Pentagon Video

[LJDRVR]

If we Americans would spend the same amount of time and effort on demanding that our children get a real education, as we do on activities such as driving our SUV's to Krispy Kreme and back home in time to watch "American Idol", then I wouldn't have to waste five minutes of my time watching such insipid tripe.

Just like the morons who are convinced that TWA 800 was shot down. There were even several books written on the subject, with none of the authors either taking time to research, or bothering to add to their books that Boeing has had a problem with exploding fuselage tanks for years. (Might hurt sales of the book.)

No critical thinking skills whatsoever.

 

[mar]

I'm with ya and against ya.

If we Americans would spend the same amount of time and effort on demanding that our children get a real education, as we do on activities such as driving our SUV's to Krispy Kreme and back home in time to watch "American Idol", then I wouldn't have to waste five minutes of my time watching such insipid tripe.

I'm with ya.

Just like the morons who are convinced that TWA 800 was shot down. No critical thinking skills whatsoever.

I'm not with ya.

I won't hijack the thread (well maybe just a little) but I've spoken to several experienced 747 flight engineers and pilots who are all of the same opinion:

TWA 800 didn't suffer a fuel tank explosion. I won't say it was shot down but usually the simplest answer is the most correct (Occam's Razor).

I've debated this elsewhere but basically you got 747s that fly all over the world on hot ramps with packs running and near empty center fuel tanks and they don't explode.

Not only that, but did you realize that the wiring is *external* to the tank?

I'm all for critical thinking. And that means I don't buy the party line.

 

[FL717]

I'm with ya.



I'm not with ya.

I won't hijack the thread (well maybe just a little) but I've spoken to several experienced 747 flight engineers and pilots who are all of the same opinion:

TWA 800 didn't suffer a fuel tank explosion. I won't say it was shot down but usually the simplest answer is the most correct (Occam's Razor).

I've debated this elsewhere but basically you got 747s that fly all over the world on hot ramps with packs running and near empty center fuel tanks and they don't explode.

Not only that, but did you realize that the wiring is *external* to the tank?

I'm all for critical thinking. And that means I don't buy the party line.

I don't worry about "hijacking" a thread because thats what happens on a public message forum such as this.

First your statement regarding 747's not suffering fuel tank explosions is NOT correct. There are in fact documented fuel tank explosions on this type and other aircraft. The proper statement would be "millions and million of hours of B-747 operation and a small percentage (millifraction) have experienced a fuel tank explosion".

Second... lets compare your theory to another for comparison. Millions of hours of B-737 operation and only a small percentage (millifraction) of crashes caused by rudder hardover. Were those planes shot down as well, or were they more likely caused by a rare yet mathematically possible occurance due to design.

Both cases illustrate that while occurances may be mathematically rare, their will always be a situation where the sun the moon and the stars line up and the millifraction probability of an occurance happens.

Both the B-747 and B-737 have had rare (rare= relative to numbers and hours) documented mechanical history of both incidents I cite, yet they have been incredibly successful and reliable equipment around the world for decades.

 

[LJDRVR]

To continue the thread hijack...

Hey MAR,

I gotta disagree with you here buddy. In addition to the accidents mentioned by FL717, the USAF has lost several KC-135's due to fuselage tank explosions. My friend was killed on one of them. Give me a day or two to due the research, and I'll post all the Boeing center tank explosion accidents/incidents. There are quite a bit more than you think.

By the way, I don't buy the party line either, I'm just saying that this is a known problem, not some fluke. What bothers me is that some folks will latch on to something like a missile theory (Lying military personnel, sworn to secrecy) as more viable than an explosion (Corporate malfeasance and negligence.) Boeing has a track record here. One need only look back at how they handled leading edge contamination/pitchup issues with the 737 before and after the Air Florida accident and investigation.

 

[secks]

I'm not with ya.

I won't hijack the thread (well maybe just a little) but I've spoken to several experienced 747 flight engineers and pilots who are all of the same opinion:

TWA 800 didn't suffer a fuel tank explosion. I won't say it was shot down but usually the simplest answer is the most correct (Occam's Razor).

I've debated this elsewhere but basically you got 747s that fly all over the world on hot ramps with packs running and near empty center fuel tanks and they don't explode.

Not only that, but did you realize that the wiring is *external* to the tank?

I'm all for critical thinking. And that means I don't buy the party line.

That reminds me of the joint NTSB/FBI accident animation depicting TWA800 entering a zoom climb after the explosion in order to "explain" the smoke trail seen progressing upward by several military/non-military eyewitnesses. It seems to me that "critical thinking" nowdays means believing whatever the idiot box tells you, and mocking anything to the contrary.

 

[atrdriver]

That reminds me of the joint NTSB/FBI accident animation depicting TWA800 entering a zoom climb after the explosion in order to "explain" the smoke trail seen progressing upward by several military/non-military eyewitnesses. It seems to me that "critical thinking" nowdays means believing whatever the idiot box tells you, and mocking anything to the contrary.

Wasn't a joint NTSB/FBI animation. Look at the opening of it. It was done by the CIA. After all, the CIA knows everything about a/c accidents. That should tell you something right there, that the CIA put together the "answer" to all those that did see a smoke trail rising from the water to impact the aircraft...

atrdriver

 

[leardrivr]

Please anyone who buys into this crud must not have a brain! sounded like a missle huh! reminds me of an accident report I read recently where the eywitnesses heard the props go WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! as the jet flew over there heads. need I say more?

 

[EAP]

A little off topic but I feel compelled to cime in on this too.

The fuel tank pumps in Boeing jets are fully immersed and cooled by the fuel itself, so the tank does, in fact, have a possible ignition source under the rarest of circumstances. This is why the FAA AD came out, specifically and plainly changing fuel tank pump operation to eliminate the rare case risk. I firmly believe the TWA 747 accident was caused by, quite simply, a fuel pump ingnition caused tank explosion.

I believe the people at the former TWA who vehimently denied this possibility are true professionals and good people - yet victims of denial. I myself have gone through this very thing, working for a major airline that had a heinous fatal crash caused by complex human factors and mechanical issues that killed my friends, clients and colleagues. I denied the truth for a long time before finally coming to peace with the situation. It is hard. To a large degree many politically and socially motivated folks in the US are also in denial about 9/11, and using a lot of conjecture and half truths to make theories, to the detriment of their long term state of mind!

 

[jobear]

Wear your tin foil hats or THE will read your thoughts....

Oh wait anyone that believes this crapola isn't thinking they just repeat what the read they just repeat what the read they just repeat what the read they just repeat what the read they just repeat what the read they just repeat what the read they just repeat what the read they just repeat what the read, ad infinitum


Jobear
GET OUTTA MY BRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[F/O]

Frickin' hilarious.

Yeah, the spooks are so smart that they are on the scene within minutes confiscating the tapes from every surveillance cam in sight. Yet, they botch the Iraq WMD intelligence "slam dunk" royally (after reviewing it for years) and launch a missile into the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.

Yeah....these spooks are reaaaaalllly smart.......

 

[ivauir]

I fail to see how TWA 800 being shot down by the military is the "simplest" explanation. That is actaully very complicated. Either you must believe in a very comlicated conspiracy and that someone whot down TWA 800 for some unknown reason or that there was an accidental missile engagement (requiring seval assumptions in it self) and an even more comlicated coverup, much of which would have to be performed by people with nothing to gain from said coverup. Your government is far from perfect and that includes the military but rest assured that the vast majority of your civil servants want to do the right thing. if there ever is an attempt to cover up something so radical all it takes is one person of honor on the inside to blow it wide open.

 

[apdsm]

You know we did not REALLY go to the moon.