Twa 800

[Flightjock30]

fuel tank explosions have undoubtedly occurred, but none to the manner at which TWA 800 was brought down. DUDE there are 1,000X more evidence of a missile than a fuel tank explosion...there would be no way to make up such a "well-crafted" conspiracy. This is because IT IS NOT A CONSPIRACY at all, but a cold hard fact that it was a missile. Why does a Pakistan 747 see a missile months later streak by it? Yet others on this board claim "Oh no, no missile is capable of going up that high."

 

[EagleRJ]

Well, if exploding Boeing center fuel tanks are such a common occurrence, shouldn't we issue an Emergency Airworthiness Directive? The FAA didn't exactly press hard for fuel tank inerting after this crash, and they've just dabbled a little with the technology, even though it would be fairly simple to do.
By comparison, a lot more interest has been shown in missile countermeasure systems, and several companies are pressing ahead with systems, despite the massive cost and problems the systems pose.

No doubt somebody will bring up the voliatility of JP4 vs. Jet A. Sorry, but you'll have to make a different arguement.

One of the issues is the volatility of jet fuel in general. According to the NTSB's own data, the highest possible temperature in the center wing tank is just barely over that at which Jet A releases flammable vapor. Still, this mixture is only capable of deflagration, not detonation. The temperature required to create an explosive mixture from jet fuel is unobtainable outside of the engine.


Looking at the evidence available in this case, you have to come to the conclusion that a missile attack is at least possible, if not probable. Over 180 eyewitnesses on the ground described a classic MANPADS engagement- a streak of light that rose from the ground and exploded in an initial white flash before the fuel ignition (one witness who was a military veteran is adamant that it was ordnance, as he'd seen it before).
Add to that the rocket propellant traces in the cabin, the radar evidence, the terrorist warnings THE DAY BEFORE and the day after, the FDR anomalies, the structure damage anomalies, the debris field with all CWT pieces found together, the impossibilities in the NTSB explanation, the CIA animation explaining what we actually saw, reports of 1/4" metallic pellets in some of the bodies that are identical to those in missile warheads, the constantly changing story from the FBI and NTSB in the first few days, the numerous slips of the tongue from politicians during press conferences and interviews, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I think it still remains a possibility that the CWT exploded for undetermined reasons, but after considering all evidence that is known, the missile theory is the most likely. The only conspiracy here is the reasons for the government covering it up, and if it was justified, and if it is still justified.

 

[Occam's Razor]

wouldn't the numerous observations and testimony of experienced aviators and military pilots, in light of the principal of Occam's razor, suggest/proclaim that a missile took down the plane?!

Nope.

I believe it indicates just the opposite. The simplest explanation is usually the most accurate.

You understand it, hence you posted this:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Occam's Razor[/FONT]

[SIZE=+1]one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything[/SIZE]
The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

Which means when a Boeing airliner comes apart over a very populated area of the United States, in clear weather, it most likely was not caused by an overt action that would require thousands of Americans to play a part in the action itself, and/or the subsequent cover-up.

To think otherwise is to abandon Occam's razor, and conclude that everybody involved in this tragedy knows the truth and is willing to lie about it.

The assumptions I used to reach my personal conclusion were:

1. Boeing airliners have exploded before.
2. Too many people would have to have been complicit to cover up anything other than an onboard malfunction.

 

[Dangerkitty]

Well, if exploding Boeing center fuel tanks are such a common occurrence, shouldn't we issue an Emergency Airworthiness Directive? The FAA didn't exactly press hard for fuel tank inerting after this crash, and they've just dabbled a little with the technology, even though it would be fairly simple to do.
By comparison, a lot more interest has been shown in missile countermeasure systems, and several companies are pressing ahead with systems, despite the massive cost and problems the systems pose.



One of the issues is the volatility of jet fuel in general. According to the NTSB's own data, the highest possible temperature in the center wing tank is just barely over that at which Jet A releases flammable vapor. Still, this mixture is only capable of deflagration, not detonation. The temperature required to create an explosive mixture from jet fuel is unobtainable outside of the engine.


Looking at the evidence available in this case, you have to come to the conclusion that a missile attack is at least possible, if not probable. Over 180 eyewitnesses on the ground described a classic MANPADS engagement- a streak of light that rose from the ground and exploded in an initial white flash before the fuel ignition (one witness who was a military veteran is adamant that it was ordnance, as he'd seen it before).
Add to that the rocket propellant traces in the cabin, the radar evidence, the terrorist warnings THE DAY BEFORE and the day after, the FDR anomalies, the structure damage anomalies, the debris field with all CWT pieces found together, the impossibilities in the NTSB explanation, the CIA animation explaining what we actually saw, reports of 1/4" metallic pellets in some of the bodies that are identical to those in missile warheads, the constantly changing story from the FBI and NTSB in the first few days, the numerous slips of the tongue from politicians during press conferences and interviews, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I think it still remains a possibility that the CWT exploded for undetermined reasons, but after considering all evidence that is known, the missile theory is the most likely. The only conspiracy here is the reasons for the government covering it up, and if it was justified, and if it is still justified.

Three points:

1. Boeing did offer guidance to operators after TWA 800. I am not sure if it was an AD or not but for awhile all operators were advised to keep a certain amount of fuel in the center tanks to halt fuel tank explosions until more info could be gathered.

2. My military buddies have told me that a MANPADs cant go much higher than 10,000 ft. Since this aircraft was over the ocean and over 13,000 FT, I have a hard time believing that it was brought down by a MANPAD.

3. With as many agencies and people working on this case, there is no way in hell that this could be covered up if it were shot down by a missile. Impossible.

 

[Dangerkitty]

Nevermind

Why I even trying to argue with people who probably believe in crop circles and black helicopters is beyond me.

 

[LJDRVR]

DUDE there are 1,000X more evidence of a missile than a fuel tank explosion.

DUDE; What would that evidence be? Lay it out for me right here. Then kindly answer my question, Which is more likely? Can you answer that question honestly for me?

 

[414Flyer]

fuel tank explosions have undoubtedly occurred, but none to the manner at which TWA 800 was brought down. DUDE there are 1,000X more evidence of a missile than a fuel tank explosion...there would be no way to make up such a "well-crafted" conspiracy. This is because IT IS NOT A CONSPIRACY at all, but a cold hard fact that it was a missile. Why does a Pakistan 747 see a missile months later streak by it? Yet others on this board claim "Oh no, no missile is capable of going up that high."

There where is all the evidence on the airplane of a missile warhead impact? Part of the plane should be peppered with holes. It is something that would be very obvious.

Just because an airplane has a mishap in a new way, does not mean it is automatically more suspect. Didnt a 737 in the mid 90s have a center tank explosion while on the ground at some airport?

 

[LJDRVR]

One of the issues is the volatility of jet fuel in general. According to the NTSB's own data, the highest possible temperature in the center wing tank is just barely over that at which Jet A releases flammable vapor. Still, this mixture is only capable of deflagration, not detonation. The temperature required to create an explosive mixture from jet fuel is unobtainable outside of the engine.

KC-135A 56-3592

William Northcutt
Robert Wienman
AlfredTaft
Jack Culp

Or, If you want to argue that you're not talking about JP-4, Then I suppose the Phillipine Airlines 737 center fuel tank explosion never hapened either.

 

[414Flyer]

KC-135A 56-3592

William Northcutt
Robert Wienman
AlfredTaft
Jack Culp

Or, If you want to argue that you're not talking about JP-4, Then I suppose the Phillipine Airlines 737 center fuel tank explosion never hapened either.

Is that 135 the one that blew up on approach, because the tank was empty of fuel but full of vapors when the pump got hot?

 

[EagleRJ]

Couple of points:

-Occam's Razor could be used to embrace either theory. You could also say that a missile attack is a simpler explanation than a spontaneous fuel tank explosion- that just happened to occur at the same time as a lot of random events and phenomena that suggest a missile.

-Many aircraft manufacturers recommend turning off submerged fuel pumps in empty tanks. That doesn't involve the TWA 800 case, since that theory involves high voltage shorting across to low voltage tank wiring and arcing. That's entirely possible, and it has happened before, but the evidence calls it into question in this case.

-MANPADS are most certainly capable of reaching targets above 10,000'. Shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile systems are currently produced by the US, Britain, France, Russia, and China, and the most advanced of them advertise a maximum altitude of 20,000' or more. As I said before, TWA 800 presented an ideal target for the upper limit of a MANPADS.

-Investigation of this case was quickly compartmentalized, making secrecy easier. The FBI and CIA became involved early on, which was a first for an accident investigation. The official story was "It was definitely a missile" for about a week after the crash, and then it rapidly swung to "It was definitely not a missile". The vigor with which the government was trying to sell the "not a missile" story should seem puzzling for an ordinary accident investigation.
And it is possible to keep a secret that thousands of people know. The F-117A is a good example. This would also be a clean secret, not a dirty secret, since the objective was to protect the airline industry and the US economy.

LJDRVR, you and the others might find it interesting to poke around on some of the non-Art Bell TWA 800 sites like www.twa800.com. These are groups of aviation professionals that have set out to determine the cause of the TWA 800 crash, since the NTSB investigation has been so truncated and tampered with. They have reached the conclusion that a missile attack is highly plausible.
It should be upsetting to everyone that the government has already closed the book on this crash, and has interfered with every attempt to make sure we know for sure what happened that night.