Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TWA Flight 800, my opinion is uncontained engine failure

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

  • TWA Flight 800, my opinion is uncontained engine failure

    On 19 July 1996, a 747 had been parked for several hours at JFK airport, while its airconditioner packs heated an almost empty center wing tank (CWT); making fuel vapors even more volatile. After loading, TWA Flight 800 took off and headed for Paris. At 8:31 PM and 11 miles south of Long Island, NY, the CWT exploded while the 747 was climbing towards its assigned 15,000 foot altitude. All 230 people onboard died as a result.
    Pilots of Eastwind Airlines Flight 507, descending to 16,000 feet, were nearly head-on and observed the 747 as it climbed towards them in the clear air. One pilot radioed that a light appear on the 747 and he flashed his landing lights in greeting, then saw the 747 exploded. The pilot reported two fireballs going down, with small and large smoke trails. Many nearby pilots also reported they saw the event, with no report by anyone of seeing anything other than the 747, an explosion, then two smoke trails and the crash site.
    Having been a researcher of one cause of uncontained aircraft engine failures for the Air Force, I immediately suspected that heated parts from an uncontained engine failure had ignited a fuel tank. I was sure the NTSB investigators interviewed these pilots and came to the same conclusion.
    Had the NTSB promptly revealed the information contained in these pilot interviews, the public might have been spared the hundreds of hours and thousands of pages of testimony created by “eye witnesses.”
    These were individuals, 11 or more miles away, who said in good faith and some in great detail that they saw a missile rise upward from the sea and explode against the 747. Many believed these witnesses’ reports were evidence of “Friendly Fire” by a missile from a Navy vessel or a terrorist attack. Their stories became national, even international news, resulting in TV shows and books. But there was no mention by the nearby pilots of any missile smoke trail coming up and only two trails going down. In addition, other equally believable witnesses reported they only saw flaming objects falling from the sky and most only after they heard the sound of an explosion; more than one minute after the event.
    The descending “streak of light” and smaller smoke trail seen by pilots and other witnesses on land, was most likely engine #3 (right inboard, next to CWT) after it separated from the aircraft and fell, burning, rearward into the sea, miles short of the main debris field. Engine #3 was found much later, seen torn apart in recovery photographs and clearly an uncontained engine failure. However, the found location of engine #3 was changed by the NTSB to the debris field, preventing others from knowing exactly where it separated.
    After most of the aircraft was recovered, the NTSB reported the CWT had exploded. Then the NTSB produced a movie showing the aircraft blowing apart, with the main section climbing several thousand feet, then falling with all four engines in place. However, the aircraft was only seen descending by nearby airline pilots shortly after it exploded, leaving a small smoke trail behind that was most likely engine #3.
    Uncontained engine failures can be very destructive, ejecting parts as far as three thousand feet and often destroying any adjacent engines. Uncontained engine part entry holes riddled the right side of the 747, with one engine part embedded in the tail section. However, unknown individuals were later seen pounding on recovered fuselage panels with hammers, effectively destroying evidence of engine part entry holes. Then the NTSB’s Final Report stated there was “No evidence of any engine uncontainment.”
    I wrote to the FAA and NTSB in 1996, sure that people with more experience and qualifications would know the cause was a classic uncontained engine failure. Only the FAA replied, with nearly 2,000 accident reports, including many with uncontained engine failures and fatal crashes of 747s. Shortly after that, two men visited me one night and told me to cease my unqualified efforts as it might “prove harmful.” I did till now.
    While the NTSB Final Report suggested defective wiring insulation inside the CWT to be the most likely origin of the fuel vapor ignition and explosion, no clear cause was apparently determined by the NTSB.
    The NTSB Final Report does not appear credible to me. However, I welcome any corrections of my opinion.
    Last edited by co80610; 2017-05-10, 23:47. Reason: some words were joined together in text

  • #2
    Your opinion is hereby noted and entered in the record. Thank you.

    Comment


    • #3
      An uncontained engine failure would leave extremely evident evidences, especialy in the engine itself. Are you saying that the NTSB liead about that? And why would the NTSB lie about that? Everybody would have been much more happier with a clear and ole' known smoking gun like an uncontained engine failure.

      You say "The descending “streak of light” and smaller smoke trail seen by pilots and other witnesses on land, was most likely engine #3". Please show me the evidence that supports this "very likely" judgement.

      It may have been the nose section of the 747 ahead of the fracture point, as the official report says. Since the total probability is 1, if the "#3 engine" is verly likely, then the nose section must be very unlikely. Please show reasons why we should discard that it was the nose section.

      The main fuselage climbing was the result of many witnesses accounts (which by themselves are not highly reliable at all) + the analysis radar records + the study laws of Newton (you know, if you lose a big chunk ahead of the CG, the CG moves aft, and yada yada...). The only way for the fuselage aft the nose section NOT to climb would be if it lost a big chunk of wing (and it's lift), if it immediately rolled inverted, or if it broke up in pieces. All of those are discarded by the debris field and the radar records.

      Don't take me wrong. I am not saying that it could not have been an uncontained engine failure. But it would require a bunch of evidence of which you are providing none. Just loose accounts and connecting different parts of different stories that seem to support your position and discarding the parts that don't fit with it. There is a name for that: confirmation bias. Others call it conspiracy theory.

      By the way, nice brief history of uncontained engine failures. Try now the brief history of central-wing-tank explosions, of which there were a few, some of them clearly NOT related with an uncontained engine failure.

      --- 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


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        And why would the NTSB lie about that?
        The failure happened when the chemtrail nanoprobe injector contacted a turbine blade. I'll explain more later: Someone's at the door.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          By the way, nice brief history of uncontained engine failures. Try now the brief history of central-wing-tank explosions, of which there were a few, some of them clearly NOT related with an uncontained engine failure.
          I was with him until the whole "two men visited me part". Nevertheless, in my magnanimity, I noted his opinion and entered it into the record.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            An uncontained engine failure would leave extremely evident evidences, especialy in the engine itself. Are you saying that the NTSB liead about that? And why would the NTSB lie about that?

            Engine #3 did leave evidence of being uncontained. Photos show this and the Power Plant Group disassemble ONLY engine #3 and found many parts missing. Engines #1, #2 and #4 were not disassembled. There are also puncture holes in the right side of the 747 that were hand worked with hammers to conceal the damage from engine part penetration. This appears in several accounts by whistleblowers. Why the NTSB management concealed the Power Plant Group's report I don't know.

            You say "The descending “streak of light” and smaller smoke trail seen by pilots and other witnesses on land, was most likely engine #3". Please show me the evidence that supports this "very likely" judgement.

            There was a smaller smoke trail seen by pilots and other witnesses to emerge from the point where the explosion took place. Seen by others as a missile trail, except there was no rising component, only a descending component. Therefore, the only part to fall and leave a smoke trail had to be engine #3, which was found directly below the explosion point. The Power Plant Group also found that engine #3 had turned upside down after tearing loose and the compressor section was sooted with smoke from a fire inside. No judgement on my part, just facts.

            It may have been the nose section of the 747 ahead of the fracture point, as the official report says. Since the total probability is 1, if the "#3 engine" is verly likely, then the nose section must be very unlikely. Please show reasons why we should discard that it was the nose section.

            The fuselage structure was ruptured on the right lower side when the fuel tank exploded. The nose section then was bent back by the air flow onto the right side of the main section. There is red paint from the nose section on the right side of the main section which could not have gotten there any other way. Therefore, the depiction of the nose exploding away from the main section is false. How long the nose section stayed alongside the main section is unknown, but the red paint is mute evidence it was there for some finite time.



            The main fuselage climbing was the result of many witnesses accounts (which by themselves are not highly reliable at all) + the analysis radar records + the study laws of Newton (you know, if you lose a big chunk ahead of the CG, the CG moves aft, and yada yada...). The only way for the fuselage aft the nose section NOT to climb would be if it lost a big chunk of wing (and it's lift), if it immediately rolled inverted, or if it broke up in pieces. All of those are discarded by the debris field and the radar records.

            A nearby professional airline pilot said the aircraft went into a dive. I am told that radar records that day DID NOT record altitude changes, climbing or diving, only distance. If you know of anyone who could see what the aircraft did over a distance of 11 or more miles, I would be much impressed.



            Don't take me wrong. I am not saying that it could not have been an uncontained engine failure. But it would require a bunch of evidence of which you are providing none. Just loose accounts and connecting different parts of different stories that seem to support your position and discarding the parts that don't fit with it. There is a name for that: confirmation bias. Others call it conspiracy theory.

            No Evidence? Engine #3 was found below the point of explosion, other three engines were found several miles away. The right side of the fuselage contains many puncture holes, including some round holes that are the same size as engine bearings with one engine part stuck in the right horizontal stabilizer. Red paint on the right upper side of the main section matches the red paint on the nose section. There was no smoke trail RISING UP, only two smoke trails seen by pilots and other witnesses as descending.


            By the way, nice brief history of uncontained engine failures. Try now the brief history of central-wing-tank explosions, of which there were a few, some of them clearly NOT related with an uncontained engine failure.
            Gabriel:

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by co80610 View Post
              Gabriel:
              - I never said that the nose exploded away. Rather the opposite. It separated and, having a much lower ballistic coefficient and no lift, it made little progress forward and was quickly left behind the rest of the airplane.

              - An engine separation is not synonym of uncontained failure AT ALL.

              - Have you noted that the nose was bent back and right from the separation point, and that #3 is back and right from the separation point? It didn't cross your mind the remote possibility that the nose section (or other debris) hit the #3 engine causing it to separate and that internal components rotating at high climb RPMs could have been damaged and severed by this incident?

              - Where are the photos that you had access? Where is the powerplant group report that you had access?

              --- 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


              • #8
                Gentlemen, I came to Jetphotos.com to find some photos for another project. I expressed my opinion, based on evidence, logic and personal experience in the hope that I might find a retired accident investigator who worked on the TWA Flight 800 project. Someone who might explain why the NTSB made so many obviously false claims. Who were they protecting? Those doing the investigations were not stupid. I have the greatest respect for their qualifications and ability. However, management can be self-serving, even untruthful when large corporations or government agencies are involved. I will admit I had to look the other way myself in relation to some Air Force reports which did not meet some General's expectations, so I can sympathize.

                FYI: Not only did two men come to my door one night with words of caution, but the following evening my wife and I went to a concert. When we came home, my office was "too neat." Then I discovered all my collection of defective engine parts and documents related to engine failures were missing; which I had kept more as curios of another time. There was no evidence of break-in. Door and window locks still worked fine. Happens when you represent a possible threat to someone. The TWA "accident" represented the possibility of enormous lawsuits and I might, if no one else came forward, have become a major liability. However, my wife insisted there was no good reason for me to become involved since others more experienced, more qualified and directly involved must be available. Seems they were not forthcoming and now, since the Statute of Limitations has freed all from prosecution, I can just be curious.

                Finally, think, the nose section was NOT seen to separate by nearby pilots, as the 747 passed beneath them; no "Zoom, Climb". They would have reported such a maneuver, being head-on and descending to 16,000 feet, while the explosion happened below 15,000 feet. The nose section was found in a debris field some distance from the explosion point, beyond which only engine #3 had separated. The nose section did not fly by itself to a distant debris field. When it folded back onto the main section is unknown, but later than you might think. Why the NTSB claimed otherwise is a question I was hoping someone could answer.

                Comment


                • #9
                  not sure why there is any question. we shot the damn thing down and covered it up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by co80610 View Post
                    No Evidence? Engine #3 was found below the point of explosion, other three engines were found several miles away. The right side of the fuselage contains many puncture holes, including some round holes that are the same size as engine bearings with one engine part stuck in the right horizontal stabilizer. Red paint on the right upper side of the main section matches the red paint on the nose section. There was no smoke trail RISING UP, only two smoke trails seen by pilots and other witnesses as descending.
                    This is what Gabriel means by 'confirmation bias'. It is a condition, often befalling pilots under stressful situations, whereby you take a weighted mental inventory of everything that supports your assumption and disregard everything that contradicts it. It lies behind all grand conspiracy theories.

                    You ARE suggesting a grand conspiracy because the official NTSB report concluded:

                    Originally posted by NTSB TWA 800 Final Report
                    2.3.1.7 Uncontained Engine Failure or Turbine Burst
                    Investigators also considered the possibility that an uncontained engine failure or a turbine burst in the air conditioning packs beneath the CWT caused debris to enter the tank with sufficient velocity to ignite the vapors. However, the engines and reconstructed packs showed no evidence of an uncontained engine failure or turbine burst. Therefore, it is very unlikely that an uncontained engine failure or a turbine burst in the air conditioning packs ignited the fuel/air vapor in the CWT. No evidence of uncontainment, case rupture, fire, penetration of an object from outside into the engine, or preimpact damage was found in any of the engines.
                    So now lets take a look at the most basic things working against your grand conspiracy theory:

                    1) Containment. A large, professional team of investigators conducted an exhaustive study (including the power group findings you mentioned) and came to a very plausible (I would say probable) conclusion backed up by investigative evidence. If this was a fabricated cover up, how is it that none of the many people central to the investigation have come forward after so many years? Every grand conspiracy leaks out eventually, and typically in a much shorter time. Human conflicts of conscience are to be expected. It would be impossible to reliably trust even a small group of insiders to remain silent whereas the price of exposure would be immense. Who would take that chance? This incident has been under intense scrutiny from many sceptics for decades. Yet you believe it remains a contained conspiracy? Is THAT plausible?

                    2) Motive. There must be a motive behind every conspiracy. So what is it? The NTSB blaming the airframer while protecting the engine manufacturer? That makes no sense.

                    3) Was there a subsequent call for engine inspections? I'm not aware of one. If you knew there was a catastrophic flaw in the JT9D-7AH—even if you conspired to cover up this accident—you would definitely want to prevent any further accidents by issuing an immediate AD. Was this done?

                    4) Does in-flight engine separation constitute uncontained engine failure? No, it doesn't. Many uncontained engine failures DO NOT result in a structural loss of the engine, while many uncontrolled descents unrelated to uncontained engine failure DO result in a structural loss of an engine. In fact, in this crash, ALL four engines were found in the 'green zone', all detached.

                    5) How do you account for all the evidence supporting a short circuit and voltage spike in the Fuel Quantity Indicating System. You can't just ignore that. Was it a coincidence. What are the odds of that?


                    So, here's what you do if you are a rationally-minded person: You put all your compelling evidence aside and solve the contradictory stuff first. Once you've done that, you have a valid theory. But you can't do that, can you...?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by co80610 View Post
                      Gentlemen, I came to Jetphotos.com to find some photos for another project. I expressed my opinion, based on evidence, logic and personal experience in the hope that I might find a retired accident investigator who worked on the TWA Flight 800 project. Someone who might explain why the NTSB made so many obviously false claims.
                      You posted your comment in an open forum, now bare with the opinions of the forum. You almost seemed to be open to other's opinions in your last sentence.

                      The NTSB Final Report does not appear credible to me. However, I welcome any corrections of my opinion.
                      I stand by my signature.

                      --- 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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        You posted your comment in an open forum, now bare with the opinions of the forum. You almost seemed to be open to other's opinions in your last sentence.

                        I stand by my signature.
                        Perhaps TWA 800 deserves an extra special place as 'something' of a first...(or maybe several firsts)

                        Perhaps the first crash where the cause was difficult and the internet was fully available for ass-hat parlour speculation.

                        (And not slamming the ass-hat parlour speculation in totally ugliness- just factually stating that parlour talk is parlour talk).

                        Was this also the 'first time' when the 'authorities' offered up what I will call a "PR video" that was a tad dumbed down versus their old, harsh, dull, scientific offerings? (I've mentioned it before that the damn tone of the video and some sentences were just a bit too creepy.) Make no mistake- my comment here is fuzzy- I'm sure they would say that their video was similar to other prior videos...but for some reason here, you come away with a feeling that 'the government is telling me what to think.'

                        (PS, I will restate for the record, that I actually accept the final report as 'the best guess' and do not feel there is a massive government cover up. I just think the investigators maybe went overboard on the video trying to suppress the conspiracy thoughts in the general public- those without strong feelings.)

                        And one other restatement: The itty bitty spark explanation is far out...If someone wants to say, "I think an engine shot a turbine blade into the tank, because we have lots of incidents of engines spitting out blades and killing passengers and shredding DC-10 hydraulics and trashing A-380 wing spars, (and what else) so spewing a blade into what we have since learned was a sort-of-explosive center fuel tank- just looking for a BIG spark"...

                        ...there's validity...I'll certainly listen.

                        BUT

                        The weakest part of the argument is that it's such a good POSSIBLE cause, that I trust that it was THOROUGHLY investigated and more-than-adequately excluded.

                        If it's all a big cover up- it seems strange that Pratt and Whitney must be saved at the expense of Boeing and TWA.

                        Back to my main point (after several sub points) Was this the first crash that combined mystery with a fully-functional internet and a movie produced with liberal input from a PR manual.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          And one other restatement: The itty bitty spark explanation is far out...If someone wants to say, "I think an engine shot a turbine blade into the tank, because we have lots of incidents of engines spitting out blades and killing passengers and shredding DC-10 hydraulics and trashing A-380 wing spars, (and what else) so spewing a blade into what we have since learned was a sort-of-explosive center fuel tank- just looking for a BIG spark"...
                          Basically, there are three kinds of investigations:

                          1) the kind where you get your hands on the evidence, have teams of coordinating technical specialists and scientist to analyze it and very specialized simulators (and sometimes actual flights) to test theories and observe phenomena.

                          2) the kind you do in your head, with your disciplined research skills and accumulated knowledge and your intellect and sense of logic (or lack thereof).

                          3) the kind you do with your isolated parcels of knowledge, often from a single source, your emotions, your suspicions, your ignorance and your confimation bias.

                          Only #1 is a worthy investigation that can produce conclusive findings.

                          #2 is largely what we do on this forum. For example, lacking any forthcoming report on EgyptAir Flight 804, we can only speculate, but that speculation can be still based on facts and what evidence has been revealed. We must always test our theories by first trying to rule them out with any known contradictory evidence. I focused on the fact that the systems failures reported by ACARS are common to a specific DC BUS and that this a/c likely had the older MPET insulation and lacks the arc fault circuit breakers found on newer aircraft. That, plus the lack of evidence one would expect from a bombing, leads me to suspect an arcing electrical bus-related fire. And nothing thus far contradicts that theory. But I would never call that more than speculation based on limited knowledge of the event.

                          #3 is what I commonly encounter from conspiracy theorists. They tend to grab onto familiar scenarios and disregard technically complex, unique ones. AA Missile is familiar to them. Uncontained engine failure is familiar to them. A sequence of factors including fuel vapors convectionally heated beyond their Lower Flammability Limit and fuel levels low enough to expose faulty wiring and evidence of voltage anomalies consistent with a voltage spike are unfamiliar to them, and few will ever read the extensive 340-page report.


                          Meaning this: just because we have a theory involving a failure that is more common and familiar to us doesn't mean it has a greater probability over a "far out" once-in-a-blue-moon alignment of 'swiss cheese' factors occuring on THIS specific flight. That's why we go with investigation version #1.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Evan: Good review of the situation regarding the NTSB Final Report, which I happen to believe is false in some respects. However, I am impressed with the extent of your arguments and conclusions. The effort you spent on my ramblings must have been considerable and are much appreciated.

                            While working for the Air Force, I investigated material failures in turbojet engines. My specialty was hydrogen embrittlement (HE), a field little known in industry and somewhat akin to water seeping into apparently solid rock, then freezing and tearing apart the rock. Only in the last decade or so has HE been identified by accident investigators as a significant threat, also called “Metal Fatigue.” For example, Titanium can soak up hydrogen like a sponge during manufacturing if not properly treated, then rupture without warning. Defective engine parts were my world and there were no ADs connected with HE nor tests for hydrogen saturation at the time of Flight 800. May not be now.

                            There is no doubt that a large group of highly qualified investigators participated in the investigation and I don’t know how many investigators are needed to disassemble a commercial engine and write a report. There were only two of us at the Air Force “unsatisfactory reports” facility where suspect engines were disassembled. More than three would be getting in each other’s way. Not exactly a large group that might leak secrets, more like just a few that could be controlled to not tell.

                            Most accident investigators are divorced from the other’s efforts, evidence and conclusions. I must suggest that this allows for management to control final conclusions. Any deviation from the anticipated conclusions of management by an individual can then easily be controlled by fear of reprisal; which can be career ending if not “harmful.” I must admit I adjusted some reports to be more in accord with my superiors or an industry representative’s expected results. However, I still have hope that I might find one retired powerplant investigator with a good memory that participated in the Flight 800 engine analysis. So, I have good reason to believe the NTSB Final Report has been compromised in several instances, some of which have already been detailed.

                            For example: The light on the TWA Flight 800 747, as seen by pilots in the oncoming Eastwind Airlines Flight 507, is indicative of an uncontained engine failure, especially since it was followed by an explosion within the aircraft. Engine #3 then separated from the aircraft and fell, burning, rearward into the sea; based the published evaluation of the powerplant group. This burning engine also left a smoke trail, starting with the explosion and ending in the sea, directly below the flight path, miles from the main debris field. This is where engine #3 was finally found, after an extensive search.

                            Therefore, the NTSB claim that all four engines were found in the main debris field is false.

                            One reason I know an uncontained engine failure is the most likely probability is that a now retired NTSB investigator, who assisted in the Flight 800 747 reconstruction, wrote about puncture holes in newly recovered portions of skin on the right side of the 747 and the CWT. There were also detailed efforts by an obviously authorized individual to pound these holes or tears flat, essentially concealing evidence of an uncontained engine failure.

                            I was sent photos of these puncture holes by a former associate, including one photo with round holes that might have been made by engine bearings. Unfortunately, these disappeared. I have since searched online for similar photos, but found none to date. The only photo worth review is the one with engine #3 being lifted aboard the USS Grasp, obviously, an uncontained failure. You can see this for yourself among the many online pictures of the Flight 800 disaster.

                            What you don’t see are photos of engines #1, #2 and #4. Relatively undamaged. These engines were also NOT disassembled. Only engine #3 was disassembled in the search for a material failure that caused the engine uncontainment.

                            Therefore, the claim by the NTSB that there was no uncontainment is false.

                            So, what is in it for me? Now 84, my primary reason is to find a retired Flight 800 powerplant investigator who can tell me what really caused the failure of engine #3 and satisfy my simple curiosity to see if I was right. Unfortunately, my search does not appear fruitful with this forum, therefore I bid you good luck in believing NTSB reports.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by co80610 View Post
                              Evan: Good review of the situation regarding the NTSB Final Report, which I happen to believe is false in some respects.
                              Why? Can you tell us why you believe they would fabricate the report? Until you can establish motive, everything else is worthless. That's rule #1.
                              The missile theorists at least have that base covered. But if the cause was an engine fatigue or manufacturing flaw-related cause they would have no motivation to cover that up and every motivation to get an AD out ASAP. Uncontained engine failures do happen and everyone is aware of the vulnerability for potential disaster. There's nothing to cover up there.

                              So, I have good reason to believe the NTSB Final Report has been compromised in several instances, some of which have already been detailed.
                              That is a false conclusion. Perhaps you have reason to be suspicious, but you haven't shown "good reason to believe the report has been compromised". That latter is a leap from a suspicion to a conviction, where there is insufficient (hearsay) evidence to convict.

                              This is where engine #3 was finally found, after an extensive search.
                              This is false. All four engines were found in the "green zone" approx 3nm from LNP.

                              Therefore, the NTSB claim that all four engines were found in the main debris field is false.
                              Again, you have provided no viable motive and no suitable evidence to support this.
                              You are asking us to consider the possibilty that, despite a massive recovery operation involving a large number of personnel conducted in the light of day, an engine was surreptitiously winched out of the sea in a completely different location despite them having no way of determining at that time that the engine was at fault and—to this day—nobody can come forward to report that error in the report. Think about how absurd that is!

                              I was sent photos of these puncture holes by a former associate, including one photo with round holes that might have been made by engine bearings. Unfortunately, these disappeared. I have since searched online for similar photos, but found none to date. The only photo worth review is the one with engine #3 being lifted aboard the USS Grasp, obviously, an uncontained failure. You can see this for yourself among the many online pictures of the Flight 800 disaster.
                              Source?! You must cite viable sources if you want to convince anyone (mine is the NTSB report). Also, all four engines were found with crush damage. #3 was found with crush damage to the inlet section and fIrst stage compressor fan as well as other damage. How can you look at that on a photograph and determine what was "obviously" caused by uncontained engine failure vs post-explosion rotational damage, structural overload and impact?

                              What you don’t see are photos of engines #1, #2 and #4. Relatively undamaged.
                              False! The report cites crush damage to the LPC and HPC cases of ALL four engines.
                              NTSB Report, 1.12.4 Engines: The Safety Board's disassembly and examination of the four engines revealed LPC damage consistent with a minimal amount of low-pressure rotor rotation (if any) at the time of impact and HPC damage consistent with some high-pressure rotor rotation at the time of impact. No evidence of uncontainment, case rupture, fire, penetration of an object from outside into the engine, or preimpact damage was found in any of the engines.

                              These engines were also NOT disassembled. Only engine #3 was disassembled in the search for a material failure that caused the engine uncontainment.
                              False. See above. You can't just make things up. That's rule #2.

                              Therefore, the claim by the NTSB that there was no uncontainment is false.
                              This is the essence of your theory, so anything found in the report will be of no value in convincing you otherwise. Yet you have shown no viable motive, no convincing evidence and have ignored all contradictory logic.

                              The reason I get so incensed by shallow conspiracy theories is that they threaten to distract us from learning about the things that actually cause catastrophes and to make changes to prevent them, all for some sort of entertainment value. Fortunately, neither the NTSB nor the FAA bother to listen to them. So you have to thrive in parlour-talking forums while things like nitrogen-inerting systems make air travel safer.

                              If you came here searching for other conspiracy theorists, we actually do a good job of chasing them off here, sooner or later... Look elsewhere for that. And good luck to you as well.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X