TWA-800...again.

[AVION1]

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.

Those Data Sheets, are done at the "Perfect Atmospheric Standard", which is 22 degree C, at 45 degree Northern Latitude at Sea Level. I work with atmospheric standards all day long. Using that Standard, yes, your sponge will remain wet all day long.

[3WE]

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.

You changed context... you told Avion to heat up "A" tank...

Now you want to cite specific tanks and specific temperatures and specific fuel loads... just like the critical, specific conditions in a burner can of a 727 engine #2.

The black and white is "jet fuel tanks almost never explode"... Boeing Bobby has a zillion hours and continues to argue with flawed logic... but he doesn't fear center tank explosions because they are kind of rare... that much is sound.

[Evan]

The black and white is "jet fuel tanks almost never explode"... Boeing Bobby has a zillion hours and continues to argue with flawed logic... but he doesn't fear center tank explosions because they are kind of rare... that much is sound.

Hmmm, yes. I agree with BoeingBobby. There is no cause for alarm due to the extreme rarity in which events and conditions converge to create the scenario that took down TWA 800. CWT's almost never explode (except when they do). LIghtning almost never causes a fuel tank explsion (except when it does). Turbulence is almost never the cause of structural failure (except when it is).

The rare odds of this happening does not change the fact that it can happen or the findings of the exhaustively researched investigation.

If BoingBobby was worried about a CWT explosion, then he should be terrified of taking a shower and petrified when driving to work. Obviously he isn't.

[AVION1]

This is the kind of drones the Navy was testing that day, just few miles from the crash site of TWA800. Rather than a fuel tank explosion which never happen, a collision with a drone is a great possibility, and my only "theory".
This is a fact. I am not supporting any other "theory" or weird stuff, such as a meteorite impact, a secret chinese weapon from space, UFO, Bermuda Triangle, etc. I am supporting my "theory" with a real fact.

[UncleFire]

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/productsandservices_aviation-fuels_jeta-a1.aspx

I think you're really looking for the flash point which is the lowest temp where a liquid can vaporize and form an ignitable mixture in air.

Jet/A - flashpoint is 100F (38C). So on a hot day I'm sure there is vapor in the empty part of fuel tanks.

And if we're going to talk about rarity...
- How many 737's are out there flying with how many millions of hours. What are the odds that a jackscrew or PCU will fail?
- How about the in flight entertainment system arcing and causing a fire?

[Evan]

You changed context... you told Avion to heat up "A" tank...

Now you want to cite specific tanks and specific temperatures and specific fuel loads...

Ugh. Ok, if you want to have this conversation with your intellect instead of your imagination...

READ THE REPORT!!

Then let's talk.

Recreations on an identical aircraft following TWA procedures in similar conditions showed that, due to the proximity of the AC packs and the high ambient temperature in the AC bay, the CWT internal temps reached as high as 117° F.

Now...

Upon completion of the tests and research, the experts evaluated the applicability of the data acquired in relation to the TWA flight 800 accident conditions. The conclusions specific to the accident conditions were based on the examination of a similar flash point Jet A fuel, at a temperature range of 104° to 122° F at 13,800 feet msl, with a fuel mass loading equivalent to 50 gallons in the CWT. The explosion dynamics experts from CIT and the Safety Board determined the following:

The flammability limits of Jet A fuel are variable and depend (at least) on ignition energy level, temperature, pressure, and mass loading. The magnitude of the ignition energy of the fuel vapor for the accident airplaneís conditions (50 gallons of Jet A fuel in the CWT at a pressure equivalent to 13,800 feet msl) is estimated to vary from 0.5 J at 104° F to less than 0.5 mJ at 122° F. ï

At 13,800 feet msl, with fuel mass loading conditions simulating those of the accident airplane, Jet A fuel 259 vapors could be ignited at temperatures as low as 96.4° F.

etc, etc, etc.

There it is, in black and white.

[Evan]

...and my only "theory".
This is a fact.

And there you have it: the galvanized steel door of the conspiracy theorist mindset. You're not open to discussion so why the discussion?

Even the investigation does not say they know what happened as a fact. They can only identify the most overwhelmingly probable cause most supported by the evidence. In this case it is a CWT overpressure event. Missile strike doesn't even get to first base.

But that won't have any effect on the conspiracy theorist rigid hopes and dreams. Missile. Birch trees. Lifting straps. Russian mind control radar. They will not be fooled...

[Not_Karl]

And there you have it: the galvanized steel door of the conspiracy theorist mindset. You're not open to discussion so why the discussion?

I think Avion is saying that the Navy testing drones in the area is a fact, as opposed to meteorites, etc.
One of said drones impacting the 747 is his theory.
(If I understood correctly)

[AVION1]

I think Avion is saying that the Navy testing drones in the area is a fact, as opposed to meteorites, etc.
One of said drones impacting the 747 is his theory.
(If I understood correctly)

Evan wants to play with my words, just like FoxNews.

[3WE]

READ THE REPORT!!

I did read the report.

Yes, it said that the warm temperatures, and extended ground hold and the AC packs heated the tank environment up more than the engineers had ever imagined- and that they felt the gasses in the tank were kind of explosive- and that there was evidence of frayed wires. (The rest is a theory).

And- as other's have stated, they made that film with really bad wording and messaging that attempted to dismiss eyewitness accounts of a missile.

Now, can you get it through your thick head that in Boeing Bobby's zillion hours of flying 747's times the number of other 747's (many magnitudes more zillion hours) and the fact that Boeing Bobby's 747's are flown by more people than him (factor 2X) times the number of takeoffs times a fraction of times the AC is running for extended times, times a fraction of when the tank is empty, and times lightning strikes and other frayed wires and other aircraft types...

...and (repeating, since you have a comprehension problem)

FUEL TANKS JUST DON'T EXPLODE THAT OFTEN!!

[Gabriel]

With over 11000 hours flying every model of the 747 ever built except the SP and the NASA space shuttle carrier...

You flew the SAM 28000 or SAM 29000?

[3WE]

...There was no signs of an internal explosion anywhere inside the tank...

"were" no signs...

...Ok, now that we've fixed the grammar, I appreciate your comment as it supports my point that it is OK to have some questions and doubts about the TWA 800 "official cause", while I tire of Evan's minion-like pounding that the report is gospel.

However, the counter argument to your comment: It is fairly well established that the tank did "blow up"...and the whole reconstructed plane paints a pretty clear picture of the "whole area being blown out".

I'll be glad to split hairs with you as to exactly what blew up (Jet fuel vapors, an on-board bomb, a missile, or a SCUBA tank, or a Nitrogen tank to get inert gasses inside)

...but please, what tells you that that area wasn't the source of an 'explosion'- You say "no evidence of combustion" but the bent metal of the tank and plane sure suggests that something blew it out.

Again- Evan, I actually agree with the official cause- BUT again, I don't see it cut and dry, perfectly logical, totally irrefutable- some folks who question the report have valid points. And indeed some folks are out there...I mean, who knows that the Russians didn't drop a birch tree in front of the plane?

Just being scientific- you see some evidence, you form a theory, you test the theory. I do agree that the tank may have been "explosive" that night, that part was easy to test...but the theory of the ignition source...finding conclusive evidence of frayed and arcing wires after a plane blows up in a fire ball and sits on the bottom of the ocean for weeks...a good theory, but just a theory.

[Evan]

Evan wants to play with my words, just like FoxNews.

If you call cut-and-pasting them 'playing with them'...

That picture you posted is a RATO-launched BQM-74 Chukar targeting drone. The navy uses these for target practice exercises. You are implying that the USN was conducting target practice in the littoral areas just south of Long Island along a heavily-trafficked commercial airway. Do you realize how non-sensical that is?

Not to mention the fact that witnesses only reported one streak that evening. Does the navy conduct single-drone target practice exercises without ever firing a missile at the drone? No. they don't.

Ok, put that aside. Of the hundreds of witness reports of seeing a streak of light in the sky, only 18 reported that it originated on the ground.

Of the 258 streak-of-light witnesses, 38 reported that the streak was ascending vertically or nearly so, 18 indicated that it originated from the surface of the earth, and 7 reported that it originated at the horizon.

223 of 258 witnesses testified that it was high up in the sky, not ascending vertically.

Now... The BQM-74 uses RATO rockets initially, creating a large streak of flame near the ground, then ejects these as the internal turbine takes over. At that point it produces no streak of light. Yet most witnesses reported the streak of light high up in the sky...

...the sort of streak you might expect from a burning aircraft as it continues to briefly fly in an upward trajectory before breaking up moments later...

So tell me Avion, how do you explain that discrepency? Or just ask yourself that.

[Evan]

Again- Evan, I actually agree with the official cause- BUT again, I don't see it cut and dry, perfectly logical, totally irrefutable

God, 3WE the way you put words in my mouth...

I don't see the findings as as 'totally irrefutable' and I've already said that here.

All I'm saying here is that...

A) the FACT that Jet A becomes combustible under these conditions is irrefutable. That was established during the investigation.

B) there is NO EVIDENCE of a missile strike and all the evidence points away from it.

C) While FUEL TANKS JUST DON'T EXPLODE THAT OFTEN!! They do explode under rare circumstances.

[BoeingBobby]

All of what I am writing is verifiable if you do a little digging. On the evening of July 17, 1996 there was an ex United States Airforce F4 pilot that flew many combat missions in Viet Nam in his kayak off the coast of Long Island. He reported seeing a missile launched from a small boat that was painted completely black and then sped away. He watched as the missile went from the launch site to the strike point of the 747 that had taken off from JFK International Airport just 12 minutes earlier. This was reported and he was interviewed extensively by the police, FBI and CIA. This is a man that had seen many ground to air and air to air missiles fired during his career. Approximately 15 minutes after the TWA 747 departed JFK, there was an El Al 747 scheduled to depart. This was the proposed target, not the TWA flight. Again, I have stood inside the center wing fuel tank of the airplane. We walked around inside for over 30 minutes. Keep in mind that this tank is the size of a small apartment. The center wing fuel tank on the 747-100 holds 12890 US gallons or 86363 pounds of fuel. Nowhere were there any signs of an internal explosion.