Twa 800

[atrdriver]

As far as fuel capacity, I believe that that ship had a total fuel capacity of 335,000 lbs.

 

[Dangerkitty]

Perhaps your apologies should be directed toward me. Are you typed on the 747?

Why would I offer an a$$hole like you an apology? Your first post refers to F/O Mullin as a "God Pilot" (The FO of the AA A-300 Crash in JFK for you non AA'ers out there) You are totally insensitive and a complete jerk. 99.9% of the TWA pilots I have met have been the utmost professionals. You sir are not among them.

Furthermore, why should I apologize to someone who has no clue what they are talking about?

Finally, you dont have to be typed in a 747 to know what can happen and what you are spewing is total BS.

 

[SiuDude]

Don't you no nothun?

No?..........Yes?

 

[fastandlow]

.....very proud of his 747 type rating.

I would be! But I might get a heavy attitude too...

 

[Typhoon1244]

Do you folks mind if I try to swing us back onto the road here?

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.

I read this too, and I find it very difficult to ignore.

It's amazing to me that these two opposing theories (accident vs. sabotage) are equally compelling.

Maybe they're both right: maybe Ahmed and Fadi launched a missile from their boat just as 800's center tank blew up...

 

[abev107]

I have had an interest in TWA800 since it happened - and have followed twa800.com since it was created.

First off TonyC, I appreciate that you provided us with facts after your original post in this thread.

Leaving the whole center fule tank theory out, a few other things are more critical as to what brought down twa800

1- "In my time at the White House it was used in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, in the aftermath of the TWA Flight 800 bombing...." - George Stephanopoulos http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A887_0_2_0_C/
+Seems like an innocent mistake, right?

2- The sun had set, but this vessel was speeding out to sea. It continued on its original course for at least sixteen minutes. According to the FBI, "the FBI has been unable to identify this vessel."[28] http://flight800.org/radar_evidence.htm

3- I know that eyewitnesses tend not to be accurate, but : "The FBI interviewed 154 "credible" witnesses -- including scientists, schoolteachers, Army personnel and business executives -- who described seeing a missile heading through the sky just before TWA 800 exploded." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.html

Just some thoughts...

In case anyone is interested there's audio of the ATC http://www.twa800.com/audio/twa800_center.rm
I don't mean any disrespect by posting this - I hope it doesn't offend anyone.

 

[BD King]

hey abev107

For crying out loud, don't worry about offending anybody on this site.

 

[skeezer]

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.

Apparently you have never heard of detonation....


Skeezer

 

[EagleRJ]

Apparently you have never heard of detonation....


Skeezer

If you're referring to the kind of detonation that can take place with the air/fuel mixture in an engine cylinder- yes I have heard of it, and no, this is not the same thing.

"Detonation", when used in reference to fuel vapors, refers to combustion that occurs faster than the speed of sound in the media in question. Without getting too technical, normal flame front propogation in an airplane cylinder may move at 100 or 200 feet per second (I'm guessing here), while it may move at 800 or 900 feet per second when detonation takes place. The ignition of a Jet-A vapor and air mixture wouldn't be too different, although it's more likely to be in the 100-200 FPS range since there's no compression involved.

Chemical high explosives (defined as anything with a detonation velocity above 3300 FPS) are a different process altogether. Some have detonation velocities above 20,000 FPS. Damage to metal structures from air/fuel explosions is pretty much limited to deformation and tearing. Damage from high-explosives will include fracturing of high-strength parts, embedded debris, and microscopic pitting, as well as more damage in general. These were observed on TWA 800 debris.