Twa 800

[DC8 Flyer]

Those people who think a shoulder fired Missle shot down an airplane flying at 13,500 ft and 10 mile offshore need to check their facts. The stinger missle has an effective range of 3-4 miles, and 6,000 ft if memory serves. Getting a hit is very dificult requireing a lot of training and skill.

Even if it had hit an engine, the 2.5 pound warhead would probably at worst knock off an engine with some shrapnel damage to thw wing. Hardley the instant destruction that occured. IIRC a Hawker was hit by an SA-7 somewhere in Africa and was able to return to land, same deal for the DHL A-300 in Iraq.

No realsitic way it was an MANPAD.

A missle fried from a Navy ship could have hit and caused the damage that resulted. However, for this to be true no one from the ship in question (100+ people) has comeforward to admit what happened. No guilty concionce, not book deals, ect. Add the hundreds of peopel who would have to be part of teh cover up, and you might as well start talking about the fake Apolo Moon landings.


Many people maintain that jet fuel won't burn easily, much less explode if subjected to a simple spark. However everone overlooks the fact that the tank was not full and was pressurized.

I've worked inside the center fuel tank on a 747-200 and there are plenty of wires that can chafe and eventually cause a short.

Compressed kerosene vapors + a shorted wire = big boom

The only problem with this theory, and I dont necessarily subscribe to the shot down one either, is that if the center fuel tank exploded, why did only the front bulk head come off. Think of it like you are holding a firecracker in a closed hand. I would think that if the center tank exploded it would have done more than seperate the section ahead of the wings from the rest of the airframe.

 

[MissKittyKat]

go with your gut feeling!

 

[USMCmech]

I honestly don't know.

My guess is that the explosion wasn't really that big, just enough to damage the front lower side of the fuel tank, which allowed burning fuel to escape, and arodynamic forces ripped the rest of the fuselage off.

But the NTSB never asked me.

 

[MissKittyKat]

There was nothing wrong with that plane! go with your gut feeling!

 

[MissKittyKat]

the center fuel tank did not explode! wake up!

 

[LXApilot]

Why is the accident investigation and the video recreation done by the freaking CIA!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! That's the real question!

Central Inteligence Agency - they've been pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people for 3/4 of a century!

I think the American people could come to terms with the fact that their government accidently shot down an airliner. We did it in the 1980s when the US Navy shot down an airliner off the coast of Iran. So it's been done before. But why cover this up? There are just too many people that saw a "missle".

Or what about the ever so quiet and secret theory about a bomb being concealed in a organ transplants shipment?

 

[Flightjock30]

IT WAS A MISSILE!!! I could get arrested for leaking this out, but my friend works in the FBI and TOLD ME a DAY AFTER the crash it was a missile! I also have a photo of a drone missile off the south shore of Long Island that evening MINUTES before the crash. The drone missile was the "intended" target. FACT! Hopefully the Feds dont see this post. Oh and a Pakistan 747 took EVASIVE action to avoid a missile a few weeks later on that same route of flight out of JFK. It made news! but only for a day because the government forced the media to remove it.

 

[EagleRJ]

Those people who think a shoulder fired Missle shot down an airplane flying at 13,500 ft and 10 mile offshore need to check their facts. The stinger missle has an effective range of 3-4 miles, and 6,000 ft if memory serves. Getting a hit is very dificult requireing a lot of training and skill.

The advertised "effective range" is against a high-speed tactical aircraft that is taking evasive action and deploying flares. The maximum range would be a more appropriate consideration for a large target that is flying at 270kts in a straight line.
The Stinger is not the only missile out there, either. The Russian SA-14 Strela, for instance, has a max altitude of 20,000'.

Who said the missile(s) were fired from shore? One radar track showed a surface target that was stationary until the time of the explosion, and then headed out to sea at more than 30 knots. It was never identified.

Even if it had hit an engine, the 2.5 pound warhead would probably at worst knock off an engine with some shrapnel damage to the wing. Hardley the instant destruction that occured. IIRC a Hawker was hit by an SA-7 somewhere in Africa and was able to return to land, same deal for the DHL A-300 in Iraq.

It's a common misconception that a missile fired from below would home in on an engine. The seeker in the missile just sees a "blob" of heat, and goes for the center. In the case of the 747, the center of the heat signature would be the center of the plane, namely the exhausts of the three air conditioning packs- which happen to be located below the center wing tank.

A missle fried from a Navy ship could have hit and caused the damage that resulted. However, for this to be true no one from the ship in question (100+ people) has come forward to admit what happened. No guilty concionce, not book deals, ect. Add the hundreds of people who would have to be part of the cover up, and you might as well start talking about the fake Apollo Moon landings.

Agreed. An accidental Navy shootdown is not likely due to the hundreds or even thousands of people who would need to keep the dirty secret.

Many people maintain that jet fuel won't burn easily, much less explode if subjected to a simple spark. However everone overlooks the fact that the tank was not full and was pressurized.

Jet-A vapors just aren't that flammable at most temperatures, and jet fuel won't burn vigorously unless it is subjected to violent agitation and a mist forms. The residual fuel in the center wing tank was just warm from the sit on the ramp, and it was just sloshing around as the plane climbed. Pretty benign stuff.
The tank was very slightly pressurized by ram air. So little that the effect can be discounted.

I've worked inside the center fuel tank on a 747-200 and there are plenty of wires that can chafe and eventually cause a short.

Compressed kerosene vapors + a shorted wire = big boom

Wires which by design all carry low voltage unable to produce a spark. It's possible that high voltage shorted to the low voltage wires somewhere outside the tank and created a spark inside the tank, but even then, it's doubtful the mixture would even ignite. Experiments have suggested that the mixture of vapors and air would not be flammable. Again remember that this was not gasoline, it was kerosene. Much less volatile.

Some convincing fuel vapor experiments, and lots of other fascinating evidence, is available Here.

 

[C601]

Intertesting.....

[SIZE=+1]Conclusion[/SIZE] Therefore, the preceding analysis constitutes hard evidence consistent with the fact that the FBI/NTSB are knowingly withholding from the public over 3.000 flight parameter data bits from the end of FL 800. These 3,000 data bits from the last 4 seconds recorded on the FDR tape may well answer the question of what occurred during those last 4 seconds to cause the disintegration of TWA Flight 800.


http://twa800.com/schulze/4secfinal.htm

 

[USMCmech]

Quote:
Those people who think a shoulder fired Missle shot down an airplane flying at 13,500 ft and 10 mile offshore need to check their facts. The stinger missle has an effective range of 3-4 miles, and 6,000 ft if memory serves. Getting a hit is very dificult requireing a lot of training and skill.


The advertised "effective range" is against a high-speed tactical aircraft that is taking evasive action and deploying flares. The maximum range would be a more appropriate consideration for a large target that is flying at 270kts in a straight line.
The Stinger is not the only missile out there, either. The Russian SA-14 Strela, for instance, has a max altitude of 20,000'.

Who said the missile(s) were fired from shore? One radar track showed a surface target that was stationary until the time of the explosion, and then headed out to sea at more than 30 knots. It was never identified.

Quote:
Even if it had hit an engine, the 2.5 pound warhead would probably at worst knock off an engine with some shrapnel damage to the wing. Hardley the instant destruction that occured. IIRC a Hawker was hit by an SA-7 somewhere in Africa and was able to return to land, same deal for the DHL A-300 in Iraq.

It's a common misconception that a missile fired from below would home in on an engine. The seeker in the missile just sees a "blob" of heat, and goes for the center. In the case of the 747, the center of the heat signature would be the center of the plane, namely the exhausts of the three air conditioning packs- which happen to be located below the center wing tank.

Interesting,

A boat launch might have made it possible.

If perfectly located, which is possible because all the flights take much the same route, and perfectly timed it just may have been possible. However, as a Stinger missle tech explained to me this is FAR FAR more difficult than the average public belives.

However, where is the boat with the backblast damage? Also I will have to check, but I still don't think the rocket motor will carry the missle to 13,500 at all. The SA-14 is a possibility.

The Stinger missle theory moves from impossible to unlikely, but possible.