All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 23, 1997 - Art Bell
41:20
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Capt. William S. Donaldson - TWA 800 investigation (hour 1)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Out of the air.
Real talk.
This has got to be the only present you could even consider giving to somebody who loves talk radio.
Or bot.
Almost.
If you were to call Sea Crane Company before 10 o'clock in the morning, and go for some special ordering procedure, It might be possible to get this by Christmas.
Maybe.
It is a superb AM and FM radio with a quarter speed tape deck built in and it allows, of course, up to four hours, nearly four hours of record time on one side of a cassette tape.
So it is the talk radio person's dream all in one.
Easy to use.
You can use it like a clock radio if you want to.
It'll wake you up.
It operates on AC power.
Or, yes, you can put batteries in and take it with you.
A built-in microphone and headphone jack.
And it is simply the talk radio person's dream.
The price includes shipping and, with the exception, of course, of the special shipping.
I mean, I don't know, they're probably going to have to give it to a little guy who will fly it to you or something.
It's not that bad, but you get the idea.
It can be done.
Or you can order it to arrive between Christmas and the New Year.
Or the day after Christmas, or the day after you get the idea.
day after you get the idea. It is 149.95 and the Sea Grain Company will be open until noontime
on Christmas Eve.
Until noontime, then they're going home.
And yes, if you are truly crazed and you want to get it there by Christmas, there is a chance.
But you have to call before 10 o'clock in the morning.
Okay?
The number is 1-800-522-8863.
That's 1-800-522-8863.
Once again, that's 1-800-522-8863.
The Sea Crane Company.
When it comes to information on extraterrestrials, if you're like me, you just can't get enough.
And I'm telling you, you've gotta see the spine-chilling video, Area 51, The Alien Interview.
Thousands of my listeners have already ordered this 65 minute documentary video containing the most convincing
color footage of government agents interviewing a space alien
inside the infamous secret base at Area 51 Leaked to the public by a heavily disguised and very
frightened man who's known only as Victor this Unedited video will leave your heart pounding
See for yourself why Victor fears government agents might kill him in retaliation for releasing the dramatic footage.
Is it real?
judge for yourself the cost is only 1995 plus shipping and handling you'll want to watch it
over and over again I have.
To order, call 1-800-510-3420 right now.
Allow two weeks for delivery.
The video's been featured on Extra and Strange Universe, but you only got a little piece here, you get it all.
You can get it through this offer only.
1-800-510-3420.
Area 51.
The Alien Interview.
1-800-510-3420.
Call now.
Alright, you're going to want to pay very close attention to what you're about to hear.
Even before the 8th December 1997 kickoff of the public hearing by the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board into the loss of TWA Flight 800, Misleading NTSB sound bites were already flooding the media.
No evidence of a bomb or missile.
Temperatures in a tank 145 degrees Fahrenheit or faulty wiring.
Remember?
Fuel pumps, fuel probes come under scrutiny as the cause were typical statements conveyed to the millions of American and French citizens still very interested.
Unfortunately, They were misleading or not true.
That is the statement of Bill Donaldson.
And in view of the seriousness of what we are about to present to you, I think it appropriate that Bill roll over some of his background.
It is a long resume, but if you could hit the highlights, Bill, so they understand who they're hearing.
Good morning, Art.
I sure appreciate the opportunity again.
I guess the best way to say it is I'm a 25-year active duty commander when I retired from the Navy, aviator during that entire time, graduate of Monterey's Naval Postgraduate School in crash investigation.
I've probably looked at at least 10 or more military crashes, including One was a shoot-down of a Navy jet off of the East Coast back in the late 70s.
I've got quite a bit of experience in aviation.
I was an Air Force brat to begin with, so from the time I remember I was basically immersed in aviation.
I got into this when I realized that the chairman of the NTSB back nine months ago was making
statements in the public that didn't make a whole lot of sense about the origin of the
problem on Flight 800.
Everything you knew as an investigator into aircraft accidents told you what you were
hearing had holes in it, problems, little problems, big gaping holes.
Major holes and it would be smart to tell the audience that in a way there are things
in aviation that you can count on.
You literally do every time you get on a jetliner and go somewhere.
The safety history of Boeing-built jet airliners is amazing, and in particular, the 747.
That is the safest way a human being can transport himself across the face of the Earth.
I want to re-emphasize that because what Chairman Hall was saying way back then, this was at least nine months ago, is that this airliner, this Flight 800, somehow blew itself up in the sky over Long Island.
And I've got to reiterate, that has never happened.
What he specifically said happened, has never happened in the history of aviation.
There's never been a 747 that had an internal failure in a fuel tank that caused an explosion.
So knowing that and knowing that they were, he was basically beginning a program that's
culminated in, I'll say, the demonization of the fuel, the fuel system, and the aircraft
itself.
And it's, what it amounts to is about $100 million worth of propaganda culminating in
in that public hearing beginning on the 8th of December in Baltimore.
Bill, I would be asking you for an opinion, but I guess I will do it anyway.
After what you just said, would you conclude, do you conclude, that their focus on the center fuel tank and an explosion, an accident, in quotes, do you believe that they're focusing on that Because they really think that could be the only thing that did it, or they're focusing on that because they are lying to us.
Well, that's a pretty direct and blunt way to say it, but I'd go for option two, because what I've found is it's incredible to me that the amount of data that exists And it has even leaked out before this massive release of documents in Baltimore.
Virtually everything that I'm seeing points to an external explosion being the beginning of the sequence.
Now, the opportunity is there on their part to make it appear that there was a problem in the fuel tank, because the fuel tank did explode.
We should be Make sure the audience understands that I'm not maintaining that the tank didn't explode.
Right.
But it was a product of a prior event, which was probably about somewhere around a second, one second in time prior to the actual fuel tank exploding, there was a massive explosion outside the fuselage.
Last time you were on, you were accompanied by two eyewitnesses, one in a Black Hawk helicopter.
And the other who happened to be on Long Island.
And I have received some very interesting letters from pilots on the ground who saw some very unusual aircraft movement on Long Island just at about the time of this whole thing occurring.
But still, Bill, we've got a long way to go to prove that What you're saying is true, and of course, I asked you bluntly, and you said they were lying.
All right.
The next question, before we get into what you've got tonight, is why, Bill, would they lie about this?
Why would they lie?
If it was a terrorist action, why lie?
Well, unfortunately, I think there's a pretty strong indication that We as a nation, or as a government, may have had tippers, so to speak, that something was going to happen.
And I believe that, like the various other terrorist acts that have occurred, particularly the Trade Center situation in New York, in this case, it happened to be Flight 800 was the victim, and I do believe That the FBI and some other parts of our government knew that there was a threat, and they may have even acted to intercept the threat.
There's some indications of that, but they didn't make it.
So, in fact, the aircraft was lost.
And in that process, and because of the timing, you know, it was right at the point of the Olympics.
It was 15 weeks before the presidential election.
Uh, this became an untenable, uh, it would have been an untenable fact in the political climate, uh, you know, for this administration.
I mean, that's, that's my guess.
That's the guess for the motive of, uh, of keeping a lid on this thing.
And senior officials have, were heard, uh, uh, at the, right after this accident, uh, I think Mr. Kallstrom was overheard saying, Where's the effect that the White House is really embarrassed about this, and we're going to take control of it?
That was on the first day on the job, I've had that relayed to me.
And there's a lot of other indicators.
We don't have time to get into that, but what I'm trying to do is get out the science, the hard facts.
I understand.
Particularly to pilots, to aeronautical engineers, and those kind of people that are in your audience.
Oh, and so we shall.
But just one more thing, Bill.
Sure.
For it to be a lie, it means it is a cover-up.
Right.
For it to be a cover-up, how many people would of necessity have to be part of it?
It's not really as simple as that because of the way the NTSB is organized, particularly, and the FBI on the way they investigate things.
The NTSB, for instance, We'll have all these different working groups, and each one of these groups will focus on a narrow range of the investigation.
One group may be looking just at the edges of pieces of metal.
And they'll come out with a report, and they have literally almost no idea what the group right next to them is doing.
So they'll see something that'll point, hey, this looks pretty suspicious.
But it's not overwhelming because they don't know all the other pieces that are coming together pointing at the conclusion.
Okay, Bill.
But there was one group that concentrated, for example, on the eyewitnesses.
And there are, what, 200 people who think they saw a missile head toward this airplane.
Now, that would be a lot of field agents.
And boy, it sure is hard to imagine, Bill, that they'd be cooperative in an effort to Well, here's the point.
There were estimated over 400 FBI agents on Long Island.
Right.
I don't know how many FBI agents there are in the world, but that's got to be a pretty good chunk of them.
And I see what you're getting at, but the point is, the FBI is probably the closest thing to a civilian military organization that there is.
Right.
And they're going to follow orders.
And if you remember, we had Mr. Goss on who You literally saw the thing leave the surface, climb outbound, turn hard left and then detonate, and then of course saw the aircraft pieces falling.
Well, the two agents that came out to see him, when they saw where he was and looked out and saw what he was looking at, and when he told them he saw the thing maneuver hard left, they got extremely excited.
A couple of probably fairly young agents, they thought, I don't know.
Richard Goss may know.
you know, they had this thing solved, they apparently went running back to headquarters
not to be seen again.
I mean, the fact is that they come in with the reports, but if the top guys are not going
to do anything with it...
Do we know who these agents are by name?
I don't know.
Richard Goss may know.
I didn't bother trying to track down the individual guy.
But I can tell you this, the FBI has 96 eyewitnesses that literally saw something leave the surface,
climb up, track outbound, and intercept Flight 800.
And they will not allow the American people to know what the names of those 96 people are.
And that's extremely unusual.
Their excuse is that This may still yet become a criminal investigation, and if we let any of this information loose to the public, then it'll jeopardize a prosecution, even though we're not actively on the case.
It's a ludicrous point of view to take, considering the seriousness of this mishap.
Well, their official statement... Their official statement says that it was not a criminal act.
That's their official statement.
And you just told me they're still saying it may yet turn into a criminal investigation.
Right.
I read Mr. Kallstrom's, it's a long letter that he wrote to Mr. Hall.
Kallstrom is the recently retired assistant FBI director in New York.
He lays out a very long letter to Hall that protests several things.
One, the release of any names Any testimony from eyewitnesses?
He wouldn't even allow the NTSB to replay the CIA tape that the FBI had produced.
It was designed to explain away what these eyewitnesses saw.
A whole series of things, and of course, Mr. Hall.
Essentially, I mean, I went to that public hearing.
And there really wasn't a whole lot of public about it.
I mean, you didn't even hear the word witness in five days.
I mean, it was orchestrated totally to ignore the fact that almost a hundred people are adamant about seeing something leave the surface and go up after that airport.
You actually said it was structured more like an old Soviet Union show trial.
I remember those.
It's exactly true.
And the reason that I said that is that the way they constructed this thing You have a technical panel, which was all NTSB employees, senior people, that would ask questions of the witnesses that were brought up, with Mr. Hall sitting in between the two, acting as a judge, if it needs to be, I guess.
Essentially, the witnesses are almost all on the federal payroll.
They're either research folks that have been granted large sums of money, you know folks that are already working for the government.
So and remember I'm a retired naval aviator.
I'm on the federal payroll, okay.
I mean in retirement.
So I'm not denigrating anybody for being on the federal payroll, but the point being it
made it appear as if you know all the facts were coming out and all sides were being heard
and that in fact was not true.
There are a lot of things Bill that are interesting to toy with in terms of conspiracy theories
and so forth.
But there were a lot of people killed here.
And a lot of families are grieving.
And it's a really, really serious incident.
And it's a very serious allegation you're making.
Sure.
So I'm going to break here at the bottom of the hour.
And when we come back, you really you claim that you have what you call smoking gun evidence that this aircraft what was in fact brought down by an exterior force a missile you believe is that right that's correct all right stay where you are we'll be right back to you now you've got a little bit of background just in case you haven't heard William Donaldson previously now you've got a little background when we come back
We're going to tell you why we think we know it was shot down.
Well, I think it's time to get ready To realize just what I have been
I have been holding hell upon my hands All this reason
My heart And it's all right.
We gotta get right back where we started from.
Love is good, just a song.
We gotta get right back where we started from.
To talk with Art Bell, from east of the Rockies, dial 1-800-825-5033.
That's 1-800-825-5033.
Now, here again is Art Bell.
Once again, here I am, and I wish I could tell you that what you are about to hear has more Christmas cheer within it, but it won't.
I suggest you roll your tape recorders And you get ready to transcribe, because what you're about to hear, Bill Donaldson says, is smoking gun evidence that Flight 800 was shot out of the sky.
So, go get your recorder, will you?
Now, William S. Donaldson, an aviation consultant, who has been studying this TWA crash since it occurred, And evidence that you have never heard before.
Bill?
Let me take one minute before I get into the flight data recorder to explain something the NTSB did with their flight tests.
Alright.
I think it's important that your audience understand the kind of, and I'll use the word, deception that went on at that public hearing.
What they did was, of course, they chartered a 747 from Evergreen Air, I guess it was, and they did a series of tests to try and emulate the flight of Flight 800.
Right.
Now, they put temperature probes in the tank.
Their theory, remember, is that the tank spontaneously exploded at altitude.
Correct.
They found that on the day they flew the profile test, they got the tank Up to 118 degrees on the ground.
They took an air sample of the tank and found it not to be explosive on the ground.
And when the airplane took off, the tank cooled fairly slowly because of several reasons.
But the tank only got down to about 111 degrees at 14,000 feet.
And when they took a fuel sample, they found it to be marginally flammable.
Okay?
And that was the big news.
There's only one problem.
The problem is, on the day that they flew the test flight, the ambient temperature was about 93 degrees when they started the test.
And when they took off, the temperature was still 88 degrees.
Now, when you compare that with... Remember, they only had a marginally flammable tank at altitude.
What is the definition of marginally flammable?
If you throw a match into it, it catches on fire?
Yeah, it could burn and explode.
Their scientists said that...
The maximum explosive force would be, or the range would be between 40 pounds per square inch to 60 pounds per square inch.
And the tank itself will hold about 20 pounds minimum.
So, I'll put that as flammable, marginally explosive, okay?
Alright.
Now, here's what they didn't tell you.
They didn't even say, they didn't even cover it in their data.
The 6,000 pages of stuff they handed all these reporters.
PWA's temperature was 71 degrees when they took off.
Okay?
Right.
There's 17 degrees difference and that airplane wasn't trying to cool a 90 degree fuselage with all that waste heat going up around the tank.
So what I'm trying to tell you, PWA's tank at altitude was probably 25 degrees cooler than the test aircraft that barely made it into the flammable explosive zone.
Gotcha.
Okay, now let's go on to what you're saying is smoking gun, and it is.
It's a big one.
When I got to the hearings, I went as a credentialed reporter for Accuracy in Media.
And to classify the thing as a public hearing is really a misnomer.
There were very few of the actual people off the street that were allowed into the place.
Anyway, I get this mountain of paper.
One of the most critical things on an air crash investigation, particularly in civil aviation, where they have these flight data recorders.
You have a voice recorder and you have a flight data recorder.
They call them black boxes.
They're really not black, they're orange.
They're separate.
Right.
They're separate pieces of gear.
Now... One records the final voice of the cockpit crew.
Right.
The other is recording the aircraft's technical performance up until the very last second.
Right.
Now, the only reason you put a flight data recorder in an aircraft is to capture the, I mean it sits there and rides, most airplanes of course never crash, so they're sitting there in the event that it does happen that the target, the whole reason that you put that piece of gear, that expensive piece of gear in this airplane is to be able to recover it and play it back and see exactly what everything in that airplane was doing.
Of course.
It's almost laughable.
When I got to the data on the flight data recorder, I didn't even catch it at first.
It was one of these retired captains from TWA I've been working with, another crash investigator.
We've been looking at this together.
A guy by the name of Howard Mann picked it up.
The reason I didn't notice it was the last line of data was literally lined out by the NTSB.
Wait a minute, we're talking about now the flight data recorder.
Right.
And you said the last line was lined out.
Right.
What they did, I mean, you can see the aircraft performance in all kinds of things.
It shows The altitude readout, it shows the attitude of the airplane, it shows about 15 or 20 items.
And as the aircraft goes along, every second there's a data block recorded in all these different categories.
Gotcha.
And in between seconds there are even partial data blocks on some of the stuff.
So when they get to the very end of the tape, the whole reason the gear is in the airplane, They literally drew a line through the last data block and made a note on the side, end of flight 800 data.
And when you look at it, it's hard to read through it at first and you assume, you know I did, that this was some kind of previous recording or something and I sort of skipped over it.
So in other words, you thought that this lined out last line was not part of the flight 800 data at all, but rather was part of some previously
recorded flights. Yeah, well, yeah, yeah, exactly And as it turns out this type of flight data recorder has
about a 30 hour playback and it was only on the first 30 minutes of
You know of flight so it there was no data that was still on the tapes
So they do not erase previous flights.
They record over them, much as we might record a tape over another tape.
Right.
Okay.
Yeah.
So here's this lined out last line.
Hard to decipher, but I take it you managed to decipher the line.
Right.
And, well, once you realize that it's a piece of, that it's a valid data line and it is the last second recorded of the flight, It's startling because, for instance, here's what it tells you.
The aircraft was climbing out, and I did a little look at the previous 10 or 15 seconds.
It was climbing about 22 and a half feet per second, the airplane was.
Right.
And each one of these data iterations going across there, and all of a sudden the airplane went from 13,799 feet is what it should have been at that last second, What was that?
The altitude, again, 13,000... 799 feet.
799, alright.
Okay, it's what it should have registered.
Now, what happened is that it suddenly dropped.
The altimeter dropped 3,672 feet and, you know, registering down in the 10,000 foot level.
And I went, ooh, well, that's... What happened?
Obviously, the airplane didn't suddenly drop almost 4,000 feet.
You look at the next column and the airspeed indication goes from 298 knots to 100 knots.
In other words, it lost 198 knots instantly in one second.
That can't happen either.
I mean, the airplane didn't hit a brick wall up there.
Right.
And you go across and there's a whole series.
I'll just concentrate on these two because of time for a minute to explain this.
All right.
You have to... I mean, if you were working for the NTSB, it's your duty to explain this data line.
I mean, how could the... These are real instruments.
This is not somebody's imagination.
This is hardware and airplanes that are recording actual data.
Understood.
Okay.
The way the altimeter works is that you have a... what's called a static airport on the side of the aircraft and the...
The altimeter is just like a barometer.
It senses the pressure outside the airplane, converts it to a reading of altitude.
All right.
Important point.
So this sensor is looking out the side of the aircraft.
Exactly.
All right.
Okay.
Now, all of a sudden you get this tremendous drop in the reading of altitude.
What that means is that this instrument Recorded a pressure that normally would be at 10,170 feet or whatever the reading was.
So in other words, you're telling me this last data line recorded a change in pressure from 13,799 down into the 10,000 range?
Right.
Now, what that means is you have to go to an atmospheric table to see what the actual conversion is in real pressure, pounds per square inch.
And the figure is in the neighborhood of 1.32 pounds per square inch.
That doesn't mean a lot to some people, but it does to me and to other people that understand about explosives and things.
Because in order to get a sudden increase of pressure like that, it sounds small, but remember on the side of an airplane, one square foot is 144 square inches.
Right.
You know, it adds up when you start looking at area.
All right, Bill.
Important point.
How do you know that this pressure difference, which it was sensed and recorded that you have found, came from an external source?
Okay.
The reason being, what I did, there's a series of equations that you use when you compute what an explosion will do as far as delivering pressure to a distant point.
And they're not all that complicated, but the bottom line is, what I said is, okay, I'm sure that folks are going to say, well, yeah, the airplane blew up, so the pressure came from the center wing tank.
Right.
So I said, alright, I'm going to do the calculations, except instead of using the 60 pounds per square inch in the tank, like the NTSB scientists were saying was the maximum, I'm going to arbitrarily assume that it's 600 pounds per square inch in the tank.
Ten times more.
Right.
Ten times the pressure.
Yes.
And I'm going to compute what the overpressure would be on that static port 70 feet up the side of the airplane.
Right.
Near the nose.
Gotcha.
The answer is .43 psi, pounds per square inch.
That's using a figure ten times what the You know, what their explosive people said was the maximum capability of that thing.
So, in other words, there is no way on God's green earth, and above it apparently, that an explosion from the center fuel tank could have caused this pressure reading on the external pressure sensor.
Right.
And see... Translated, the center tank didn't do this.
No.
In fact, the point being that it's, again, another point of common sense.
The only power that you get on the aircraft is through the generators that are out on the wings, on the engines rather than the wings.
Right.
Now those, that wiring routes right by the center wing tank on the way up to the forward part of the aircraft.
Uh huh, so in other words, had the center tank blown, the data would not have been, could not have been there because it would have blown that wiring to bits first.
Right.
Exactly correct.
Okay.
Okay, so that, but let's assume that we have the toughest wire in the world and it's last at least a second through the middle of this explosion.
Okay.
It's both the airspeed indication that dropped to a hundred, down to a hundred knots from
almost 300, and the altitude both work off the P-DOT static system, they call it, in
Now I'm going to switch to another sensor.
Okay, you're saying that neither one of these changes, the change in altitude nor the change in apparent airspeed, are real?
No.
These are just simply anomalies produced by the external pressure?
Right, the pressure that... Every time there's an explosion in the atmosphere, there's an overpressure wave that goes up at the speed of sound and wind.
And when it hits something, it delivers an overpressure.
All right.
Do you want to talk about another sensor?
Okay.
The other sensor is what's called the angle of attack system.
Angle of attack is an instrument that measures the exact angle that the wind is striking the nose of the aircraft.
Awesome.
Normally in flight, and this you see in the data, that the airplane in that condition climbing at that speed and so on, the angle of attack was three degrees.
Almost directly on the nose, just 3 degrees below the nose, the wind was striking the aircraft.
Right.
All of a sudden, when this overpressure wave hits, it goes from 3 degrees to 106 degrees.
Right on.
Okay, so this vein on the outside of the aircraft, it looks like a little wind vein.
No, I understand.
Okay, now it suddenly gets blown up past the 90 degree position, and then you see, that's one of the data blocks that has Two more hits after the main last hit, and it shows that the vane goes to 106 on that last full data block.
So in other words, the direction of the prevailing winds suddenly, utterly, completely, instantly changed.
Changed, yeah, changed to going almost perpendicular to the flight path of the aircraft.
And again, the information you have just presented has come from the last line Which was lined out for some unknown reason by the flight data recorder.
Was it lined out in such a way that they intended for you not to be able to read it, or was it lined out in such a way?
It's legible if you look at it closely, but remember they're handing this out to reporters, and reporters would go down and say, how come this last line is so screwed up?
I don't think they wanted reporters to ask the questions.
Okay, in fact, I'm led to believe that last line is not lined out on the internet.
When they posted this stuff on the internet, it's in plain view.
But let me finish on this angle of attack thing, because it's important.
The reason that it's important is that there's two more data hits on the angle of attack system before it shuts off with power.
And they happen a quarter second after the main data line.
And then a half second after.
And what it shows is that this angle of attack vane goes up to 106 degrees, then a quarter second later it's back down to 30 degrees, and a quarter second after that it's back down to 3 degrees, which is essentially the normal position.
Now what that means is that this data is real.
That's exactly what... It records the entire event.
Right.
And at least a half a second after the last full data block, And the vane did exactly what it would have done if it had encountered an outside air explosion.
The only thing that can explain this data is an external detonation.
Right.
And you can even see it in the engine.
I mean, there's two or three other main systems that all say the same thing.
I mean, things happen to that airplane on that last data line that can only happen when they encounter a A near experience of a high explosive.
Bill, how can you know for certain, or even nearly certain, that that last line belongs to Flight 800?
Because it's sequentially, and the time is there.
In other words, everything is sequentially there.
You've got... Oh God, you mean the... In other words, they have time hacks.
Yeah.
In other words, it goes... The previous full data line was...
At 8.31 and 11 seconds and then the one we're talking about hits at 8.31 and 12 seconds.
Then you've got them.
Oh yeah.
I mean, that's what we're on the air for here.
I mean, to me and to an expert that's used to reading this stuff, you better explain that last line.
I mean, before you put this puppy to bed.
God, you've got them.
I think.
What do you want to happen now, Bill?
Should you be on Nightline?
Should you be on the NBC, ABC Evening News?
That requires an invite, but I think what Accuracy Media is going to do is probably put a press conference together sometime in the near future.
What we really need is more support for the Aviation Subcommittee that's investigating this thing.
How can we help?
The simple way would be to drop just a card, a postcard to Chairman Jimmy Duncan.
He's a Congressman from Tennessee, but the way to say it is Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., and they'll get it.
We want the truth and the whole truth about Flight 800.
Are there any fax numbers or any numbers or email addresses that anybody should be aware of?
Well, I'm not on the computer net myself.
I'm having a tough enough time with just running a fax machine with this thing going on.
Do you want to give out your fax number?
In other words, there may be other experts, pilots, who can help you.
The best way to do that is to go through probably Accuracy and Media, because in Washington, D.C., and I can, there's an 800 number, if I can... You can give it out.
Yeah, let me, I gotta find it here first.
Bill, are you going to be safe?
Oh yeah, I don't...
I really, this thing has been, I've been on so much radio and television now.
Okay, the 800 number for accuracy in media is 1-800-787-4567.
1-800-787-4567 Alright, I'm not enough of an aviation expert to poke any
holes in what you've just said.
But, you know, off the top of my head, I don't see any holes in what you've just said.
So... Well, the Congressman Trafficant has already sent questions this morning addressing this very issue to the National Transportation Safety Board, demanding answers.
Well, if it's true, God help us.
Bill, thank you.
Yes, sir.
Take care.
That's Bill Donaldson.
And again, uh, the accuracy and media number, which is, I guess, handling things for him, is 1-800-787-4567.
So you heard it first here.
Anybody, uh, have any professional arguments with what they just heard?
I'm Art Bell.
▲
Export Selection