Twa 800

[350DRIVER]

no apology needed.

Jeez, after reading brightspark's well thought out responses I assumed the entire group here would for sure be convinced it was a problem with the fuel tank..

bummer- just when you had everyone certain this happens !.

3 5 0

 

[C601]

You put 50 people in a room, they give you 50 different answers as to why it blew up..., my belief is we will probably never know the true facts......too many liars and black mailers out there. They tell you what you want to hear to keep you quite.

There is more questions then factual answers, none of us where there, all we have is info passed on from one person to another ... kinda defeats the whole purpose and most likely a complete waste of time,kinda like this thread

 

[EagleRJ]

So the center wing tank is filled with a mix of air and kerosene fumes, which by the NTSB's own findings do not become flammable until after takeoff (and discounting the fact that the day the NTSB's test was conducted was 16 degrees warmer than July 17th). Somehow, a large amount of flammable vapors build up, even though the ullage was right at or below the critical temperature. Then a spark ignites the mixture- possibly from the CWT scavange pump, even though the pump was not running at the time, and was recovered and found not to have any problems. The resulting explosion is violent enough to blow the forward half of the fuselage off and eject debris out the right side which radar estimates is travelling at 2000 FPS.
The majority (98%) of the CWT is then recovered- all in the easternmost part of the debris field. Highly unlikely.

The NTSB's report details an experiment they performed with a scale model of the 747's CWT to investigate the nature of fuel vapors. When they heated the Jet-A to the vapor point and tried to ignite it, nothing happened. They eventually had to add propane and hydrogen to get a reaction, because the kerosene fumes would do nothing more than burn off and then self-extinguish.
You have to realize that when fuel vapors burn, it is a low velocity explosion. It's more of a "whump" that may deform or even rupture the tank, but can't do the kind of damage that was observed on the TWA 800 airframe. Much of the physical evidence, radar data, and eyewitness accounts, is indicitive of a high velocity explosion. That cannot be caused by fuel vapors of any kind- only high explosives.

Interesting side note:
Does anyone remember that Muslim wall calendar found in Europe that was in the news just after 9/11? It showed an airliner crashing in flames near New York City, and the media suggested it showed that the 9/11 plot was widely known enough to allow calendars to be printed even before the attack.
The calendar definitely depicts New York City- the Statue of Liberty is visible in the background. Two interesting things though: the airliner is a 747, and it is shown crashing into the water! Hmmm....

 

[EagleRJ]

There is more questions then factual answers, none of us where there, all we have is info passed on from one person to another ... kinda defeats the whole purpose and most likely a complete waste of time,kinda like this thread

True, but I think it's our duty as pilots to see the true cause for this crash determined, and the associated threat addressed. To date, the investigation has been the strangest and most unconvincing accident investigation in history.
The book First Strike makes a good point about the evidence. It mentions Occhams's Razor- the idea that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. So much of the evidence in this crash points to a missile attack, but the government seems determined to pursue far-fetched elaborate theories to avoid acknowledging it.

If I had lost a loved one on the plane, you can bet I'd be determined to know the cause of the crash! I think the family members have a right to be upset at how the investigation has been conducted so far.

 

[atrdriver]

One of the biggest questions that was always left in my mind was why did the CIA produce the video of what supposedly happened. The NTSB obviously has the capability to do so, as does the FBI. Why, AFTER they supposedly determined that foul play was not involved, was the CIA commissioned for the video?

 

[dash8driver]

this sounds like a job for Mythbusters!

 

[Axel]

this sounds like a job for Mythbusters!

Or the Dallas police.

 

[Dangerkitty]

No, the FAA has NEVER issued AD's that were either unnecessary or suspect for some reason. There are a lot of inconsistancies in the TWA800 case. If you want to believe that it blew up by itself, fine. There are still a LOT of people,and will always be a lot of people, who believe otherwise.

ATRDRIVER,

I used a poor choice of words. Boeing issued information asking operators to not run the center tanks dry and to keep a certain amount of Jet-A in them. I never said anything about the FAA but since I stated AD I guess thats what was implied. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[KigAir]

Come on...The F-117A was in sqadron service for almost 10 years before anyone outside the program knew that it existed. Don't tell me that the government can't keep a secret if they want it kept.

I think there is a slight difference between working a classified project and being involved in a friendly fire incident.

 

[SiuDude]

See how quickly I'm adapting to living in Tennessee?

Sigh....
Everyone knows that "y'all" is singular, while "y'alls" is plural.