Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TWA-800...again.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TWA-800...again.

    Here's the deal...it's a theory...a rather far-out theory that contradicts eyewitnesses seeing missiles flying up and, explosives detected in the plane, and military operations in the area, and random fuel tank explosions being pretty rare...

    ...and unfortunately, in some ways, this was one of the first crashes where the NTSB decided to use "Public Relation's" methodology (not all that well, too), and make films with somewhat condescending narration..."no, you didn't see a missile, you saw the plane".

    It's fairly easy to attack a far-out theory, so there may be no end in sight in folks like Avion who happen to not-believe the official theory- and it's not good science to arrogantly dismiss some of the dissenting thoughts (as some folks are).

    Yeah, moving birch trees around and adjusting radio beams to take out the Polish president is one thing...saying that it's a stretch that a tank full of Jet A fumes decided to explode in a one in a zillion chance...is not a nut-job thought.

    Personally, I don't think it was a missile, and I think it's plausible that something shorted out in the tank that night at exactly the wrong time...super super super super crazy rare, but IMO, I guess that's what happened, but I still recall the tone of that film..."they didn't see a missile...we say so...we are the government...we know..." That probably did more to hurt the case than anything.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  • #2
    It could have been the most convincing film ever and it still would not have satisfied the "conspiracy" minded people. The only thing they would have believed was if the film focused on their idea and said that it was the truth, and the only truth.

    It to me is a case of, they are being different just for the sake of being different. Or they are convinced themselves and there is nothing that will change their mind. There is nothing anything short of a lobotomy could fix that. (Edit: This is a lot more insulting sounding than I meant it to be)

    But I know what you mean. That post I made had been building up for a long time on many other sites and I just reached a boiling point.

    No the TWA theory really isn't as far out of this world as many others. I can see why more than many other conspiracies one would think that. And I can see why you could convince yourself of that.

    Heck, my posts may even be contradicting themselves. I even keep editing this one to add thoughts.

    None of us are perfect in what be believe. (Yes, that includes me)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      Here's the deal...it's a theory...a rather far-out theory that contradicts eyewitnesses seeing missiles flying up and, explosives detected in the plane, and military operations in the area, and random fuel tank explosions being pretty rare...

      ...and unfortunately, in some ways, this was one of the first crashes where the NTSB decided to use "Public Relation's" methodology (not all that well, too), and make films with somewhat condescending narration..."no, you didn't see a missile, you saw the plane".

      It's fairly easy to attack a far-out theory, so there may be no end in sight in folks like Avion who happen to not-believe the official theory- and it's not good science to arrogantly dismiss some of the dissenting thoughts (as some folks are).

      Yeah, moving birch trees around and adjusting radio beams to take out the Polish president is one thing...saying that it's a stretch that a tank full of Jet A fumes decided to explode in a one in a zillion chance...is not a nut-job thought.

      Personally, I don't think it was a missile, and I think it's plausible that something shorted out in the tank that night at exactly the wrong time...super super super super crazy rare, but IMO, I guess that's what happened, but I still recall the tone of that film..."they didn't see a missile...we say so...we are the government...we know..." That probably did more to hurt the case than anything.
      Jet A fumes?
      As an A&P mechanic with over 30 years experience, I have never seen fumes coming from Jet A. Is not a volatile fuel, like AVGAS or Alcohol.
      A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
        Jet A fumes?
        As an A&P mechanic with over 30 years experience, I have never seen fumes coming from Jet A. Is not a volatile fuel, like AVGAS or Alcohol.
        Have you ever tried heating it up in a closed container with some arcing wires inside? Well, don't. It's not a lesson worth dying for.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
          Jet A fumes?
          As an A&P mechanic with over 30 years experience, I have never seen fumes coming from Jet A. Is not a volatile fuel, like AVGAS or Alcohol.
          Sorry, but you are wrong about that.

          Jet A (and Diesel) is not AS volatile as Gasoline and Alcohol...

          And, yeah, maybe it's an order of magnitude or two less volatile...

          But it does volatilize, and it can burn very fast (i.e. "explode"). The combustion inside of diesel and jet engines occurs pretty darn fast.

          I can smell kerosene and can smell Jet A (and I'm not talking the half burnt stuff). I don't have 30 years of wrench experience, but I did buy a gallon of Jet A once- and have 50 years of being around kerosene. It was amazing how the Jet A evaporated out of my kerosene lantern...just like the relatively non-volatile kerosene does.

          Most hydrocarbons will volatilize to some degree...(And volatilize MORE when it's hot).

          If it didn't volatilize, then why was there all the talk about trying to get inert gas into the tanks as opposed to ~20% O2?

          If you really don't believe me, I invite you to cut up a Jet A storage tank with a welding torch...though I'm not sure you'll ever know what happened.

          I concurred with you and gave you "unlikely"...but as Gabriel know's, one of my favorite phrases is that "Absolute statements are almost always wrong"- and unfortunately, too much training is strongly black and white, without regard to the genuine gray area's that often exist.

          Jet A does not volatilze- NO.
          Jet A does not volatilize much- Yes.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            Have you ever tried heating it up in a closed container with some arcing wires inside? Well, don't. It's not a lesson worth dying for.
            That probably would not work...Diesel engines and jet engine burner cans require a good bit of super-critical engineering to work...PW JT-8D's with the number 2 would sometimes shut off spontaneously in an aircraft that also contained the number 2.

            Avion insists it won't ever, you insist it very likely will...The world is black, the world is white... where or where is the elusive middle ground?
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              That probably would not work...Diesel engines and jet engine burner cans require a good bit of super-critical engineering to work...PW JT-8D's with the number 2 would sometimes shut off spontaneously in an aircraft that also contained the number 2.

              Avion insists it won't ever, you insist it very likely will...The world is black, the world is white... where or where is the elusive middle ground?
              The NTSB insists it absolutely would, because it did when they reproduced the conditions in the lab and because it did when the center tank of Philippine Airlines Flight 143 exploded. That's not black or white, that's living color.

              What the technically uninformed conspiracists don't understand is that the design flaw in both the 737 and the 747 was placing the AC packs beneath the center fuel tank in such a way that their heat is transferred to the tanks. Combine that with a mostly empty tank full of fumes and a arcing spark and you have yourself an overpressure situation, also known as an explosion. Tried and true.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                Have you ever tried heating it up in a closed container with some arcing wires inside? Well, don't. It's not a lesson worth dying for.
                Boiling Point for Jet A and Jet A-1 is 300 degrees C. So you wont see any fumes until you reach this point at sea level.
                Take a look at the Technical Data Sheet from Exxon/Mobil/ and by the way, the boiling point for water is 100 degrees C.
                http://www.exxonmobil.com/aviation/p...s_jeta-a1.aspx
                A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KGEG View Post
                  It could have been the most convincing film ever and it still would not have satisfied the "conspiracy" minded people. The only thing they would have believed was if the film focused on their idea and said that it was the truth, and the only truth.

                  I probably would have never accepted the official story as even remotely possible if it wasn't for the Philippine Airlines 737. And that "convincing film" is exactly the reason. I still believe the film, proudly made by the CIA, shows something that is physically impossible. Planes that lose their noses don't skyrocket. The Pan-Am 747 over Lockerbie also lost its front section, but didn't shoot up like a missile. It just broke apart and fell, and I think that would have been the most logical outcome for TWA 800, and for any other plane that suddenly has a gaping hole where the nose section used to be (God forbid). I still don't understand what the deal was with that film. And others have questioned it, for other reasons. For example, our favorite topic, stalls:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0h3hXvZ7Cc


                  And it is a shame, because there is some solid evidence in favor of the official story, for example the fuel gauge anomalies referenced by Evan.

                  But then there were the unexplained eyewitness accounts, some of which were from professional pilots on duty (still unexplained to me). And the question of the explosives residue. More precisely, why were so many seats affected (apparently), and not just one, as one would expect from an explosives search test.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    ... folks like Avion who happen to not-believe the official theory...
                    Either you missed Avion, or I missed avion, or I'm missing you (so odds are against me).

                    Avion was being sarcastic in his comments and making fan of BoeingBobby.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm not an expert, and I suggest always to wait until the end of the investigation, but from minute to minute we hear about more findings that indicate about a bomb on the aircraft.

                      So I think it's not TWA 800 again.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Just to add some fuel to the burning issue

                        http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/31/ny...light-800.html

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                          Boiling Point for Jet A and Jet A-1 is 300 degrees C. So you wont see any fumes until you reach this point at sea level.
                          Take a look at the Technical Data Sheet from Exxon/Mobil/ and by the way, the boiling point for water is 100 degrees C.
                          Are you seriously suggesting the evaporation rate for a liquid that's below it's boiling point is 0%?

                          If you believe that to be true, here's an experiment you can try: wet a sponge with water, and set it on the counter. Ensure that its temperature never goes above 100 degrees C. If your theory is correct, the sponge will remain wet forever.
                          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                          Eric Law

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
                            And the question of the explosives residue. More precisely, why were so many seats affected (apparently), and not just one, as one would expect from an explosives search test.
                            Tests conducted by the investigation concluded that any explosive residue would have been dissolved by the seawater within two days. Therefore, the investigation concluded that the residue must have been added to the wreckage after it was retrieved. The wreckage was handled by military personal on military ships using military equipment, thus the residues likely were transferred to the wreckage in the process. Remember, they also found residues on Polish 101, and please don't tell me you think that was a bomb...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              In 1999 I was invited by a friend that works for the FAA as a safety inspector to visit the hanger at Long Island MacArthur Airport where the wreckage of TWA 800 was reassembled and stored. This is shortly after I started flying the 747-200. I have walked inside the center fuel tank of that aircraft. There was no signs of an internal explosion anywhere inside the tank. So you can believe all of the CIA constructed B.S. videos you want. I am standing fast that the center fuel tank did not explode from the inside. With over 11000 hours flying every model of the 747 ever built except the SP and the NASA space shuttle carrier, I have never worried about it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X