Letter: 'Flight TWA 800' was persuasive

The editorial about TWA Flight 800 and the independent film of the same name was quite disturbing ["The riddles of Flight 800," July 21]. The film laid out a very strong case that the plane was blown apart by an external source. And yet you wrote, "The film doesn't present any startling new evidence that would justify revisiting the exhaustive probe." To quote Tom Stalcup, the physicist involved in the making of the film, did you see the same film I did? This is my question for Newsday.

The makers of the film were careful and smart not to engage in speculation about the exact source of the external explosion. What they did do was explain the hard evidence and document the many irregularities involved in the investigation. They showed how significant data were not disclosed, either to the public or to a congressional committee. Much of the data that was disclosed was either disregarded, distorted or minimized as unimportant.

Further, investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board explained how important physical evidence disappeared or was tampered with by those put in charge of the investigation. Multiple eyewitnesses were dismissed by officials as not credible, despite the consistency of their stories. None were called to testify -- an unheard-of practice, according to one NTSB investigator.

One eyewitness' application for citizenship was used in an attempt to silence her. In addition, the government's own explanation of events was shown not to be supported by the evidence. So it was with astonishment that I read Newsday's declaration that there is no need to investigate further. As one of the investigators insinuated about the eyewitnesses, perhaps what Newsday claims it saw in the film was distorted by the enormity of it.

Bill Meritet, Middle Island