Twa 800

[atrdriver]

There may indeed be some holes in the official story, but I don't buy the "friendly fire" theory. It'd be impossible to keep that secret. Too many people involved. Look at the Vincennes incident: within minutes, the whole ship knew exactly what'd happened.

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.

 

[Swede]

You can't be serious? Are you trying to get a job at AA?

I suppose all your "experience" in aviation brought you to this conclusion? Were you in class where the "training video" was presented? Were you familiar with AMR's training curriculum at that time? I didn't think so!

Are you aware that AMR has to send their pilots to recurrent more often than other airlines due to their safety record?

Are you aware that AA pilots have killed more passengers than any other airline? Cali?, JFK, Little Rock. They have the worst safety record. AMR has a whole department dedicated to their image.

I hear they need people like you!

Oooh such hostility. I am familiar with the accident report. There are anomilies reconciling the data. Heaven forbid a titanic corporation like Airbus (and Boeing) might desperately seek to deflect blame to a dead man.

 

[EagleRJ]

A MANPAD would not bring down a 747, and TWA 800 was too high at the time to be hit by one. It would have had a hit to the engine, but still has 3 others. Even if it has been a fuselage hit, it still would not have caused a breakup.

A MANPAD would bring down a 747, and TWA 800 was within range of most of the systems on the market. There were most likely two missiles fired from two seperate boats, based on triangulation from eyewitness reports.

An IR-guided missile fired from below wouldn't lock onto one of the engines. That's a common misconception. The resolution of the seeker on a shoulder-fired missile isn't very good. All it "sees" is a fuzzy spot of heat, and it goes for the center. At the center of a 747's heat signature are the exhaust ports for the three Air Cycle Machines. The ACMs lie directly underneath the center fuel tank.

Take it from someone who was trained on the Stinger-RMP system in the ANG. A MANPADS explanation for this crash is not only possible, it is probable.

 

[Spooky 1]

The Flying Tiger Line lost a L1049H Constellation in March of 1963. It was enroute from Agana, Guam to Clark AFB in the P.I. The final destination was Saigon. Onboard were about 96 Vietnam military personnel including one or more Generals. The aircraft was never recovered, nor were there any debris found floating on the surface despite an extensive air search and rescue. A large oil tanker reported seeing a large explosion in th sky at a considerable distance from the ship. In spite of this still no wreckage was spotted. There was considerable talk of the aircraft being downed by a US Navy ship. Keep in mind that in those days the communications networking that is around today was significantly less. I worked for Tigers briefing in 1965 and this story was a hot topic of conversation. Needless to say nothing ever came of it, or at least it was never made public. You can review what little information is known about this accident by Googling N6921C.

 

[414Flyer]

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.

The gubmunt' isnt a monolithic entity (even though they sure can act like it), its still made up of normal people. The F-117 was a black world project, and it was secret partially because the people on the project believed in it, and felt it was a national security reason to keep it quiet.

Now granted it was about to come out in the open anyways, the USAF had been flying it in daytime and there were going to be photos coming out soon of it that people had taken. And I had even read a book where the author mentioned it was faceted, not curved..but this is all a tangent and I shall digress...

Compared a national security issue to a cover up is two different animals. People were proud of the F-117, and felt there was a real reason to keep it quiet, It was the new "silver bullet" of the USAF.

Shooting down an 747 would be too hard to cover up. Its not just a single "government", its all the people who would be involved. Anyone like you and me. If you had been on that ship, would you have taken the time to do something like send an anonymous email or phone call, telling exactly what happened?

Besides, it would take Boeing going along with this too. They would love to have something else to blame it on besides a fault in their plane.

 

[414Flyer]

A MANPAD wouldbring down a 747, and TWA 800 was within range of most of the systems on the market. There were most likely two missiles fired from two seperate boats, based on triangulation from eyewitness reports.

An IR-guided missile fired from below wouldn't lock onto one of the engines. That's a common misconception. The resolution of the seeker on a shoulder-fired missile isn't very good. All it "sees" is a fuzzy spot of heat, and it goes for the center. At the center of a 747's heat signature are the exhaust ports for the three Air Cycle Machines. The ACMs lie directly underneath the center fuel tank.

Take it from someone who was trained on the Stinger-RMP system in the ANG. A MANPADS explanation for this crash is not only possible, it is probable.

seems though there would be some kind of unmistakable evidence of being hit then. Being hit by a missle or proximity explosion would have to leave a lot of holes.

 

[Typhoon1244]

The gubmunt' isnt a monolithic entity (even though they sure can act like it), its still made up of normal people. The F-117 was a black world project, and it was secret partially because the people on the project believed in it, and felt it was a national security reason to keep it quiet.

Somebody must've blabbed to Clint Eastwood, though, 'cause the Firefox sure was faceted...

Besides, it would take Boeing going along with this too. They would love to have something else to blame it on...

Yes they would. So would TWA and the FAA. You would think all three of them would be screaming for further study of the eyewitness accounts.

Now I realize that eyewitness accounts of aircraft accidents are notoriously bad...people seem to see flames coming from falling aircraft regardless of what really happened. But two hundred people saw a streak going toward the aircraft? Two hundred? Something's amiss.

Something else author DeMille pointed out: the animation that was created to show what the witnesses actually saw was generated by the CIA. What, Boeing, the FAA, and the NTSB don't have software to do this? Why the CIA?

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

and all you conspiracy buffs out there. terrorists usually brag over and over about blowing stuff up. if the govt. couldn't keep clinton's hummers quiet what makes you think they can keep that quiet?

Typically that is true. However, and I admit my memory is fuzzy, were there any "braggers" during the world trade center bombing in the early/mid 90's? Also, what about Pan Am 103/Lockerbie (sp?)?

 

[EagleRJ]

seems though there would be some kind of unmistakable evidence of being hit then. Being hit by a missle or proximity explosion would have to leave a lot of holes.

There was plenty of evidence. The eyewitnesses described a MANPADS launch perfectly- some even described the "tip-over" as the missile turns to track the target as it gets closer.
Many also described the initial explosion as a bright white flash, followed by a growing orange fireball. A helicopter pilot with a military background saw the explosion and even described it as being ordnance. A fuel/air explosion doesn't create a white flash.
Many parts of the aircraft had damage indicitive of a high-explosive detonation- massive deformation and pitting that is inconsistant with a fuel explosion or water impact; and there was a streak of residue consistant with rocket fuel across the cabin above the center fuel tank. The autopsy reports from some of the victims also reported strange 0.2" metal spheres in the bodies that are strangely identical to the pellets found in missile warheads.
It all points to one of the missiles detonating just under the aircraft's belly (as a proximity-fused missile would do), and the remains of the missile body continuing through the fuselage and out the other side.
Some of the key parts were "misplaced" during the investigation, and some had their records changed to indicate they were found somewhere other than where they were. There were even reports of FBI agents removing parts from a warehouse at 2:30am, and people hammering on debris to change its shape. If even 25% of these reports from people who were there are true, something fishy went on in the investigation.

Something else author DeMille pointed out: the animation that was created to show what the witnesses actually saw was generated by the CIA. What, Boeing, the FAA, and the NTSB don't have software to do this? Why the CIA?

In no other accident has there been a video produced by the CIA to explain to eyewitnesses what it was they saw. Most of the eyewitnesses were quick to say "that's not what I saw", but the media appeared to have bought it.

That "zoom climb" theory that was created to explain the streak of light doesn't hold water, either. Boeing determined that the forward part of the fuselage that broke away weighed around 80,000 pounds, and it caused the CG to shift aft by twelve feet! You can't tell me that a plane that is so tail-heavy and has an open front end can maintain aerodynamic flight and climb 4000-5000 feet, like the NTSB and the CIA claim!

 

[Vik]

This lame brain argument again. I predict 10 pages for this thread by Feb!

We'll never really know what happened, so why keep wasting time talking about it? No one knows 100% what happened.

 

[Typhoon1244]

This lame brain argument again.

No argument, just wondered what the general concensus was.

What's the matter, Vik? Do you have something to hide, hmm?

(Relax...kidding.)

 

[Jimmy V.]

I remember reading a book by Victor Belenko a couple of years ago. If I am not misstaken he said that the Russians brought this one down. I could be wrong however but for some reason I remember reading about this in his book.


Jimmy

 

[TonyC]

Too many large Boeings with similar fuel systems been flying for 35+ years and only one "blowing up" in flight. Don't buy it.

Good, because it isn't true. As I mentioned, several KC-135's experienced the very same types of explosions with almost identical fuel systems. I lost a friend in such an explosion of a KC-135 at Loring AFB, ME.

Perhaps you should read this story about Boeing's belated concern over fuel pumps in empty tanks:

FAA Issues 3rd Warning on Fuel Pumps


EC/KC/RC-135 operators from that timeframe will remember SAC OPERATING PROCEDURE 90-1 that evolved out of the Loring event:

1. BACKGROUND: POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR HEAT BUILD-UP IN -135 AIR REFUELING/BODY PUMPS WHEN THE PUMPS ARE RUN DRY. THIS HEAT BUILD-UP MAY CAUSE CONDITIONS OF AN EXPLOSIVE NATURE IN THE BODY TANKS. DUE TO THE FUEL QUANTITY SYSTEM TOLERANCES AND DESIGN OF THE LOW PRESSURE WARNING LIGHT SYSTEM, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHEN A BODY TANK IS EMPTY. NORMAL SYSTEM TOLERANCES CAN RESULT IN A BODY TANK READING OF MORE THAN 500 POUNDS WHEN THE TANK IS IN FACT EMPTY.

2. PENDING ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND INCORPORATION OF APPROPRIATE DATA INTO THE FLIGHT MANUALS, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES AND RESTRICTIONS WILL BE FOLLOWED. THESE PROCEDURES APPLY TO ALL -135 AIRCRAFT FLOWN BY SAC, ANG, OR AFRES AIRCREWS. ... THE PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN THIS OPS PROCEDURE TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ANY PREVIOUS PROCEDURES.

A. FLIGHT CREWS WILL NOT ACCEPT AN AIRCRAFT FOR FLIGHT WITH LESS THAN 3000 POUNDS OF FUEL IN BOTH THE FORWARD AND AFT BODY TANKS ...

B. AIRCREWS WILL NOT ACCEPT AN AIRCRAFT FOR FLIGHT UNLESS BOTH THE FORWARD AND AFT BODY TANKS HAVE AT LEAST ONE GOOD AIR REFUELING/BODY PUMP. EACH OF THESE TANKS MAY CONTAIN ONE "SUSPECT" PUMP, ANNOTATED AS SUCH IN THE AFTO 781 ("DO NOT OPERATE PUMP OR RESET CIRCUIT BREAKER EXCEPT IN AN EMERGENCY") AND DEACTIVATED BY PULLING AND COLLARING THE 28V DC CIRCUIT BREAKER (CB) WITH A REMOVABLE COLLAR. ... IN AN EMERGENCY, CB COLLARS MAY BE REMOVED AND CIRCUIT BREAKERS RESET TO USE THOSE "SUSPECT" PUMPS. THEIR USE WILL BE LIMITED TO THAT NECESSARY TO SAFELY RECOVER THE AIRCRAFT. AIRCREWS WILL NOT ACCEPT AN AIRCRAFT FOR A PEACETIME FLIGHT WITH A REFUELING/BODY PUMP REMOVED OR AN INOPERATIVE /UNUSABLE PUMP INSTALLED WITHOUT A WRITTEN WAIVER FROM HQ SAC/LGM.

C. THE MINIMUM FUEL LEVEL IN THE FOREWARD AND AFT BODY TANKS IS 3000 POUNDS FOR ALL GROUND AND FLIGHT OPERATIONS. A NON-STANDARD FUEL LOAD WAIVER HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR ALL FUEL LOADS TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE 3000 POUND FUEL MINIMUM IN BOTH TANKS WILL BE TREATED AS TRAPPED/UNUSABLE FUEL. AS SUCH, IT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AVAILABLE FOR DIVERSION OR DELAY. ONLY AN ACTUAL EMERGENCY WARRANTS THE RISK OF DECREASING BODY TANK LEVELS BELOW 3000 POUNDS.

WARNING​

AIR REFUELING/BODY PUMPS SHOULD NOT BE RUN DRY. IF PUMPS OPERATE DRY FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING TWO MINUTES, DAMAGE TO PUMPS, FIRE AND EXPLOSIONS MAY RESULT.​

D. FOR NORMAL OPERATIONS, AIRCREWS WILL TERMINATE OPERATION OF THE AFT PUMP IN EITHER BODY TANK WHEN THE QUANTITY IN THAT TANK REACHES 5,500 POUNDS. TERMINATE OPERATION OF THE FORWARD PUMP IN EITHER BODY TANK WHEN THE QUANTITY IN THAT TANK REACHES 3000 POUNDS. WHEN THE LIMIT IS REACHED, OPEN THE APPLICABLE 5 AMP 28V DC PUMP CONTROL CB ON THE SBCBP. ...​

E. ... FLIGHT CREWS OPENING PUMP CIRCUIT BREAKERS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE MODIFIED FUEL BURN PROCEDURES WILL MAKE THE FOLLOWING ANNOTATION IN THE AFTO 781A (INFLIGHT DISCREPANCIES): "NOTE: AR/BODY PUMP CIRCUIT BREAKERS OPENED IAW HQ SAC FUEL BURN PROCEDURE." ...

There have been no further mid-air explosions of -135s.


It's too bad the 747 operators didn't get this message.

 

[TonyC]

Being typed on the 747 and very familiar with the systems of the 747, I am sure that it didn't blow up on it's own. Go ahead and throw a match on a pool of jet a. The match will be extingushed. The fuel must be vaporized to attain the flashpoint for ignition.

The tank was empty. (No Jet-A, just a tank full of vapors.) Does that change your mind?

 

[atrdriver]

My understanding, although it may in fact be incorrect, is that the fuel pumps are not actually in the tank.

As far as TWA wanting to scream for further investigation, if you will remember they were just out of a bankruptsy at the time. Within 6 months of this event they announced that they would be purchasing 1 new aircraft every month for 6 years. Kinda funny sequence, considering they were still in pretty bad financial trouble on July 17, 1996. How did they suddenly get all the money for all those new airplanes?

 

[Vik]

I don't think "concensus" and "TWA 800" can be used in the same sentence anymore.

No argument, just wondered what the general concensus was.

What's the matter, Vik? Do you have something to hide, hmm?

(Relax...kidding.)

 

[skeezer]

As far as TWA wanting to scream for further investigation, if you will remember they were just out of a bankruptsy at the time. Within 6 months of this event they announced that they would be purchasing 1 new aircraft every month for 6 years. Kinda funny sequence, considering they were still in pretty bad financial trouble on July 17, 1996. How did they suddenly get all the money for all those new airplanes?

Probably the same way USAirways found financing for 135 RJs just out of bankruptcy...Some moron lent them the money. Stupid people working in the financial industry does not make for a cover-up. It just makes business as usual in the airline world.

Skeezer

 

[TonyC]

Too many large Boeings with similar fuel systems been flying for 35+ years and only one "blowing up" in flight. Don't buy it.

And if you don't wanna take my word for it, try browsing through this FAA Notice regarding Fuel Tank Ignition Prevention Measures.

Including the KC-135 I mentioned from October 1989, this document lists are 13 civilian and 13 military accounts of fuel tank explosions. All but 4 were Boeing products.

1982: Air Canada DC-9 center wing fuel tank exploded on the ground during maintenance - - Dry running of pumps is the suspected cause.

1990: Phillipine Airline B-737 during taxi - - empty center wing tank exploded.

1970: USAF B-52 during maintenance - - explosion of fuel tank, most likely ignition source traced to arcing or overheat of fuel pump shaft or fuel quantity probe.

1971: Spain Air Force B-707 - - #1 main tank exploded during descent through 17,000'. USAF determined chafing of boost pump wires located in conduits as possible ignition source.

1982: KC-135A near Chicago descending through 12,000' - - forward body tank exploded, initial cause listed as VHF antenna.

1987: KC-135A during landing rollout at Altus AFB, OK - - an explosion and fire occurred following copilot transmission on UHF radio. The UHF wire run near the right aft wing root in the fuselage was melted due to an electrical fault. Fuel vapors in the area of the aft body tank were ignited.

1988: B-52H at KI Sawyer AFB, MI during touch-and-go landing - - at 20 ft AGL the empty aft body tank exploded. Pump num [sic] operating in the aft body tank was cause. Evidence of arcing a [sic] overheat was found.

Sept 1989: KC-135A at Loring AFB, ME, parked following flight - - during system shutdown, explosion in the aft fuselage tank occurred. Source of ignition was believed to be a hydraulically driven fuel pump mounted inside the aft body fuel tank.

Oct 1989: KC-135A at Loring AFB, ME, in local traffic pattern - - explosion in the aft body fuel tank caused hull loss. (Oh, and by the way, the loss of lives - added) Aft body f hydraulically driven pump implicated as source of ignition.

1993: KC-135R at Mitchell Field, Milwaukee during ground maintenance - - center wing tank exploded. Center wing fuel tank fuel pump implicated as source of ignition.

 

[Vik]

I think there was an Iran Air 747 that also blew up due the center tank issue.

 

[chperplt]

There was also a Thailand government 747 that blew up at on the ramp shortly after TWA 800 went down.