was amazing to me the conflicting nature of what they observed. One would say, “He was a white male 5’10””and another would say, “No, I saw a light-skinned black man who was about 6’5””. “The gun was silver plated,” one commented, while another claimed it was black. The differences in height ranging from 5’1” to 6’5” is quite significant. As is a light-skinned black man as opposed to a white man, not to mention a silver gun compared to a black gun.
There's no question that people, in the heat of the moment, become confused as to what they saw or did not see, but in my experience, we often developed good witnesses, as well. When we would bring our prosecutions either to the Brooklyn U.S. Attorney's Office or to the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, the first thing they would ask was “Is this person a good witness?” Sometimes they would just put their head in their hands and say, “Oh my God, this person's going to be horrible” and other times they would say, “I like this person, they have a real good eye for detail, and they'll be a good witness on the stand a year from now”. It really depends, but by and large it's my experience, especially with TWA Flight 800, that you would hear many different stories from many different witnesses, and I think my colleagues would say the same thing. It’s hit and miss as far as reliability is concerned.
Nastro di Mobius: In your opinion did the media pressure have an impact on the investigation? If so, a positive or a negative one?
Neil Moran: If you asked the assistant director who was on the phone with people in the highest levels of government and on TV every day he might say, “Sometimes, yes, we were pressured” but I don’t believe media pressure can force the investigators to come to a premature conclusion or for the FBI to say something that isn’t accurate. You have to think of the media of today compared to the media of 1996. Not to say that they were any less aggressive or hungrier for a story back in 1996 than they are now, but we didn’t have the 24/7 coverage that we have today.
It’s very likely that people at the highest levels of our government may have at one time or another reached out to the executive leadership of the Flight 800 investigation and said something like, “We need to come up with some answers on this case quickly because CBS is going with a big story tonight” or “60 Minutes is airing an investigative report into the case this weekend and they're going to be highly critical of our findings or lack of findings to date”. Once again, I would never believe our bosses in the New York Office would be pressured into saying something unless they could support their conclusions with evidence.
Nastro di Mobius: What "lesson learned" did you gain from this case?
Neil Moran: It is more of a personal lesson. I recounted the story of seeing that woman's personal belongings shortly after watching the piece about her on TV. I didn't know who she was and had never heard of her before and all of a sudden, I was going through all of the personal items in her suitcase and that made me realize how precious life is and how quickly it can suddenly end.
I opened a suitcase of one of the sixteen students from Montoursville, Pennsylvania, who was a young teenager. Whether he organized his clothes or whether his mother may have, they looked like they were being displayed in a department store. Everything was soaking wet, but all the clothes were neatly and carefully arranged. At the top was a windbreaker that read “Jason” or “Jacob” and on the other side was a winged foot. I ran track and cross-country in high school and in college, I was an avid runner for many years and when I saw the winged foot and I said to myself, “This kid was on the track team”. I took the windbreaker out, I looked on the side of the arm and it had 880-yard dash, an event in which I frequently competed. I just paused and said to myself, “This young boy had his whole life ahead of him and he's never going to get to run another race”. Once again, it had a big impact on me and made me realize that I should be thankful for each day and never take anything for granted. This case was proof positive that one’s life can end in an instant.
We offer today our readers the personal account of former FBI special agent Neil Moran who was involved in the investigation for the explosion of flight TWA 800 since the very beginning.
We would like to thank Neil Moran for his kindness and availability.
Nastro di Mobius: Would you like to give us an overview of what your role in the investigation for TWA 800 was?
Neil Moran: TWA Flight 800 was a very significant investigation and when big cases like this develop the FBI refers to them as “specials” to which they often designate with internal code names. To give you some context, another big case in which I was involved early in my career was the Lufthansa Robbery, which occurred in December 1978. At that time, it was the largest cash robbery in the history of the United States. I happened to be on the Truck Hijacking Squad working out of the Queens office the morning the robbery occurred. We all came into the office in the morning and our boss said, “Get out to JFK” which was only six or eight miles “and go to the Lufthansa terminal. Something's happening, it’s chaotic out there, the cops have responded but there could be a federal violation.” In the days afterward it was front page news in every domestic and international newspaper. Six million dollars in 1978 was a large amount of money. Many people from the New York Office began to assist our squad, which was handling the investigation. Eventually, as the weeks and months passed, the case quieted down somewhat, and the investigation became more focused.
It was like that with TWA flight 800 as well. In the days following the crash, calls were coming in from everywhere. People were claiming: “I saw this”, “I saw that”, “I saw something shoot it out of the sky”, “I saw a boat in the Atlantic Ocean”, “I saw missiles go up in the air”, “It was the military”. So, all these leads obviously need to be tracked down. As with any disaster of this nature, the cause needs to be determined. Two federal violations that mandate the FBI’s involvement at the outset of an investigation like this are terrorism and crime aboard aircraft.
Did somebody place a bomb on board as has occurred in the past or was it a terrorist group that had not yet claim responsibility? The FBI and other agencies needed to nail this down, so each squad in the office had to devote many people at the outset. Several hundred FBI agents from the New York Office were assigned to varying roles immediately following the crash. Leads came in, usually over the phone. I spent the first couple of days interviewing people, primarily in Suffolk County, New York, as to what they saw. Dozens and dozens of agents doing the same, trying to find any pattern or any commonality that could make sense and lead the investigation in a certain direction.
After the first couple of days, more specific assignments began to take shape at the direction of those handling the case. People were needed to work with the Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy on the retrieval of parts of the downed aircraft. The FBI was being assisted in this effort by many federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. This was truly a collaborative effort by just about every law enforcement entity in the New York metro area. Personnel were also assigned at an airplane hangar in Calverton, New York, near the crash site where it had arranged to transport the parts of the aircraft that were being retrieved each day. People assigned to the airplane hangar were also designated to identify the belongings of passengers, where those items were being transported after being recovered from the ocean floor. Others were assigned to the morgue, and there were those agents continuing to run down leads and conduct interviews. That is how people like me initially were assigned. The first task I had after those initial interviews was working the overnight shift at the hangar in Calverton along with several other agents and members of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Military trucks would arrive fully loaded with parts retrieved from the ocean floor and literally dump those parts at the hangar. Everything needless to say was soaking wet. It was our job to identify to what section of the aircraft each part belonged and eventually, week by week, NTSB and FAA reconstructed the aircraft inside the hangar, as best they could, from those parts that were recovered.
After several weeks, the belongings of the deceased passengers began to accumulate and were gathered in another section of the hangar. That was another assignment that I had, once again during the overnight shift. I was asked to go through a big room full of belongings, most of which were suitcases, to try and identify possessions of deceased passengers, which were eventually to be given to loved ones.
When you work the overnight shift, you are normally arriving home at 9:00 AM or 10:00 AM in the morning. Whatever time you get home you might have something eat then go to bed. Working that shift is very different from being in the office or working during the day when perhaps several hundred people are coming and going to and from the hangar. You tend to hear more about any headway being made in the investigation, whereas in the overnight hours, things are decidedly quieter with far fewer people assigned. I became as curious as the public about the investigation because literally, I was “in the dark” working at night. So, I very much looked forward every afternoon to waking up and watching the daily press conferences, which were given by our then assistant director in charge Jim Kallstrom and NTSB chairman Jim Hall. They were broadcast nationally by CNN and all the big networks every afternoon at 3:00 PM or 4:00 PM and watching those briefings kept me abreast of what was going on, but they were often heartbreaking to watch.
As the weeks went on and things somewhat died from a media perspective, the case was no longer front-page news, so the news began to focus on people that were lost, the 230 passengers, and their backgrounds. One story I vividly recall was the sixteen students, who were members of the French Club at Montoursville Area High School, in Pennsylvania. The students and their five chaperones were traveling to Paris for their class trip. They were all killed in the crash. These were only teenagers and had all their lives ahead of them and suddenly they were gone.
One of the first nights that I was assigned to going through the passenger’s possessions, I had seen a piece on television about a woman named Pamela Lychner from Houston, Texas. They had shown a picture of her. I believe she was in her mid to late 30s and had two young daughters with whom she was traveling. Her husband had either missed the flight or had a business commitment at the last minute and was going to join them after their arrival in Paris. The three of them perished. I remember from watching the piece, that Ms. Lychner was attractive and had striking blond hair. A real estate agent in the early 1990s, she and her husband had bought a vacant house, which they put up for sale, when a prospective buyer contacted them. The couple met the prospective buyer and during the tour of the house while the husband was occupied in another area, the prospective buyer attempted to sexually assault Ms. Lychner. He was a convicted sexual offender. Criminal charges were filed against the individual and he got sentenced to twenty years in jail. Two years later, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice sent a letter to Ms. Lychner, notifying her that the state nominated the man convicted as a candidate for early release. She was outraged. Pam Lychner soon became an advocate for women who were victims of sexual assault and wound-up contacting members of the U.S. Senate, Senator Phil Graham and - you are not going to believe this – now President of the U.S., Joe Biden. The senators wrote legislation, which was subsequently passed by Congress and later called The Pam Lychner Act. This created a sexual offender database in the U.S., which is still in existence today. I watched the piece and was very moved by the whole story. Amazingly, either that night or the night after, I unzipped a suitcase at the hangar and found a wallet amid soaking wet clothing and there was Pam Lychner’s driver’s license and Texas gun permit. It was the eeriest thing I recall happening during my time working on the case.
Stories like this aired on television several other times. I had watched a piece one afternoon on a young couple who had just gotten engaged and were taking a trip to Paris. A day or two later I found the woman’s handbag with her identification.
I would often meet and speak with colleagues during the course of the midnight shift. People from ATF, the New York City Police Department Bomb Squad, FBI Bomb techs from Washington DC, and I was naturally curious about the progress of the investigation. I would ask, “What do you think? Are you seeing anything that is leading you to believe that there may have been a bomb planted on board or that someone fired a missile at the plane?” They would reply, “We haven't seen any bomb residue. This very well may have been mechanical, but we're really not sure.” None of them were certain at this stage.
After several months went by, the manpower in the investigation began to be dramatically reduced. This occurs in any big case where supervisors are asked to devote their people to another squad. Each unit in the office has its own caseload and when you do not have everyone devoting their time to that caseload, those investigations suffer. TWA Flight 800 was not being covered in the media with the intensity it had been in the early days and the investigation was in the hands of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, so gradually people like me began to spend less time working on the case.
It was finally determined that the cause of the aircraft explosion of Flight 800 was a spark that ignited the center fuel tank. The FBI was able to say that there had been no indication that the explosion could be linked to an act of terrorism. Our boss, Jim Kallstrom certainly could not appear on national television and say “This definitely wasn't terrorism” a week after it happened. The FBI wanted to be very careful about determining a cause and they wanted all the agencies involved to be on the same page, among them, NTSB, FAA, ATF, and the New York City Bomb Squad. This was certainly a multi-agency effort, there was no question about that.
Nastro di Mobius: How was the collaboration between different agencies? Was it smooth and easy or were there conflicts?
Neil Moran: I can’t speak from a higher level of the executive leadership of the various agencies, but from my perspective, as is usually the case the collaboration was good and that's usually the way a lot of these investigations proceed. The “worker bees”, the people like me sifting through soaking wet suitcases and airplane debris, that only days before were at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, generally get along very well with the people with whom they are working. Sometimes in these major investigations, at a higher-level of leadership, egos come into play, along with interagency jealousies and things can get a little bit testy, but I don't recall hearing any horror stories about agencies feeling that they had been mistreated or left out of the effort, although I am sure there were some.
Nastro di Mobius: How was this case unique compared to others you’ve been involved with throughout your career?
Neil Moran: Other big cases, like the one I mentioned earlier, the Lufthansa Robbery, didn't have 230 victims lying at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. This investigation was much different; it’s something most FBI agents don't get to work on during the course of a career but working in the New York Office certainly affords FBI agents the opportunity to work on many significant investigations, which often garner national and international attention.
It was interesting talking to colleagues with whom I worked at that time as to what they were doing in their respective assignments. A fellow on my squad was assigned to the morgue, where bodies and body parts were arriving every day. I recall him saying that it was absolutely the worst that thing he's ever experienced and could not picture having a more depressing assignment. He said that he was having trouble sleeping at night because of the things he saw each day. This certainly was a very unique case, and not something that when you're going through your sixteen weeks of training at the FBI Academy in Quantico, that the instructors are preparing you for in the future. TWA Flight 800 was like nothing in which I was ever involved and no doubt any of the people that were assigned would tell you the same thing.
It was a very multifaceted case and you really did need the collaboration and cooperation of all the different agencies working together because I don't think that FBI agents will ever claim to be experts at putting planes back together.
Nastro di Mobius: What was the feeling among the investigators about the cause of the disaster before it was clear what the cause was?
Neil Moran: I'll go back to casual conversations I had with people at 2:00 AM and 3:00 AM in the morning on a coffee break at the hangar. I had worked with a fellow that got transferred from New York to Washington DC and I hadn't seen him probably in ten years. I wondered what happened to him with his career and it turned out he was an FBI bomb tech. We chatted over coffee in the wee hours of the morning and I remember asking, “What do you think?” and he replied, “We don't see any indication here of a bomb, we don’t see any bomb residue.” I also heard the same from a number of people, as I said, from members of the New York City Police Department Bomb Squad, ATF, and other FBI agents. Some people did say “This is probably some sort of a mechanical malfunction” and that's what it turned out to be.
Nastro di Mobius: Is it common in your experience that eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts?
Neil Moran: Absolutely, yes. When I was a new agent in 1975 New York was a hotbed in the country for bank robberies. The New York Office had two bank robbery squads to handle the hundreds of investigations at the time. These guys were working 7 days a week 365 days a year responding to bank robberies, conducting investigations, and making arrests. The bank robbery people had something called “Bank Robbery Rover”. I wasn’t assigned to the bank robbery squad, but in my first weeks as an agent I was assigned to the Bank Robbery Rover on several occasions. I remember showing up at a bank in the Bronx, not too far from the neighborhood where I was raised, on the other side of the Bronx River Parkway, and a senior member of the squad said, “I'm glad you guys got here, I really need help in separating these witnesses. Don't let them talk to each other or they are going to hear one another’s accounts”. Once we began interviewing the witnesses it was amazing to me the conflicting nature of what they observed. One would say, “He was a white male 5’10””and another would say, “No, I saw a light-skinned black man who was about 6’5””. “The gun was silver plated,” one commented, while another claimed it was black. The differences in height ranging from 5’1” to 6’5” is quite significant. As is a light-skinned black man as opposed to a white man, not to mention a silver gun compared to a black gun.
There's no question that people, in the heat of the moment, become confused as to what they saw or did not see, but in my experience, we often developed good witnesses, as well. When we would bring our prosecutions either to the Brooklyn U.S. Attorney's Office or to the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, the first thing they would ask was “Is this person a good witness?” Sometimes they would just put their head in their hands and say, “Oh my God, this person's going to be horrible” and other times they would say, “I like this person, they have a real good eye for detail, and they'll be a good witness on the stand a year from now”. It really depends, but by and large it's my experience, especially with TWA Flight 800, that you would hear many different stories from many different witnesses, and I think my colleagues would say the same thing. It’s hit and miss as far as reliability is concerned.
Nastro di Mobius: In your opinion did the media pressure have an impact on the investigation? If so, a positive or a negative one?
Neil Moran: If you asked the assistant director who was on the phone with people in the highest levels of government and on TV every day he might say, “Sometimes, yes, we were pressured” but I don’t believe media pressure can force the investigators to come to a premature conclusion or for the FBI to say something that isn’t accurate. You have to think of the media of today compared to the media of 1996. Not to say that they were any less aggressive or hungrier for a story back in 1996 than they are now, but we didn’t have the 24/7 coverage that we have today.
It’s very likely that people at the highest levels of our government may have at one time or another reached out to the executive leadership of the Flight 800 investigation and said something like, “We need to come up with some answers on this case quickly because CBS is going with a big story tonight” or “60 Minutes is airing an investigative report into the case this weekend and they're going to be highly critical of our findings or lack of findings to date”. Once again, I would never believe our bosses in the New York Office would be pressured into saying something unless they could support their conclusions with evidence.
Nastro di Mobius: What "lesson learned" did you gain from this case?
Neil Moran: It is more of a personal lesson. I recounted the story of seeing that woman's personal belongings shortly after watching the piece about her on TV. I didn't know who she was and had never heard of her before and all of a sudden, I was going through all of the personal items in her suitcase and that made me realize how precious life is and how quickly it can suddenly end.
I opened a suitcase of one of the sixteen students from Montoursville, Pennsylvania, who was a young teenager. Whether he organized his clothes or whether his mother may have, they looked like they were being displayed in a department store. Everything was soaking wet, but all the clothes were neatly and carefully arranged. At the top was a windbreaker that read “Jason” or “Jacob” and on the other side was a winged foot. I ran track and cross-country in high school and in college, I was an avid runner for many years and when I saw the winged foot and I said to myself, “This kid was on the track team”. I took the windbreaker out, I looked on the side of the arm and it had 880-yard dash, an event in which I frequently competed. I just paused and said to myself, “This young boy had his whole life ahead of him and he's never going to get to run another race”. Once again, it had a big impact on me and made me realize that I should be thankful for each day and never take anything for granted. This case was proof positive that one’s life can end in an instant.
22 febbraio 2021
L'NTSB annuncia che il relitto del TWA 800 verrà smantellato e distrutto
Il 22 febbraio del 2021 l'NTSB ha annunciato che in concomitanza con la scadenza dell'affitto del Training Center di Ashburn, nella Virginia, il relitto del volo TWA 800 verrà smantellato e distrutto. Il velivolo, un Boeing 747, esplose al largo di East Moriches il 17 luglio del 1996 a causa di un guasto elettrico nel serbatoio centrale. Il caso attirò l'attenzione dei media a quella del pubblico per via dei timori che fosse stato abbattuto da un missile o da una bomba in un attentato terroristico, considerando anche che il disastro avvenne poco prima dell'inizio delle Olimpiadi di Atlanta e mentre a New York si stava svolgendo il processo contro il terrorista Ramzi Yousef perpetratore dell'attentato al World Trade Center del 1993.
L'aereo fu riassemblato dopo l'incidente in un hangar dell'aeroporto Grumman Peconic River di Calverton, nello stato di New York, durante le indagini; fu poi destinato alla formazione nel 2001 e spostato ad Ashburn, dove si trova tuttora, nel 2003
L'aereo verrà utilizzato per la formazione dei nuovi investigatori fino al 7 luglio del 2021, da allora l'NTSB provvederà a documentare la ricostruzione del velivolo con tecnologia 3-D ai fini di documentazione storica. In seguito lavorerà con un fornitore federale per smantellarlo e distruggerlo.
La nota dell'NTSB chiarisce che il relitto non può essere utilizzato per l'esposizione pubblica in base agli accordi iniziali stipulati con le famiglie delle vittime quando fu portato ad Ashburn, pertanto non potrà essere ceduto a un museo. Vista la mole e la necessità di liberare il sito, l'unica soluzione resta quindi la distruzione del velivolo ricostruito. L'NTSB ha comunicato la decisione alle famiglie delle vittime prima di annunciarla pubblicamente.
L'aereo fu riassemblato dopo l'incidente in un hangar dell'aeroporto Grumman Peconic River di Calverton, nello stato di New York, durante le indagini; fu poi destinato alla formazione nel 2001 e spostato ad Ashburn, dove si trova tuttora, nel 2003
L'aereo verrà utilizzato per la formazione dei nuovi investigatori fino al 7 luglio del 2021, da allora l'NTSB provvederà a documentare la ricostruzione del velivolo con tecnologia 3-D ai fini di documentazione storica. In seguito lavorerà con un fornitore federale per smantellarlo e distruggerlo.
La nota dell'NTSB chiarisce che il relitto non può essere utilizzato per l'esposizione pubblica in base agli accordi iniziali stipulati con le famiglie delle vittime quando fu portato ad Ashburn, pertanto non potrà essere ceduto a un museo. Vista la mole e la necessità di liberare il sito, l'unica soluzione resta quindi la distruzione del velivolo ricostruito. L'NTSB ha comunicato la decisione alle famiglie delle vittime prima di annunciarla pubblicamente.
7 dicembre 2020
TWA 800: an interview with former Chief of Coast Guard Media Relations Pat Philbin
An Italian translation is available here.
Flight TWA800, which exploded and crashed into the ocean near East Moriches, New York, on the 17th of July 1996, is one of the most complex cases of aviation disasters in american history. To explain us something on the disaster, Pat Philbin, who back then was the Chief of Coast Guard Media Relations accepted our request for an interview we are today offering our readers.
Nastro di Mobius: How was this case different from others you've been involved with?
Pat Philbin: Operationally, the case was no different other than its magnitude in terms of loss of life and its location to the U.S. coast. From a media perspective, these variables created an immediate challenge to determine what we were able to verify and share with other U.S. agencies that were involved and in our ability to release information to the public. The Coast Guard’s public affairs policy regarding the release of information has always been extraordinarily transparent and simple. Essentially, if a Coast Guard person had authority for something, he/she had a responsibility to answer questions with only four exceptions: if the information had to do with security, accuracy, privacy or propriety (company trade secrets), then the Coast Guard could withhold information. This was known as SAPP.
Nastro di Mobius: What was the feeling of the investigators in the first phases, before it became clear it was caused by an electric problem?
Pat Philbin: I had little or no interaction with the investigators on the scene; however, given the potential for terrorism-related possibilities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has jurisdiction over such issues, was designated as the lead U.S. agency for the investigation. The Coast Guard was a supporting element.
Nastro di Mobius: Is it common in your experience that eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts like it happened with TWA 800?
Pat Philbin: As a researcher, I am familiar with studies that highlight exactly this challenge. I cannot speak to the conflicting accounts in this case, but again, there are studies that suggest people see what they believe, vice believing what they see as you have noted in some of your blog posts (e.g. cognitive dissonance).
Nastro di Mobius: Why do you think this case received so much media attention?
Pat Philbin: In general, immediacy, location, and the inability to verify a root cause quickly create uncertainty that motivate people to want explanations.
Nastro di Mobius: Do you think media pressure had an impact on the investigation? If so, a positive one or a negative one?
Pat Philbin: If you are asking whether the U.S. government changed its way of investigating such incidents, my opinion is no - but it is only my opinion from a supporting perspective of the response.
Nastro di Mobius: How was the cooperation between all different agencies involved in the investigation? Was it easy and smooth or somehow difficult?
Pat Philbin: In general, I recall the cooperation being smooth between federal agencies because of the FBI’s role, which was designated in the aftermath of the tragedy.
Nastro di Mobius: What "lesson learned" did you gain from this case?
Pat Philbin: Government agencies must have clear policies for information release and platforms, or technologies, to facilitate the free flow of information to those who are most relevant. Trust requires that leaders be the primary authoritative source of credible information, supported by evidence to minimize the potential for unsubstantiated allegations that may emerge. Transparency is key. Trained personnel are key. Speed is key. Plans are key. The ideal “systems approach” in responding well to incidents – regardless of the type, is to have well trained personnel whose reactions are based on “muscle memory” created by clear policies, sound planning, and robust exercises, complemented by leading edge technologies and strong leadership to “stay the course” in spite of crushing demand for information until high confidence can be established of the root cause of an incident.
Flight TWA800, which exploded and crashed into the ocean near East Moriches, New York, on the 17th of July 1996, is one of the most complex cases of aviation disasters in american history. To explain us something on the disaster, Pat Philbin, who back then was the Chief of Coast Guard Media Relations accepted our request for an interview we are today offering our readers.
Nastro di Mobius: How was this case different from others you've been involved with?
Pat Philbin: Operationally, the case was no different other than its magnitude in terms of loss of life and its location to the U.S. coast. From a media perspective, these variables created an immediate challenge to determine what we were able to verify and share with other U.S. agencies that were involved and in our ability to release information to the public. The Coast Guard’s public affairs policy regarding the release of information has always been extraordinarily transparent and simple. Essentially, if a Coast Guard person had authority for something, he/she had a responsibility to answer questions with only four exceptions: if the information had to do with security, accuracy, privacy or propriety (company trade secrets), then the Coast Guard could withhold information. This was known as SAPP.
Nastro di Mobius: What was the feeling of the investigators in the first phases, before it became clear it was caused by an electric problem?
Pat Philbin: I had little or no interaction with the investigators on the scene; however, given the potential for terrorism-related possibilities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has jurisdiction over such issues, was designated as the lead U.S. agency for the investigation. The Coast Guard was a supporting element.
Nastro di Mobius: Is it common in your experience that eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts like it happened with TWA 800?
Pat Philbin: As a researcher, I am familiar with studies that highlight exactly this challenge. I cannot speak to the conflicting accounts in this case, but again, there are studies that suggest people see what they believe, vice believing what they see as you have noted in some of your blog posts (e.g. cognitive dissonance).
Nastro di Mobius: Why do you think this case received so much media attention?
Pat Philbin: In general, immediacy, location, and the inability to verify a root cause quickly create uncertainty that motivate people to want explanations.
Nastro di Mobius: Do you think media pressure had an impact on the investigation? If so, a positive one or a negative one?
Pat Philbin: If you are asking whether the U.S. government changed its way of investigating such incidents, my opinion is no - but it is only my opinion from a supporting perspective of the response.
Nastro di Mobius: How was the cooperation between all different agencies involved in the investigation? Was it easy and smooth or somehow difficult?
Pat Philbin: In general, I recall the cooperation being smooth between federal agencies because of the FBI’s role, which was designated in the aftermath of the tragedy.
Nastro di Mobius: What "lesson learned" did you gain from this case?
Pat Philbin: Government agencies must have clear policies for information release and platforms, or technologies, to facilitate the free flow of information to those who are most relevant. Trust requires that leaders be the primary authoritative source of credible information, supported by evidence to minimize the potential for unsubstantiated allegations that may emerge. Transparency is key. Trained personnel are key. Speed is key. Plans are key. The ideal “systems approach” in responding well to incidents – regardless of the type, is to have well trained personnel whose reactions are based on “muscle memory” created by clear policies, sound planning, and robust exercises, complemented by leading edge technologies and strong leadership to “stay the course” in spite of crushing demand for information until high confidence can be established of the root cause of an incident.
TWA 800: intervista all'ex responsabile delle relazioni con i media della Guardia Costiera Pat Philbin
L'originale inglese è disponibile qui.
Il volo TWA 800, che esplose e cadde nell'oceano vicino a East Moriches, nello stato di New York, il 17 luglio 1996, è uno dei casi di disastro aereo più complessi della storia degli Stati Uniti. Per spiegarci alcuni dettagli sul disastro Pat Philbin, che al tempo ea il responsabile delle relazioni con i media della Guardia Costiera, ha accettato la nostra proposta di un'intervista che offriamo di seguito ai nostri lettori.
Nastro di Mobius: In cosa questo caso è stato diverso dagli altri in cui sei stato coinvolto?
Pat Philbin: Operativamente, il caso non era diverso se non per la grandezza in termini di perdite di vite umane e per la posizione rispetto alla costa degli Stati Uniti. Dal punto di vista dei media, questi fattori causarono una sfida immediata nel valutare cosa eravamo in grado di verificare e condividere con le altre agenzie statunitensi coinvolte e nella nostra capacità di rilasciare informazioni al pubblico. La policy degli affari pubblici della Guardia Costiera riguardo alla divulgazione di informazioni è sempre stata straordinariamente trasparente e semplice. In sostanza, se una persona della Guardia Costiera aveva la responsabilità su qualcosa, aveva l'onere di rispondere alle domande con solo quattro eccezioni: se le informazioni avevano a che fare con sicurezza, accuratezza, privacy o i beni (segreti commerciali dell'azienda), in questi casi la Guardia Costiera poteva trattenere informazioni. Questo era noto come SAPP [dall'acronimo dei quattro termini in inglese, NdT].
Nastro di Mobius: Qual era la sensazione degli investigatori nelle prime fasi, prima che diventasse chiaro che il disastro era stato causato da un problema elettrico?
Pat Philbin: Ho avuto poca o nessuna interazione con gli investigatori sulla scena; tuttavia, dato che potenzialmente poteva essere legato terrorismo, il Federal Bureau of Investigation, che ha giurisdizione su queste questioni, è stato designato come principale agenzia statunitense per le indagini. La Guardia Costiera era a supporto.
Nastro di Mobius: È frequente in base alla tua esperienza che testimoni oculari forniscano resoconti contrastanti come è successo nel caso del TWA 800?
Pat Philbin: Come ricercatore, conosco gli studi che evidenziano proprio questa difficoltà. Non posso parlare dei racconti contrastanti riguardo a questo caso, ma di nuovo, ci sono studi che spiegano che le persone vedono ciò a cui credono, invece di credere a ciò che vedono come hai spiegato in alcuni dei tuoi post sul blog (ad esempio la dissonanza cognitiva).
Nastro di Mobius: Perché pensi che questo caso abbia ricevuto così tanta attenzione mediatica?
Pat Philbin: In generale, l'immediatezza, la posizione e l'incapacità di dimostrare la causa principale creano rapidamente incertezza che motiva le persone a volere spiegazioni.
Nastro di Mobius: Pensi che la pressione mediatica abbia avuto un impatto sulle indagini? Se sì, è stato positivo o negativo?
Pat Philbin: Se stai chiedendo se il governo degli Stati Uniti ha cambiato il suo modo di indagare su tali incidenti, la mia opinione è no, ma è solo la mia opinione dal punto di vista del supporto che abbiamo fornito.
Nastro di Mobius: Com'è stata la collaborazione tra le varie agenzie coinvolte nelle indagini? È stata facile e scorrevole o ci sono state difficoltà?
Pat Philbin: In generale, ricordo che la cooperazione tra le agenzie federali sia stata agevole a causa del ruolo dell'FBI, che è stato designato all'indomani della tragedia.
Nastro di Mobius: Quale lezione ti ha insegnato questo caso?
Pat Philbin: Le agenzie governative devono avere politiche chiare per il rilascio di informazioni e piattaforme, o tecnologie, per facilitare il libero flusso di informazioni verso chi è più importante che le abbia. La fiducia richiede che i leader siano la principale fonte autorevole di informazioni credibili, supportate da prove per ridurre al minimo la possibilità di eventuali accuse infondate. La trasparenza è fondamentale. Il personale preparato è fondamentale. La velocità è fondamentale. La pianificazione è fondamentale. L'"approccio sistemico" ideale per rispondere al meglio agli incidenti, indipendentemente dal tipo, è di disporre di personale ben preparato le cui reazioni si basino sulla "memoria muscolare" creata da procedure chiare, una solida pianificazione ed esercitazioni concrete, uniti a tecnologie all'avanguardia e una forte leadership per "mantenere la rotta" nonostante la schiacciante richiesta di informazioni fino a quando non sarà possibile stabilire una buona sicurezza sulla causa principale di un incidente.
Il volo TWA 800, che esplose e cadde nell'oceano vicino a East Moriches, nello stato di New York, il 17 luglio 1996, è uno dei casi di disastro aereo più complessi della storia degli Stati Uniti. Per spiegarci alcuni dettagli sul disastro Pat Philbin, che al tempo ea il responsabile delle relazioni con i media della Guardia Costiera, ha accettato la nostra proposta di un'intervista che offriamo di seguito ai nostri lettori.
Nastro di Mobius: In cosa questo caso è stato diverso dagli altri in cui sei stato coinvolto?
Pat Philbin: Operativamente, il caso non era diverso se non per la grandezza in termini di perdite di vite umane e per la posizione rispetto alla costa degli Stati Uniti. Dal punto di vista dei media, questi fattori causarono una sfida immediata nel valutare cosa eravamo in grado di verificare e condividere con le altre agenzie statunitensi coinvolte e nella nostra capacità di rilasciare informazioni al pubblico. La policy degli affari pubblici della Guardia Costiera riguardo alla divulgazione di informazioni è sempre stata straordinariamente trasparente e semplice. In sostanza, se una persona della Guardia Costiera aveva la responsabilità su qualcosa, aveva l'onere di rispondere alle domande con solo quattro eccezioni: se le informazioni avevano a che fare con sicurezza, accuratezza, privacy o i beni (segreti commerciali dell'azienda), in questi casi la Guardia Costiera poteva trattenere informazioni. Questo era noto come SAPP [dall'acronimo dei quattro termini in inglese, NdT].
Nastro di Mobius: Qual era la sensazione degli investigatori nelle prime fasi, prima che diventasse chiaro che il disastro era stato causato da un problema elettrico?
Pat Philbin: Ho avuto poca o nessuna interazione con gli investigatori sulla scena; tuttavia, dato che potenzialmente poteva essere legato terrorismo, il Federal Bureau of Investigation, che ha giurisdizione su queste questioni, è stato designato come principale agenzia statunitense per le indagini. La Guardia Costiera era a supporto.
Nastro di Mobius: È frequente in base alla tua esperienza che testimoni oculari forniscano resoconti contrastanti come è successo nel caso del TWA 800?
Pat Philbin: Come ricercatore, conosco gli studi che evidenziano proprio questa difficoltà. Non posso parlare dei racconti contrastanti riguardo a questo caso, ma di nuovo, ci sono studi che spiegano che le persone vedono ciò a cui credono, invece di credere a ciò che vedono come hai spiegato in alcuni dei tuoi post sul blog (ad esempio la dissonanza cognitiva).
Nastro di Mobius: Perché pensi che questo caso abbia ricevuto così tanta attenzione mediatica?
Pat Philbin: In generale, l'immediatezza, la posizione e l'incapacità di dimostrare la causa principale creano rapidamente incertezza che motiva le persone a volere spiegazioni.
Nastro di Mobius: Pensi che la pressione mediatica abbia avuto un impatto sulle indagini? Se sì, è stato positivo o negativo?
Pat Philbin: Se stai chiedendo se il governo degli Stati Uniti ha cambiato il suo modo di indagare su tali incidenti, la mia opinione è no, ma è solo la mia opinione dal punto di vista del supporto che abbiamo fornito.
Nastro di Mobius: Com'è stata la collaborazione tra le varie agenzie coinvolte nelle indagini? È stata facile e scorrevole o ci sono state difficoltà?
Pat Philbin: In generale, ricordo che la cooperazione tra le agenzie federali sia stata agevole a causa del ruolo dell'FBI, che è stato designato all'indomani della tragedia.
Nastro di Mobius: Quale lezione ti ha insegnato questo caso?
Pat Philbin: Le agenzie governative devono avere politiche chiare per il rilascio di informazioni e piattaforme, o tecnologie, per facilitare il libero flusso di informazioni verso chi è più importante che le abbia. La fiducia richiede che i leader siano la principale fonte autorevole di informazioni credibili, supportate da prove per ridurre al minimo la possibilità di eventuali accuse infondate. La trasparenza è fondamentale. Il personale preparato è fondamentale. La velocità è fondamentale. La pianificazione è fondamentale. L'"approccio sistemico" ideale per rispondere al meglio agli incidenti, indipendentemente dal tipo, è di disporre di personale ben preparato le cui reazioni si basino sulla "memoria muscolare" creata da procedure chiare, una solida pianificazione ed esercitazioni concrete, uniti a tecnologie all'avanguardia e una forte leadership per "mantenere la rotta" nonostante la schiacciante richiesta di informazioni fino a quando non sarà possibile stabilire una buona sicurezza sulla causa principale di un incidente.
28 agosto 2018
Le teorie del complotto sul volo TWA 800
I fatti di base e contesto storico
Il 17 luglio del 1996 alle 20:19 il volo TWA 800, un Boeing 747-131, partì dall'aeroporto JFK di New York diretto all'aeroporto Charles De Gaulle di Parigi, dopo uno scalo l'aeromobile avrebbe dovuto ripartire per Fiumicino. Dodici minuti dopo il decollo il velivolo esplose in volo vicino a East Moriches, nello stato di New York. L'aereo, il cui numero di registrazione era N93119, era arrivato nel pomeriggio da Atene e avrebbe dovuto partire alle 19:00 ma la partenza ne venne ritardata perché al personale aeroportuale risultava che l'aereo avesse imbarcato il bagaglio di una passeggera che non era a bordo, e in seguito all'esplosione del volo Pan Am 103 a Lockerbie nel 1988 un aereo non può partire se viene imbarcato un bagaglio il cui proprietario non si trova sull'aereo stesso. La segnalazione del personale aeroportuale si rivelò poi frutto di un errore e il volo TWA 800 si preparò a lasciare l'aeroporto JFK con circa un'ora e mezza di ritardo.
![]() |
| L'aereo coinvolto nell'esplosione, fotografato a Parigi nel 1995 |
Fin dalle prime ore dopo l'incidente si diffuse la teoria secondo cui il TWA 800 sarebbe stato vittima di un attentato terroristico per via del particolare contesto storico in cui avvenne. Due giorni dopo, infatti, sarebbero state aperte le Olimpiadi di Atlanta e gli esperti dell'antiterrorismo temevano che alcune organizzazioni jihaidiste potessero ordire attentati contro obiettivi americani proprio in quel periodo, inoltre nell'estate del 1996 si stava svolgendo a New York il processo al terrorista Ramzi Yousef, perpetratore del primo attentato al World Trade Center, che era stato arrestato nel 1995 ad Islamabad. In ultimo il giorno prima il giornale panarabo al-Hayat aveva ricevuto e pubblicato un messaggio anonimo di un gruppo terrorista che minacciava di colpire obiettivi americani la mattina seguente.
Visti i possibili collegamenti con il terrorismo internazionale, sul disastro non indagò solo l'NTSB (l'ente civile che indaga gli incidenti sui mezzi di trasporto) ma anche l'FBI.
La teoria del missile
Una delle prime teorie emerse sull'esplosione del volo TWA 800 voleva che l'aereo fosse stato abbattuto da un missile. Questa teoria si basò anche sui numerosissimi testimoni oculari che dalla costa videro una striscia luminosa nel cielo salire verso l'alto poco prima che l'aereo precipitasse.
Vista la distanza dalla costa a cui il Boeing 747 si trovava al momento dell'esplosione, un eventuale missile non poteva essere stato sparato da terra, ma solo da una nave o da un altro velivolo. A tal proposito l'NTSB valutò tutti i tracciati radar disponibili della zona compresa in un raggio di dieci miglia nautiche dall'ultima posizione rilevata dell'aereo e non riscontrò la presenza di nessun oggetto riconducibile a un missile che si stesse avvicinando al TWA 800. Inoltre l'FBI indagò tutti i mezzi aerei, marini e subacquei nel raggio di 500 chilometri (alcuni di essi stavano quel giorno compiendo delle esercitazioni) ma gli inquirenti rilevarono che da nessuno dei mezzi mancavano dei missili e che nessun missile fu lanciato in quell'area e in quei secondi.
Tuttavia Pierre Salinger (ex addetto stampa di John Kennedy) propose una teoria alternativa secondo cui l'aeromobile non sarebbe stato abbattuto dai terroristi ma dal "fuoco amico", cioè da un missile sparato per errore dalla nave Normandy della marina statunitense. L'FBI prese in considerazione anche questa ipotesi e facilmente verificò che la Normandy si trovava a oltre 300 chilometri dal luogo del disastro e i suoi missili potevano al massimo colpire alla metà della distanza. Il portavoce della marina militare al Pentagono, Rob Newell, aggiunse che la Normandy era talmente lontana che non avrebbe nemmeno potuto vedere il TWA 800.
La teoria della bomba
Durante le indagini l'FBI trovò tracce residue di materiale esplosivo RDX e PETN (due componenti chimici dell'esplosivo al plastico) sotto a un pezzo di nastro adesivo delle moquette. Questa ammissione da parte dell'FBI portò alcuni teorici del complotto a sostenere che l'aereo fosse stato abbattuto da una bomba caricata da uno dei passeggeri. L'FBI tuttavia fu scettico su questa ipotesi fin dal ritrovamento del materiale, perché la fusoliera dell'aereo (i cui resti erano stati recuperati dal mare) non presentava segni di esplosione sul pavimento.
L'NTSB verificò che il motivo per cui quelle tracce di esplosivo erano state trovate sul TWA 800 era che il 747 era stato utilizzato il mese prima per un addestramento delle unità cinofile all'aeroporto di Saint Louis, uno degli addestratori ammise anche che un pacchetto di esplosivo si era rotto ed era quindi possibile che del materiale ne fosse uscito.
La vera causa del disastro
Al termine delle indagini l'NTSB verificò che la causa più probabile dell'incidente fu un'esplosione del serbatoio centrale. Sotto di esso si trovava l'impianto di condizionamento che, essendo rimasto acceso più a lungo del previsto a causa del ritardo nel decollo, aveva scaldato il serbatoio stesso fino a portare i vapori del carburante al punto di infiammabilità. In situazioni normali ovviamente questo non ha conseguenze, come avrebbe potuto succedere su ogni 747 dalla sua messa in esercizio fino al 1996, ma nel TWA 800 alcuni dei cavi elettrici della sonda del serbatoio centrale avevano il rivestimento isolante danneggiato ed erano quindi scoperti. Il cavi scoperti causarono un corto circuito che provocò la scintilla che causò l'esplosione in volo del TWA 800. Il danneggiamento al rivestimento era probabilmente dovuto all'usura, essendo l'aereo in servizio dal 1971.
L'NTSB condusse una serie di misure su altri 747 in situazioni analoghe a quelle in cui si trovava il TWA 800 prima dell'esplosione e, secondo quanto riportato nella puntata di Seconds From Disaster (tradotto in italiano come Quei Secondi Fatali) dedicata a questo caso, anche un esperimento con un altro 747 non più in uso e portato alle stesse condizioni di temperatura del TWA 800. Le verifiche confermarono che in situazioni simili la temperatura del serbatoio centrale raggiungeva i 53 gradi, ben 17 oltre il punto di infiammabilità.
Inoltre, il fatto che si sia verificato un corto circuito fu confermato dalla registrazione audio della cabina di pilotaggio contenuta del CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder, una delle scatole nere). Poco prima del disastro infatti furono trovati alcuni microsecondi di silenzio, a riprova del fatto che al registratore mancò la corrente per alcuni istanti confermando così che sull'aereo si verificò un corto circuito.
A seguito del disastro l'FAA (l'amministrazione dell'aviazione federale) emanò oltre settanta direttive per eliminare il rischio di incendio accidentale del carburante e per migliorare l'isolamento dei cavi. Le istruzioni furono implementate su oltre settemila aerei.
Ma quindi come si spiegano le testimonianze oculari?
Le testimonianze oculari di chi credeva di aver visto un missile furono 258 e ovviamente un tal numero di persone non può essere ignorato, né si può pensare che si tratti di una suggestione o di una messinscena.
Tuttavia secondo l'NTSB la striscia luminosa che i testimoni videro in cielo era proprio l'aereo in fiamme. Dopo che l'esplosione ne staccò il muso questo cadde nell'oceano, mentre la parte posteriore ormai sbilanciata all'indietro salì ancora per qualche secondo prima di entrare in stallo e precipitare. Durante questi pochi istanti il carburante infiammato uscì dai serbatoi lasciando una scia luminosa in cielo che i testimoni possono aver scambiato per un missile. Nonostante non possa essere verificata con assoluta certezza, resta questa l'ipotesi più probabile.
Christian Panucci, il passeggero mancato
Nel 1996 il calciatore del Milan Christian Panucci era stato convocato nella nazionale olimpica, ma dovette rinunciare per un infortunio occorsogli prima dell'inizio del torneo stesso. Il 17 luglio si trovava al JFK diretto in Italia e avrebbe dovuto prendere proprio il volo TWA 800. Un caso fortuito volle che Panucci cambiasse volo quando già si trovava al JFK e che ne prendesse uno diretto per Milano, salvandosi così dal disastro.
Panucci venne a conoscenza della tragedia solo dopo essere atterrato in Italia.
Lo strano precedente, il disastro del TWA 800 del 1964
Di norma le compagnie aeree abbandonano i numeri dei voli su cui si sono verificati eventi nefasti, incredibilmente la TWA non lo fece dopo che un altro volo che usava il codice TWA 800 esplose sulla pista di Fiumicino durante il decollo il 23 novembre del 1964. In quel caso si trattò di un Boeing 707 ma anche allora la causa fu un'esplosione di un serbatoio, tanto che l'incidente viene citato anche nel rapporto dell'NTSB sul TWA 800 del 96. Tuttavia l'NTSB nel documento non ne specifica il codice ma lo chiama genericamente a TWA 707 (con l'articolo indeterminativo)
In ogni caso, l'evento fu meno grave (sopravvissero 23 persone su 63), ma non mancano altre macabre coincidenze. Il TWA 800 del 64 era in partenza da Fiumicino (proprio lo stesso aeroporto a cui era diretto quello del 1996) ed era diretto ad Atene (da dove quello del 1996 proveniva).
Conclusioni
Nonostante la documentazione relativa alle indagini sul volo TWA 800 sia molto voluminosa ed esaustiva, chi vuole credere alle teorie del complotto non si arrende e tuttora si trovano in rete molti siti e molti libri di chi ritiene che l'aereo sia stato intenzionalmente abbattuto e che la realtà sia stata insabbiata.
Oltre all'assurdità generale della cosa, va notato che sebbene la teoria del "fuoco amico" può avere una parvenza di senso, quelle che vogliono che il TWA 800 sia vittima di un attentato sono invece completamente assurde. Non si capisce assolutamente, infatti, perché mai gli USA dovrebbero coprire intenzionalmente le responsabilità dei terroristi. Eppure le teorie più diffuse sono proprio queste e sono ad esempio sostenute nel libro First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America di Jack Cahill e James Sanders secondo cui il TWA 800 fu il primo attacco del terrorismo internazionale contro gli USA, cinque anni prima dell'11/9.
La realtà è purtroppo molto semplice, anche se i complottisti non la accettano: il TWA 800 è stato distrutto da un'esplosione nel serbatoio.
Fonti:
- rapporto ufficiale dell'NTSB
- documentazione rilasciata dall'FBI
- articolo di Randolph Tauss della CIA
- animazione della CIA
- documentari delle serie televisive Seconds From Disaster, Conspiracy? e Air Crash Investigation
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)








