joining me now, hank hughes former senior accident investigators with ntsb and one of the people featured in the documentary making the claims. i know according to the press release and information out there, this documentary has solid proof there was an external detonation. why hold this information to reveal in a documentary? why not reveal it now? >> well, i think an interesting aspect of your opening remarks might be addressed first. you talked about two criminal investigations. at the time it occurred, it should have been civil aviation accident investigation. the question of why would they believe it was a criminal act, for the first several days they kept saying it was a missile. with regard to the examination, we violated our own protocols that have been well established. parties to the investigation

you just heard the allegations made my hank hughes.nly did the fbi blow it, it was 16 months of your life, 7,000 interviews and he said there was a cover up. what do you say to that? >> i think it's preposterous. if he had that kind of trouble speaking with his own ntsb hierarchy, i was there just about every day, he could have came over to me and said hey, i think they are leading you down a oneway street the wrong way. any of those fellows could have done that. i don't question their motive. i just wish if someone felt that strongly about something like that, they could have brought it to someone's attention commensurate with the investigation and not wait 17 years till they get their pensions in their pockets and then come out with it. >> you mentioned pensions in their pockets. he said this is about personal integrity. he says he has no financial stake in this. it's about personal integrity. what do you think it's about? >> i don't know what it's about, and i don't challenge him on that. but why didn't he do that 16 1/2 years ago?

former ntsb accident investigator hank hughes is one of the people in it. >> what would your analysishe primary, primary conclusion was the explosive forces came from outside the airplane, not the center fuel tank. >> reporter: the ntsb and fbi stand by the findings but today as the wreckage of the plane sits in a hangar, authorities promise they are open to a new investigation is new evidence is presented. gary tuchman, cnn, atlanta. >> the new documentary is called "twa flight 800." and features investigators including hank hughes who joins us tonight. >> this say pretty weighty allegation made here. you say there is solid evidence the original ntsb finding is untrue. what is that evidence and what are you and your colleagues saying happened to that plane? >> witnesses say a missile shot down flight 800. the physical evidence supports that but in terms of penetration, deposits on the aircraft. when we reconstructed the interior of the airplane, which is a job i supervised, we found there was no correlation between the victims, the interior and for that matter the explosion that sugg

>> if i got the right one. >> the senior accident investigator hank hughes from the new documentary,twa flight 800" which premieres on epix july 17, exactly 17 years after the crash. for more we're joined in new york by the film's director, investigative reporter and former cbs producer kristina borjesson, and also joined by tom stalcup, the film's co- we welcome you both to democracy now! tom just made it here from "today." kristina borjesson, it has been a long haul for you from investigating this for cbs news were you were ultimately forced out as she tried this investigation. talk about the significance of the latest information and why the investigators are petitioning to reopen this investigation. >> the significance of it is, the hard evidence that has been reviewed and is being presented by the government's own former members of the official investigation. and the other thing is, for the first time, the eye witnesses are brought in as a credible piece of the investigation. as you know in any investigation, it does not matter whether it is cops or reporters or whatever, the ke

but hank hughes. >> the witnesses were never heard from in the final report.y were heard from at some point, but they never testified. >> cenk: thank you for pointing that out. that is important. the senior investigator with the the national transportation safety board, and accident investigator from the pilot association. so, what are we to believe? >> bad week. bad week for this to come out. here we are sitting here. no perfect time for america to cast judgment and actually look at this and say you know what, with everything that we've heard, you throw the drone story in there you throw snowden in there, and it's not imagination that it could have happened. i don't know 17 years ago people would have been also to hear that. >> cenk: if you told this stuff in the 1990s when this happened, i would be, come on, and i trusted my government a lot more. i remember the eyewitnesses saying, i saw the light going and hit the plane. >> a lot of eyewitness as soon as scores of eyewitnesses, and i dismissed it because i'm an idiot thinking my government wouldn't lie to

. >> hank hughs testified. i'm sorry. he testified before a senate committee in 1999, had some pretty negative things to say about what fbi investigators did in that hearing. he said they hammered out some of the evidence and another point that the clothing that had been compiled had been thrown into a warehouse, and mold had grown on it. that's testimony right there. >> yes. that's not eyewitness testimony. he was an investigators inside the investigation. now he did say those things in the senate but nothing was done. did the senate hold subsequent hearings to follow up on his claims? no. that has not been done. >> so, you know, listen, conspiracy theorys have abounded for years. it was destructive to the legacy of the former press secretary to jfk, who died really having his reputation torn to smithereens by some of the conspiracy theories about a missile having perhaps hit twa flight 800. what are you saying in your new allegations happened to that aircraft? >> well, pierre salinger was not an accident investigator. w

. >> hank hughes joined by former investigators of the twa, chief medical examiner and outside forensics consultant. veteran aviation correspondent robert hager covered the investigation. >> the key piece of who really knew what they were talking about, had the background and experience, they were unanimous in their opinion that it could not have been a missile or a bomb. >> there was no cover up and i don't think it was completely botched. >> reporter: tom, the head of ntsb major investigations at the time. >> no evidence of anything from the outside penetrating through the tank, no evidence of bomb inside. the fuselage itself. all of the wreckage, you don't see any evidence of a missile impact or missile detonating at close range. >> reporter: the man who led the fbi investigation called new allegations "bull crap." >> tom costello. that night 17 years ago, few of us will forget. >>> health news to report tonight. a new report says that the hpv virus has dropped by more than half now in teenage girls since the vaccine came online in '0 6. this decrease was 56%, the head of the cdc says

. >> reporter: hank hughes is a retired safety board investigator. >> it was either a terrorist attack that they wanted to ignore or an accident as a result of a military operation that went wrong. >> reporter: but the fbi and the national transportation safety board concluded the plane was brought down by a faulty fuel tank, not an act of terrorism or military accident. >> we have no evidence of a bomb, a missile, a criminal act. >> reporter: but now the soon-to-be released documentary film, including what it says is a new analysis of radar images supposedly showing an object closing in an the aircraft is giving new attention to a series of old discredited theories that there was some kind of a missile. >> doesn't it seem hard to imagine that the u.s. government would try to hide a terror attack on a plane? >> it's hard to imagine, but governments are capable of doing some terrible things. >> reporter: the families of those who died in the crash say the film is exploiting their pain, and a former senior investigator told abc news the allegations of a cover-up are absurd. >> i find tha

hank hughes, chairman of the airplane reconstruction interior group.laid out the grid to reconstruct the even tire plane. i mean this is high-level person. >> primary conclusion was the explosive forces came from outside the airplane, not the center fuel tank. >> would that statement have been in your analysis? >> if i got the right one. >> let me tell you this is an honest investigation and it is being conducted in an honest and open fashion. >> we didn't found any part of the airport that indicated a mechanical error. >> pause terrorism was thought, the cia was involved, even producing an animation showing the plane had broken apart and showing that what they had seen was, in fact, a trail of burning feel coming from the aircraft after the initial explosion. that was quickly rebutted claiming radar images claim a high velocity explosion occurred outside the plane as witnessed by fred myer and other witnesses causing a secondary explosion of the fuel tanks. >> now what the evidence shows is a high velocity detonation caused this crash, not a low veloc

>> well, hank hughes testified before the senate in 1999. the senate didn't do anything.ley listened to hank hughes talked about the fbi coming in, smashing wreckage with a hammer y did they do that? hank said i had no idea. grassley should have continued the investigation at that point. >> other members you talked to, other investigators did wait though, he didn't they wait until they retired? >> some did, yes. bob young. again, he was with twa and again, not easy being a whistle brother this country. some of these whistle brothers don't get a fair shake. >> a thought-provoking documentary. thank you so much. we want to turn to the former assistant director of the fbi who led the bureau's investigation. mr. cal strom, good morning to you, sir. >> good morning. >> what is your response to these allegations that you and other members of the federal government conducted a huge coverup and that, in fact, it was a missile potentially that took down twa flight 800? >> nothing he just said is true. i mean, that's my reaction. we had a massive investigation. the fbi was there be

. >> reporter: hank hughes is one of four investigators taking part in a new documentary, calling the findings flawed and driven by an agenda, a massive coverup for unknown reasons. the evidence shows external explosion, likely caused by a missile. >> this provides facts that disprove the initial theory, proves beyond any reasonable doubt, a detonation, not fuel air explosion, caused this crash. hard evidence proving that. >> there's no reason to cover up anything. >> reporter: jim kolstrom who led the investigation says the documentary is preposterous. he says the fbi exhaustively examined the possibility of a missile with the sole agenda of finding the truth. >> we had a full court press for months and months and months on that theory, but the reality was there's no evidence of a missile hitting the plane, either outside the plane, inside the plane, penetrating the plane, concussion from missile, no evidence of it. >> reporter: film makers filed a petition with ntsb to reopen the investigation. the agency says they will review the petition to see if this is truly new evidence. chris

senior ntsb investigator hank hughes. >> so another theory surrounding flight 800 here.tzer prize winning jim polk, investigative reporter, led our coverage of the 800 crash back so many years ago. you're here with me now. tell me, what did you find? >> this is not really a new theory. we've been hearing stalcup for a decade now. the ntsb's finding was it was an internal explosion in the center fuel tank. the wreckage from the 747 has been reconstructed. it's in a hangar in northern virginia. a correspondent got an opportunity to go inside that fuel tank a few years ago with ntsb investigators. >> let's look. >> reporter: the explosion was here. in the center fuel tank. i'm really struck by the size. you really could park a couple of cars in here. >> the fuel tank is the size of about a two-car garage. >> reporter: the center tank just below the passenger area is rarely used. how much fuel was in here at the time of the flight? >> the fuel tank was basically empty. i think it was 50 gallons is what they calculate was the residual amount. >> reporter: only a thin layer of

. >> rick: hank hughes is one of several former crash investigators taking part in a new documentaryfinding the flawed and driven by agenda, claiming a massive cover-up for unknown reasons. the film makers say the evidence shows there was an external explosion, likely caused by a missile. >> this documentary presents the facts that disproves the official theory and proves beyond any reasonable doubt, that a detonation caused this crash. hard radar evidence proving that. >> there is no reason to cover up anything. >> jim, who headed the f.b.i.'s new york office at the time of the crash, and led the criminal investigation, says the documentary is preposterous. he says the f.b.i. exhaustively examined the possibility of a missile with the sole agenda of finding the truth. >> we had a full court press with months and mons of that theory. but the reality was there is no evidence of a missile hitting the plane. either outside the plane, inside the plane, penetrating the plane, concussion from a missile, there is no evidence of it. >> the film makers filed a petition with the ntsb to reopen

among those, the ntsb accident investigator hank hughes was among those who said the interviews of some of the eyewitness accounts were kind of blushed aside and there were a number of interviews of people who said they saw a flash of light, a stream of light shortly before that plane went down and those accounts were not taken into consideration. what did you find from those interviews and those witnesses? >> of course they were. the reason they were interviewed by the fbi, ntsb came with three people and we had to interview thousands of people in a potential criminal investigation. we interviewed all of them, multiple times in some cases. we took it extremely serious. one of the first press conferences i said there's the potentiality this is a missile. >> what was wrong with the stories? once you did follow-up with some of those eyewitness accounts, what was it that wasn't there that kind of reafter firnld their thoughts? >> fredicka, eyewitness testimony is not really evidence, but it's helpful. in this case in particular, a very high percentage of the eyewitnesss on the shore heard

. >> in addition to hank hughes who you are talking about and you spoke to, there were other professionalsion who have suggested that the reports have been in inaccurate. >> hold on a second. twa investigator called in to be party to the investigation. not hands on with the ntsb. individual that worked for forensic department, chief medical examiner. not an expert on explosives. rocky miller, with the flight attendants union. jim spear with the airlines pilots association. these guys were not the hands-on thick in the middle of this investigation. >> i understand, tom. my point is that usually when you get these conspiracy theories the skeptics are out there. they have knowledge and skill base in this area. >> i'm not calling these individuals kooks because there are many people that believe that there was some suggestion of a missile bringing down this plane. when they looked at the radar data, they found no evidence of a plane. there was some suggestion that this was a navy ship that shot down the plane by mistake. there's been no suggestion since then in 17 years that the navy was invol

but i do believe now that we have got a synergy with hank hughes from the ntsb and jim spear from theirline pilots association. with our petition we filed with the ntsb the ball is in their court to respond to our concerns. martha: there are stunning instances of witnesses who were on the ground. one who i believe was on a plane flying alongside or near by. they say they saw something shooting up from the ground toward that plane that caused that impact. but there is another guy who worked with you all who was part of that five-person ntsb team. you know him? he says that the report on how the plane fell apart. none of it supports a missile. he says when you look at the physical evidence unside the tang it's clear the explosion was inside the fuel tank. if the top of the tang goes up and the bottom goes down and the forward side bows back pant back goes back, it tells you the explosion is from the inside. how is this version so different from yours and the others. >> during the breakup of the airplane the center tang probably did have an explosive event occur as the airplane broke up.

for instance, hank hughes, a former ntsb investigator, who i know well, his major complaint is, the fbidog bites mailman. the fbi treats everyone they work with poorly. and we had problems like that but there is no evidence whatsoever. these guys cherry-picked their facts, i can point to the china lake report on potential missile explosions, they are unambiguous and clear -- didn't happen. >> is it possible at all that any information was suppressed during the original investigation, a news release for the documentary claims the investigators featured in the film waited until retirement to come forward and were not allowed to speak to the public. that's a quote from the release, or refute the ntsb at the time of the official investigation. >> it's absolutely not true. mr. hughes was given whistleblower protection and was called to testify before the senate judiciary committee. he was under complete protection. he had no constraints. and what he had to say was, the fbi didn't treat me right. >> the filmmakers are submitting a petition asking for the ntsb to reopen the investigation based

we're submitting a petition signed by former senior ntsb investigator hank hughes and other investigatorsesenting in this documentary. >> you have new evidence, this isn't just opinions or analysis from those at the time. in the documentary comes short of explaining the reason of the explosion, right? >> we're not going to speculate of the explosion. but what we show is solid proof that there was an texeexternal detonation. we have corroborating information from the radar data and it shows an asymmetric explosion coming out of that plane. something that didn't happen in the original theory. >> what do you want to happen here? what good could come from this? >> the family members need to know what happened to their loved ones. not one single eyewitness was allowed to testify. that's unheard of. let the eyewitnesses speak at a government hearing and reopen the investigation and stop the facade that has been going on for too long. >> finally, i just asked you, why would the government be shy of this. what would be their motive to hide the possible explosion. why do you think they'll do that?