RedState91%

Thirty Years Later, FBI Record Exposes a Missing Piece of the TWA Flight 800 Investigation 17%

By Ben Smith54%

7/23/2026, 8:30:37 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Burden of Proof, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Anecdotal, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 15.5% saturation with 101 hits. Analysis detected 500 faulty-reasoning hits from 651 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.7% and a BS Rank of 17% (17,638 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.20% of the article peer group.

Two days after TWA Flight 800 exploded off Long Island in July 1996, killing all 230 people aboard, FBI headquarters had received faxes from Cairo claiming credit. 
That detail appears near the bottom of a July 19, 1996, communication from the FBI’s New York Field Office. 
Marked “Immediate,” it was sent to the FBI director, every field office, and every legal attaché while agents were still pursuing several possible explanations for the disaster. 
The file names neither the sender nor an organization. 
It also contains no indication of whether the purported Cairo origin was authenticated or the claim was considered credible. 
Judicial Watch obtained 415 pages of records from the FBI through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. 
The four-page communication containing the Cairo reference was part of that production. 
The FBI recorded the claim in a single sentence: “FBI headquarters is in receipt of faxes generated from Cairo claiming credit.” 
No copies of the faxes were included in the four pages. 
The communication does not describe their contents, identify a sender, or explain what investigators did after receiving them. 
The rest of that cable makes clear just how live every theory still was in those first 48 hours. 
Radar data reviewed by investigators showed an unidentified object “rapidly approaching” Flight 800 shortly before the aircraft disappeared from the screen. 
Federal Aviation Administration specialists were examining the radar evidence. 
On Long Island, agents were interviewing a witness who reported seeing a “fireworks-like” object rise into the air. 
The witness described a white puff that split in two, followed by a fireball falling from the sky. 
He then took agents to the place where he believed the object had originated. 
Investigators searched that area for scorch marks, missile parts, or other evidence of a launch. 
They also canvassed residents and examined boating activity, including reports of stolen or missing vessels. 
An unnamed defense intelligence agent told the FBI that a shoulder-fired rocket, identified in the communication as a MANPAD, could operate in a way consistent with the witness's description. 
The July 19 file contains no report of agents recovering a missile component or finding physical evidence at the suspected launch site. 
All of this was in the first 48 hours, before most of the wreckage had even been pulled from the water. 
The investigation that followed ran for years and landed somewhere else entirely. 
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) ultimately concluded that the aircraft’s breakup began with an explosion inside its center wing fuel tank. 
Its final findings state: 
The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system. 
Investigators also examined bomb and missile scenarios. 
The NTSB found none of the structural damage expected from a high-energy explosive device and no injuries showing that passengers had been directly exposed to a bomb blast or missile warhead. 
The board's final report stopped short of identifying the ignition source with certainty. 
The FBI's terrorism investigation lasted 17 months. 
The Bureau still describes the explosion as a mechanical failure and notes that more than 95 percent of the aircraft was recovered from the ocean floor. 
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton has called for a renewed investigation following the release. 
The newly released communication does not show what happened next. 
No copies of the faxes appear in the four-page record, nor does it include an assessment of their origin or credibility. 
The FBI should release the messages, if they still exist, along with records showing how investigators resolved the claim. 
Thirty years after the deaths of 230 people, that part of the investigation still deserves a public accounting. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.8%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 7.1%Confirmation Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.5%RedState: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic3.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.6%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.8%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 13.4%RedState: 9.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.9%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.7%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Ben Smith: 0.7%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.2%This article: 2.8%Ben Smith: 10.0%RedState: 14.1%Negativity Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.9%RedState: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.4%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.8%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 3.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 4.9%RedState: 7.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.4%RedState: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.5%Ben Smith: 3.1%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority15.5%This article: 1.8%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma1.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.4%Ben Smith: 4.7%RedState: 10.2%Hasty Generalization3.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.8%Ben Smith: 0.6%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon2.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 4.6%RedState: 8.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.7%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.8%Ben Smith: 0.6%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof11.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.5%Ben Smith: 1.7%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal5.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.6%Ben Smith: 1.6%RedState: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.5%Ben Smith: 2.2%RedState: 2.5%Unattributed Quote4.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.3%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.2%Ben Smith: 11.8%RedState: 22.0%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 2.9%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.6%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 11.0%RedState: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.2%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

651 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers24%attributed speech494writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJudicial Watch • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Aviation Administration • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageNational Transportation Safety Board • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageNational Transportation Safety Board • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageNational Transportation Safety Board • 31 words • 0.0% coverageNational Transportation Safety Board • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageTom Fitton • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tom Fitton

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words8.9% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tom Fitton: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Tom Fitton: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%Tom Fitton: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.