Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question)  
User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7720 times:

I know this fligth gets talked about a lot, and I'm sure this specificalyl has come up, but it's tough to find in those long threads. I just got confuded about something.

I was looking through NTSB reports and saw a photo of the ieced-together wreckage of the plane in the hangar:



The windows on the upper level don't look like anything consistant with that of the 747-100 that supposedly crashed, which as you can see here only had three upper deck windows.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Ken Rose
View Large View Medium

Photo © John Allan



It isn't even consistant with ths frame, which is from a video of the recovery. It clearly looks like it's a completely different piece.



I'm not trying to accuse or anything. Just something I found on my own and I am curious as to the reason of it. Can anyone explain?

-Phil

[Edited 2004-12-06 10:35:08]


Phil Derner Jr.
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJuniorSpotter From Sweden, joined Mar 2004, 225 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7639 times:

Hey...what the heck is that? Multiple upper deck windows in the hangar, but only three at the crash-site(?)...? Freaky...

Cheers!
Danny

[Edited 2004-12-06 10:40:29]


If something can go wrong, it will.
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8451 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7599 times:

thats very odd.. there has to be a logical explanation for it. Unless of course the NTSB built a fake.

User currently offlineZonky From New Zealand, joined Nov 2004, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7588 times:

It was covered on airliners.net a few days ago. Some later model -100's did have full upper windows. Try a search.

User currently offlineEmrecan From Turkey, joined Feb 2000, 940 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7577 times:

Never believe American goverment..
They are all lying. It is really bad but they are hiding some realities from the people.
You are totally true Phil.


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4815 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7563 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Zonky, maybe you should pay closer attention to a thread before posting something like that. While it may be true that some -100s had the full upper deck windows, the 747 that supposedly crashed apparently only had the three windows on the upper deck. Bigphilnyc even included a picture taken from the recovery that shows a piece of the upper deck that apparently only has three windows. Yet, in the NTSB's reconstruction of the aircraft, there appears to be a full upper deck.

Very interesting indeed. I wonder why that is?



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineZonky From New Zealand, joined Nov 2004, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7527 times:

As i said, the reasons why were covered in a recent thread. Is it so complex to use the search facility before another thread of recently discussed material?

User currently offlineDtwintlflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7521 times:

If you look on the airdisaster.com, you will see the picture of the mock up from the other side. It would appear that the piece with three windows is on the Captains side of the aircraft (left side). This would verify this photo of the wreckage being pulled out. It has three windows. Now, I am not sure and I would still think it is odd, but maybe the left side only had three windows and the right side had the multiple windows as seen in the mock up from the right side. Anyone have any photos of the a/c in question from the left and right side?

Odd also, it does appear on that website with the photo that there are actually two windows above and just in front of the W. The one in front does not appear in the photo of the wreckage being pulled out of the water? I don't know. Very odd. Let's not get back into all the bizarre stories of what did or didn't happen, but it does bring up interesting questions for analysis. Hopefully someone has photos that explain this, because I am sure there are somewhere.

And then again, maybe someone fixed the photos with a little photoshop?

[Edited 2004-12-06 11:48:49]



JUST Saw the link by zonky....enough said.

[Edited 2004-12-06 11:52:28]

User currently offlineZonky From New Zealand, joined Nov 2004, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7511 times:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1847673/6/

User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7511 times:

[covered by zonky's link]

[Edited 2004-12-06 11:47:04]


-
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7499 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well spotted by BigPhilnyc, the plane that crashed was N93119, the model with only 3 upper deck windows. I really do not know how they ended up reconstructing the plane with more windows?  Confused



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineSmithAir747 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1628 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7462 times:

The aircraft that flew TWA flight 800 that fateful night was a 747-131 that had all 10 window-holes made on both sides, then had all but 3 windows "plugged" to maintain the aircraft's commonality with its sisters (all 747-100s with 3 windows), some of which had only 3 window-holes and others with 10 window-holes (all but 3 plugged).

When 93119 exploded and went down in the Atlantic, its front end landed on the right side in the water. Upon its high-speed impact with the water, the plugs on the right side windows apparently popped out with the force of the impact, revealing all 10 window-holes on that side (while the opposite side retained its plugs).

That most likely explains the discrepancy regarding the upper-deck windows.
This would shoot down any conspiracy theories surrounding the upper-deck windows on the 747.

Hope this helps!

SmithAir747



I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
User currently offlineJINX From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7452 times:

I agree with reply 12, side seen being recovered is port side, side shown in reconstruction is starboard side. Aircraft front section hit water starboard side down. It all makes sense once you have the facts.

User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4815 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7396 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Zonky, allow me to quote the person who started this topic...

"I'm sure this specificalyl has come up, but it's tough to find in those long threads."

Although the answer to this person's question was answered in the previous topic you provided, it's kind of hidden somewhat deep in a discussion that is not specifically about TWA 800. It's possible Bigphilnyc did do a search and overlooked the answer to this flt. 800 question because it didn't immediately pop out and was buried in a discussion about something that Bigphilnyc may have known already. Depending on how someone does a search, or how thorough a job they do, it is possible their answers can go overlooked. I probably would have overlooked it...

Some topics come up a lot and it does get annoying to see the same questions posted over and over. But sometimes the fact there is a similar topic floating in the forums somewhere is not always so obvious. Cut the guy some slack.  Smile

Uhh anyway...I think the answer has been answered now...and I still think it's interesting haha.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7244 times:

Thank you folks for the information.

To be honest, frmo all the Anet photos, the area where those plugged windows would be looks very smooth, I would think there'd be some telltale signs of there formerly being windows there.

But, I'll accept the answer I guess.

-Phil



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7184 times:

Emrecan:

Most amusing of you.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7162 times:

Bigphil,

I agree with you very much in that if the windows were originally there when new, and were simply plugged then surely you would seen the outline of the plugged windows. I searched through every single TWA 747-100 photo and not in one is there a sign of a plugged window. If the windows could "pop" out from impact then obviously you would see body panel outlines from the outside. What gives??? Im not tryin to say something is being setup here because we all know a TWA 747 did crash, but somethin just seems fishy in that reconstruction photo.
Here is an example picture that shows there are no "plugged" windows. Anyone have any input on this? save the photo to your desktop and zoom in for better detail.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Malc Southern



User currently offlineFlyinround731 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7132 times:

The 747 that crashed in the 800 flight was built with 10 windows on each side and they were plugged on a 747-131 model. The reason the 747 you posted does not have plugs is because it was built with only 3 windows on each side as a 747-156 model.
-Joe


User currently offlineBIGBlack From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7029 times:

For gods sakes people. You act like a coverup is easy to accomplish. The American goverment has American citizens working for it. American people talk... a lot. Especially to family and friends or when given compensation to tell the truth. When you are dealing with investigations that have a large amount of people working on them, I fail to believe you can simply tell people, "Look, weare going to stage this thing. Don't tell anyone okay?" I mean come the fuck on already. We don't believe what the American goverment tells us. That is why we have so many whistle blowers, private investigators, talk shows, and authors looking for the next big scandal to report about.


Someone special in the air
User currently offlinePhilhyde From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7000 times:

I'm certainly no conspiracy theorist, but I am inclined to agree with TrnsWrld. If the window holes were plugged, wouldn't the side of the a/c appear to have them concealed like converted freighters do?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Danny Fritsche



Do any high-resolution photos of the sides exist?



HoustonSpotters Admin - Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6988 times:

Sheesh. I bet you all believe in the alien autopsy and listen to Art Bell, don't you?


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineCLT18R From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6965 times:

As I think was covered in the thread that was previously linked to, the "plugs" were put into place, and then new fuselage panels were placed over them...thus, no sign they were ever plugged. The windows still exist however. The holes are still there in the fuselage, they are just plugged up and covered smooth by new, thin, aluminum panels.

User currently offlineBIGBlack From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6816 times:

The plugs on the IMPACT side came out, the ones on the other side did not. Think of how the impact would effect even a plugged hole that can't be seen easily by the naked eye. Hey, there was a time I believed a missle hit it also. But facts are facts. That is what the NTSB is for.


Someone special in the air
User currently offlineOceanic From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 134 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6792 times:

Think of how the impact would effect even a plugged hole that can't be seen easily by the naked eye

I see your point, but here is a question. Is it logical to think that EVERY plugged window on the right side of the plane popped out? If this was the case, wouldn't at least one of the windows stayed plugged?


User currently offlineMD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6701 times:

~"Is it logical to think that EVERY plugged window on the right side of the plane popped out?"~

Why not? If the forces of the impact were greater than the plugs could withstand, why wouldn't they ALL blow out?

I know that the pics in the database of 93119 aren't the greatest, but I CAN see plugged windows in the upper deck of this one..


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anders Nilsson



Answered.



Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
25 EMBQA : In the a/c I have worked with that have plugs, they are only held in with 6 small metal clips. Pressurization and the gasket are what really keep them
26 BIGBlack : Well said MD11. I was going to say the same thing. Not to mention, I was also going to say, if they didn't all pop out, who is to say during reconstru
27 Philhyde : MD11LuxuryLinr, thanks for posting the link. I do see the plugs in that a/c.
28 Post contains links Oceanic : Here is a photo of the left side of the aircraft http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/tw800/1.jpg The fragment not shown is also missing windows. I perso
29 Post contains images Philhyde : Here is the pic
30 BIGBlack : Well, like I said before, the plugs could have been removed while reconstructing the a/c. If it was indeed a massive conspiracy you would think they w
31 Vigilante3 : Well, another anomaly: Note top picture and color of paint under the word "TRANS"; it's pure white, no soot. Then note sharp soot on paint just aft of
32 Post contains links Spacecadet : There is no soot on any parts of the forward part of the nose that is white yet a center tank explosion as initial event would have put soot everywher
33 Emrecan : to N328KF: The thing I`ve said are completely true. Unfortunately you`ve found me amusing!!! Sorry but I cannot find anyrthying to say to you..
34 Vigilante3 : Dear Spececadet: "If your first reaction after understanding the explanation is to direct barbs at the messenger or to think conspiracies, those are c
35 MD11LuxuryLinr : ~"Then note sharp soot on paint just aft of the pristine white. That is soot caused when center fuel tank exploded."~ ~" The explanation is the nose w
36 BIGBlack : Thanks for posting those accident reports
37 Dc10guy : Ahh yes the government covered this thing up perfectly .... I just have one question, why ???
38 Thrust : I know this may seem a little off-topic, but what was the new flight number for TWA's JFK-CDG route that took the place of Flight 800? And just how so
39 Vigilante3 : MD11> "The soot was caused from the burning materials inside the cabin (after the CFT explosion) as the jet rocketed some 2000 feet upwards.. after th
40 BIGBlack : I have been reading the reports. That plane was pretty damn old wasn't it?
41 Vigilante3 : "I have been reading the reports. That plane was pretty damn old wasn't it?" Yes. Just like the others. It takes a while for that Poly X wiring to cha
42 AC7E7 : Never believe American goverment.. They are all lying. It is really bad but they are hiding some realities from the people. Never believe the Turkish
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Question About TWA Flight 800...... posted Tue Aug 9 2005 00:20:23 by Alberchico
"Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel posted Sun Oct 3 2004 22:29:36 by OB1504
The Crew Of TWA Flight 800 posted Wed Jul 7 2004 15:25:07 by Usair320
TWA Flight 800...TWA's Organizational Culture posted Mon Apr 19 2004 15:46:46 by Planespotting
Seven-Year Anniversary Of TWA Flight 800 posted Thu Jul 17 2003 18:44:48 by JetboyTWA
TWA Flight 800..Press Conference posted Sun Jul 16 2000 20:46:16 by Cmsgop
TWA Flight 800 posted Fri Apr 21 2000 17:05:01 by CNegroni
TWA flight 800 posted Sat Jan 2 1999 04:49:38 by FAUnited7
RE: TWA Flight 800 and TWA's fleet / AA727 posted Mon Nov 2 1998 21:33:40 by JJC
Really Quick Question - Flight Video Website posted Sat May 28 2005 21:36:54 by B742
TWA Flight 800...TWA's Organizational Culture posted Mon Apr 19 2004 15:46:46 by Planespotting
Seven-Year Anniversary Of TWA Flight 800 posted Thu Jul 17 2003 18:44:48 by JetboyTWA
TWA Flight 800..Press Conference posted Sun Jul 16 2000 20:46:16 by Cmsgop
TWA Flight 800 posted Fri Apr 21 2000 17:05:01 by CNegroni
TWA flight 800 posted Sat Jan 2 1999 04:49:38 by FAUnited7
RE: TWA Flight 800 and TWA's fleet / AA727 posted Mon Nov 2 1998 21:33:40 by JJC
TWA Flight 800...TWA's Organizational Culture posted Mon Apr 19 2004 15:46:46 by Planespotting
Seven-Year Anniversary Of TWA Flight 800 posted Thu Jul 17 2003 18:44:48 by JetboyTWA
TWA Flight 800..Press Conference posted Sun Jul 16 2000 20:46:16 by Cmsgop
TWA Flight 800 posted Fri Apr 21 2000 17:05:01 by CNegroni
TWA flight 800 posted Sat Jan 2 1999 04:49:38 by FAUnited7
RE: TWA Flight 800 and TWA's fleet / AA727 posted Mon Nov 2 1998 21:33:40 by JJC