TWA-800...again.

[HalcyonDays]

....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.

No doubt someone as forthright and as proactive as you would have been quick to question the many investigators and other professionals present at the event for an explanation of what you say you saw. What did they say ?

[Gabriel]

No doubt someone as forthright and as proactive as you would have been quick to question the many investigators and other professionals present at the event for an explanation of what you say you saw. What did they say ?

Don't waste your time, Halcyon. The CWT was shattered in hundreds of pieces. I don't even know what it means that he walked inside it or how did he reach to the conclusion, by looking at the hundreds of warped parts, that that was not the result of an explosion.

[Schwartz]

Oh, how stupid I am. Of course, how could I miss this logical reasoning:
Government not always tell the truth.
ERGO: TWA 800 was downed by a missile.

That is an absolutely valid syllogism, no?

You asked for photos of the CWT. I provided more than 400.

Of course, your evidence surely is stronger and more credible than NTSB's. Show it. Or STFU.

While I might happen to agree with the official assessment, I find this discussion a bit troubling. I always find it amazing that in a scenario where the trigger event is not actually known, intelligent people definitively insist that the evidence is conclusive in what was NOT a trigger event based on the authority opinion.

It may be true that there is a lack of evidence of cause XXX, however, it might mean we are just missing evidence, and we can not be conclusive of the negative assertion.

In cases where the root or contributing cause(s) are not conclusively identified, we have only the opinion of the authorities and their judgment based on the balance of probabilities they assess themselves. Assuming authorities (even groups of them) are correct is a fool's game, especially in a politically charged investigation regardless of what you believe. The inconsistency between the official announcement that the pump didn't cause the explosion followed by requirements changes could be considered evidence of this, if you believe the pump was the cause.

I know from personal experience (not in transportation), that there are far too many cases where my own investigation of direct evidence causes me to form a different opinion from the "Authoritative experts" involved.

Either way, we are left with inconclusive data, and any definitive statements about the cause, are grossly misleading, because in this case there is no evidence of a definitive cause. Given that most of us don't likely have the time, expertise, or access to direct evidence, we are stuck with figuring out who's opinion we trust more based on the evidence we can inspect -- reports and pictures. However, I have to say that the government doesn't help it's own case (similar to the twin tower investigation) when they seemingly surpress information, because that legitimately causes people to question all of their assumptions, and motivations, both of which are highly subject to bias and influence opinions.

So, although I believe the twin towers were felled by two planes, and I also believe that TWA800 was felled by electrical failure, I will not attack or denigrate others who believe otherwise, especially if they are questioning "expert" conclusions where there is uncertainty wrt to evidence. In my opinion, I have weighed two competing hypotheses against the evidence, and find the official explanation MORE LIKELY. But that is my opinion.

[Gabriel]

While I might happen to agree with the official assessment, I find this discussion a bit troubling. I always find it amazing that in a scenario where the trigger event is not actually known, intelligent people definitively insist that the evidence is conclusive in what was NOT a trigger event based on the authority opinion.

It may be true that there is a lack of evidence of cause XXX, however, it might mean we are just missing evidence, and we can not be conclusive of the negative assertion.

You cannot prove a negative, in general.

There is no evidence of a missile, of a bomb, of a meteorite, of a collision with an UFO.

However, of those, a bomb and a missile tend to leave very clear and very well known evidence. So the lack of evidence IS a proof in contrary. It's like saying that this person is dead but we cannot discard that he was shot dead despite the fact that there is no bullet orifice, bullet casing or remainders of powder.

Despite what BB says, the evidence that the CWT was destroyed by excessive internal pressure is conclusive (unless you believe that the NTSB is straight lying), as it is that ignition of the fuel vapors was what caused that pressure.

What is knot known is the source of the ignition. A bomb or a missile could send hot shrapnel into the tank and cause the explosion. But where are the holes? No holes no shrapnell. Also, the ignition for the fuel vapors could have been caused after the explosive pressure ruptured the fuel tank. But if the tank was ruptured there would have been no such a raise in the internal pressure. And, again, there is no evidence of a bomb or missile that are things that leave clear evidence of known types.

Once the likely explanations have been conclusively discarded, what remains, however unlikely, holds the truth.

So what could have caused the fuel vapors to ignite?

Lightning could have (and has) caused the ignition of the fuel vapors. I don't remember if that was discussed (I think it was discarded due to the meteorology at the time and place not being compatible with lightning). A meteorite that by the time it reaches the plane has the size of a pea but traveling at thousands of miles per hour and glowing hot white could also be the cause, and it would be very difficult to find the evidence because you would have one single little hole and would likely look like nothing seen before (and nobody would know what to look for or, if they find it, what they are looking at, because there is no previous data or experience).

It could perhaps have been some of those.
But barring that, we are running out of options.
So yes, the NTSB doesn't know what started the ignition, but they do know what didn't, and based on the remaining possibilities, they suspect it was an electric arc or spark. So they start looking at what electric sources are in there, they find a couple, and the FAA works in ALL of them.

In cases where the root or contributing cause(s) are not conclusively identified, we have only the opinion of the authorities and their judgment based on the balance of probabilities they assess themselves. Assuming authorities (even groups of them) are correct is a fool's game, especially in a politically charged investigation regardless of what you believe. The inconsistency between the official announcement that the pump didn't cause the explosion followed by requirements changes could be considered evidence of this, if you believe the pump was the cause.

I know from personal experience (not in transportation), that there are far too many cases where my own investigation of direct evidence causes me to form a different opinion from the "Authoritative experts" involved.

I agree, and I have disagreed with the NTSB more than once (based on the very same factual information that the NTSB used to reach their conclusion).

In this case, having read the report in full (years ago), I (strongly) tend to agree with the NTSB conclusion, but I am open seeing evidence pointing that it is wrong. Now, where is the evidence? A user of an internet forum saying he is the mightiest 747 pilot saying that he walked into the CWT, which was shattered in hundreds of pieces, and that he judged that there had been no internal explosion? And how would that prove a missile anyway?

I might consider the possibility that the fuel vapors in the CWT was ignited by something else (even a missile), if you bring the evidence). But that the CWT DID NOT explode? You will have to work much harder to convince me.

Either way, we are left with inconclusive data, and any definitive statements about the cause, are grossly misleading, because in this case there is no evidence of a definitive cause.

As I said, there is a lot of definitive evidence. Not all that we would like, but we can do a lot of quite absolute statements. Like "The CWT failed by an overpressure event after the fuel vapors in it ignited".

[quote]Given that most of us don't likely have the time, expertise, or access to direct evidence, we are stuck with figuring out who's opinion we trust more based on the evidence we can inspect -- reports and pictures. However, I have to say that the government doesn't help it's own case (similar to the twin tower investigation) when they seemingly surpress information, because that legitimately causes people to question all of their assumptions, and motivations, both of which are highly subject to bias and influence opinions.

I will not attack or denigrate others who believe otherwise

I will not do it either. However, I will denigrate (just because you are using that word, it would not be my word of choice) someone that, because he says that he is a seasoned 747 pilot, thinks that he has an authority over us to impose his ideas with lies and no evidence, and when he runs out of arguments then he disqualifies us because we are not 747 pilots.

I am sorry BB, but I will never respect someone just for their titles, certificates or experience.

Respect is something you buy daily with your daily attitude, performance, knowledge, generosity and humbleness. It is not something that a certificate, a position and a logbook can buy by themselves. Not if it is not accompanied by the rest. Not with me anyway.

[Schwartz]

You cannot prove a negative, in general.

There is no evidence of a missile, of a bomb, of a meteorite, of a collision with an UFO.

However, of those, a bomb and a missile tend to leave very clear and very well known evidence. So the lack of evidence IS a proof in contrary. It's like saying that this person is dead but we cannot discard that he was shot dead despite the fact that there is no bullet orifice, bullet casing or remainders of powder.

Despite what BB says, the evidence that the CWT was destroyed by excessive internal pressure is conclusive (unless you believe that the NTSB is straight lying), as it is that ignition of the fuel vapors was what caused that pressure.

Hi Gabriel,

While I agree with almost everything, there is one thing that I disagree with above. Lack of evidence is never proof. Period. If we were to modify the language, and say that in this case, the lack of what should be telltale evidence of a missile or bomb is strong evidence against the theories.

However, that logic does assume that evidence of such a thing if it existed, would be made public and available to the investigators. Any theory that involves the military easily involves interference with evidence collection and thus, we can't say anything is proven unless we were to inspect the whole trail of evidence gathering, something I doubt has been documented to the degree necessary to inspire confidence.

Again, I think the FBI and the government are their own worst enemies here, because they have been known to suppress evidence in past cases for inexplicable reasons -- 9/11 video tapes comes to mind.

Additionally, it just takes one piece of shrapnel to ignite the tank, and I'm going to bet that not enough pieces were reassembled from the obliterated tank to ensure they didn't miss one little hole.

At the end of the day, I believe the effort required to maintain a conspiracy of that level is pretty darn difficult in this day and age, and thus, I am more apt to think that the odds favor the official theory of the explosion rather than that of the alternatives. However, given that there is at least one investigator who contests the report, it would seem that there is enough uncertainty in the findings or interpretations, to make an "expert" question the results.

However, I will denigrate (just because you are using that word, it would not be my word of choice) someone that, because he says that he is a seasoned 747 pilot, thinks that he has an authority over us to impose his ideas with lies and no evidence, and when he runs out of arguments then he disqualifies us because we are not 747 pilots.

Indeed, that itself is a false argument of authority. When it occurs, it should be called out for what it is. If there is a contest of opinions, it is up to the reader to decide which opinion is better represented by evidence and logical arguments.

[ATLcrew]

Once the likely explanations have been conclusively discarded, what remains, however unlikely, holds the truth.

In other words, once you eliminate the imPOSSIBLE, whatever remains must be the truth, however imPROBABLE.

[Gabriel]

In other words, once you eliminate the imPOSSIBLE, whatever remains must be the truth, however imPROBABLE.

Yes, in other words. Thanks

[brianw999]

In other words, once you eliminate the imPOSSIBLE, whatever remains must be the truth, however imPROBABLE.

Copyright Sir Arthur Conan Doyle via his character, Sherlock Holmes !

[3WE]

I give up. All of you "experts" believe what you want. Sure don't have to worry about any of it when you are sitting in your den flying your neat M/S flight sim! Or reading your 35 years worth of flying magazines.

Seriously man, seek out some medical advice for your memory problems.

I am the one dude who stated- "gosh, from what I remember in news photos, the tank does look rather nice and cubical in opposition to the skin of the aircraft which looks "blown out"...Boeing Bobby has an interesting point." (I didn't use those exact words, but it would require you to read the thread and use your head to see that I thanked you for that comment.)

But instead of engaging in an intelligent conversation about it, you lash out at the dude who actually acknowledged your comment.

...signs of dementia

[Evan]

What is not known is the source of the ignition.

I think the investigation concluded a very likely source of ignition. They did not simply say. "well, it could have been this..." They followed a trail of evidence, derived a theory based on that evidence and then challenged their theory, discovering support for this theory in the lab. When evidence lines up with theory in multiple places, and nothing contradicts it, and it can be reproduced in a sceptical scientific environment, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that this is almost certainly the cause.

Consider the investigation's theory:

• The power drop-out sounds on the CVR line up with the theory.
• The highly elevated fuel quantity readings from the FQIS line up with the theory.
• The wire-routing issues and tests for the possibility of transient voltage spikes line up with the theory.
• The weakness in the scavenger pump design lines up with the theory.
• The CWT ullage combustibility tests line up with the theory.
• No evidence contradicts the theory.

Compare that to the missile theory.

• A small fraction of the eyewitness reports line up with the theory.
• The majority of eyewitness reports contradict the theory.
• There is no hard evidence to support the theory whatsoever.*

*The traces of explosive residues were discounted as evidence due to the soluble nature of these chemicals in sea water and must have been transferred to the wreckage after retrieval by military equipment and personnel.

Therefore, it's clear to see that, even if we cannot absolutely, positively conclude the cause of the explosion, anyone taking the side of the missile theory simply lacks discipline in their judgment. Unless of course, they are only into this for the entertainment value...

[BoeingBobby]

"Because he says that he is a seasoned 747 pilot, thinks that he has an authority over us to impose his ideas with lies and no evidence, and when he runs out of arguments then he disqualifies us because we are not 747 pilots."


I have accused you in the past of being a smart ass, however I have never accused you of being a liar.

Again you believe what you want, I know what I have seen and have my own thoughts on it. As to being accused of being a liar. I will now officially remove myself from this and any further discussions.

[BoeingBobby]

Seriously man, seek out some medical advice for your memory problems.

I am the one dude who stated- "gosh, from what I remember in news photos, the tank does look rather nice and cubical in opposition to the skin of the aircraft which looks "blown out"...Boeing Bobby has an interesting point." (I didn't use those exact words, but it would require you to read the thread and use your head to see that I thanked you for that comment.)

But instead of engaging in an intelligent conversation about it, you lash out at the dude who actually acknowledged your comment.

...signs of dementia

Sorry so many posts at this point I forget who said what. Except of course Gabriel, the expert on everything in the entire world. Know it all extraordinaire that has now called me a liar on the internet.

[elaw]

Do we have a bit of a double standard going on here?

You seem to have no problem calling the members of the NTSB and other government agencies liars...

[3WE]

...a very likely source of ignition...nothing contradicts it...no hard evidence to support the theory whatsoever...it's clear..even if we cannot absolutely, positively conclude... anyone taking the side...simply lacks discipline in their judgment...they are only into this for the entertainment value...

I see a lot of very bold statements here (and not talking about the font which just emphasizes the stronger points).

I see very little acknowledgement of valid doubts.

Please, keep throwing gasoline at the doubters and let them know how you so overwhelmingly agree with the polit-bureau's official report.

Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh
Splotila naveki velikaya Rus'!
Da zdravstvuyet sozdanny voley narodov
Yediny, moguchy Sovetsky Soyuz!
PRIPEV:Slav'sya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,Druzhby narodov nadyozhny oplot!Partiya Lenina - sila narodnayaNas k torzhestvu Kommunizma vedyot!
Skvoz' grozy siyalo nam solntse svobody,
I Lenin veliky nam put' ozaril,
Na pravoye delo on podnyal narody,
Na trud i na podvigi nas vdohnovil!
PRIPEV
V pobede bessmertnyh idey Kommunizma
My vidim gryadushcheye nashey strany,
I Krasnomu znameni slavnoy Otchizny
My budem vsegda bezzavetno verny!
PRIPEV

[Evan]

I see a lot of very bold statements here (and not talking about the font which just emphasizes the stronger points).

I see very little acknowledgement of valid doubts.

See them now?

...a very likely source of ignition...nothing contradicts it...no hard evidenceto support the theory whatsoever...it's clear..even if we cannot absolutely, positively conclude... anyone taking the side...simply lacks discipline in their judgment...they are only into this for the entertainment value...

I acknowledge that there are extremely valid doubts about a missile theory.

Such as no evidence whatsoever.