Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Flight 800 Dilemma?  
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4666 times:

I was looking at a documentary on TWA Flight 800 a few weeks ago and noticed that when the aircraft was put back together it had the 9 windows like most 747-200s have on the upper deck. But looking at pictures of the aircraft on airliners.net, even a picture taken one month before the crash, the aircraft has the standard 3 windows that the 747-100 typically has. Was N93119 the aircraft that crashed, and did it have a modification just before the crash? I'm totally confused. Here's some pics to compare:

N93119 just one month before the crash:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ken Rose



Pic of N93119 after the crash:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Academy/Graphics/TWA800.jpg

Jeremy

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 749 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4640 times:

This is a very good observation. Very puzzling indeed.


I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
User currently offlineRetRes From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4621 times:

Coincidentally I just posed the same question on another thread. Perhaps we'll get some answers. Interesting!!
Great pictures by the way.


User currently offlineUAL4ever From Israel, joined Aug 2005, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4621 times:

I have heard this problem brought up before. When TWA first recieved 747s they were delivered with 3 windows on the upper deck. Later in the production of 747-100s Boeing began installing 9 upper deck windows in the 747-100s. When TWA was ready to recieve more 747-100s they wanted to have commonality throughout their fleet. To that end Boeing filled in most of the windows and just left the 3 windows. When the plane crash occured the 6 fillings were blown out.

User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4614 times:

Wow, you really detected something strange. I don`t think that the aircraft could have been modificated.

Is this (N93119 in the a.net database) is really the aircraft of flight 800?
If yes, this could be a big uplift for the conspiracy theory, that the aircraft was shot down by a Navy rocket.

I´m curious to read other comments about your finding.

Axel



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4562 times:

Quoting UAL4ever (Reply 3):
When TWA was ready to recieve more 747-100s they wanted to have commonality throughout their fleet. To that end Boeing filled in most of the windows and just left the 3 windows. When the plane crash occured the 6 fillings were blown out.

This could be an explanation. But wasn`t it a disadvantage to use it only with 6 windows if could have had 18? And this only for the outer commonality?

Axel

Edit: I found another photo of the reconstructed aircraft from the other side:
http://www.letadla.info/disaster/twa800.php
Here you can see less than 9 windows. So the explanation of UAL4ever could be possible.

[Edited 2006-07-28 22:26:23]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4562 times:

Quoting UAL4ever (Reply 3):
I have heard this problem brought up before. When TWA first recieved 747s they were delivered with 3 windows on the upper deck. Later in the production of 747-100s Boeing began installing 9 upper deck windows in the 747-100s. When TWA was ready to recieve more 747-100s they wanted to have commonality throughout their fleet. To that end Boeing filled in most of the windows and just left the 3 windows. When the plane crash occured the 6 fillings were blown out.

Huh? I don't think so. On the picture after the crash you can still see some filled in windows. All of them would've been blown out if that were the case. There's also a picture of the other side of the aircraft:

http://www.cheniere.org/images/twa800.jpg

I don't recall seeing any 747 with that window configuration.

Jeremy


User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4544 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 6):
On the picture after the crash you can still see some filled in windows. All of them would've been blown out if that were the case. There's also a picture of the other side of the aircraft:

If the windows were filled, it is possible that some, but not all fillings were blown out.

Axel

Edit: And UAL4ever is right. There are B747-100 with 3 and others with more windows in the database.

[Edited 2006-07-28 22:32:05]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4544 times:

This picture here clearly shows that there were only 3 windows on TWA's 747-100s, you can see no window outlines where they may have been filled in:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Chambers



Could Flt. 800 have been a 747-200?

Jeremy


User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4517 times:

Quoting MSPCRJ200 (Reply 9):
Nothing of a mystery here since TWA800 was shot down by a Navy missile everything else is just BS.

I didn't think that at first, but the more I think about things I think it was shot down.

Jeremy


User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4489 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 8):
This picture here clearly shows that there were only 3 windows on TWA's 747-100s, you can see no window outlines where they may have been filled in:

But this is not N93119 and the cn (#19957. N93119 was #20083) shows, that it is an older aircraft.

Axel

[Edited 2006-07-28 22:42:09]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4468 times:

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 11):
But this is not N93119 and the cn (#19957. N93119 was #20083) shows, that it is an older aircraft.

Correct, but why would N93119 be the only TW 747 to have windows added just to have them filled in? It doesn't make sense. Also, look at this pic from a propaganda site about TWA 800. It seems to display that the forward section of the aircraft (which disconnected in the crash) seems to clearly not be the same aircraft as the aft section. This indicates that another TWA 747 (with additional upper deck windows) was broken up and used to substantiate the claim that a fuel tank exploded causing the crash.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/cn16123_det.gif

Jeremy


User currently offlineRetRes From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4428 times:

So say 'they' attached a different forward section to the rear section, wouldn't they get the windows rights. It's so obvious. And where is the real forward section with the big missile hole in it? Why has this not come up before? Try to google it, it's not mentioned.

User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4418 times:

Quoting RetRes (Reply 13):
And where is the real forward section with the big missile hole in it?

Down in the Atlantic Ocean?

Axel



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4418 times:

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 14):
Down in the Atlantic Ocean?

That's what I would assume. There's too many things that don't add up with this crash. I think it's almost certain that the plane was shot down.

Jeremy


User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4390 times:

Beside of beeing shot down, there is just another theory:

Here in Germany I saw some reports in TV about a weakness in the construction of the fuselage of the 747 right after the hump. The transition from the oval to the circular cross section. Just there, were N93119 should have been broken through, after the explosion.

Perhaps they used the forward section of another aircraft to dissemble these general problems with the 747. A pleaded cause, of a explosion caused by wires in the fuel tank, could have been better “solved” than a general problem with a weakness of the fuselage, which also raises doubts in the construction of the 747, an aircraft with a hump, in total. Also in the face of the streched hump of the 747-300 and-400.

Axel

[Edited 2006-07-28 23:19:23]

[Edited 2006-07-28 23:28:43]

[Edited 2006-07-28 23:29:29]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlinePhatty3374 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4385 times:

Hey guys,

That window observation's awesome, but it does look as if on one side they were blown out, and on the other, most, but not all of them were blown out.

I frankly, am very skeptical when reading conspiracy theories especially after people began to claim that AA77 didn't really hit the Pentagon, or that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-set explosives. That being said, the 'Ed Zehr's Analysis' part of this link definitely plants the seed of doubt into my mind about whether TWA800 was an accident or not.

I know that 'whatreallyhappened.com' is renowned for being somewhat outrageous, but this specific document is really pretty interesting, and if it's true, could hold some truth. I think it's always better to be able to choose what you think is more valid from two different accounts!


Regards,

Tom


User currently offlineSteve6666 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4256 times:

Of all the recent 800 threads this has to be the stupidest.

This topic has been done to death periodically over the last however long, and basically the crash DID blow the additional holes in the upper deck. (Effects of explosive decompression anyone?).

N93119 definitely was the crash aircraft, and it definitely was a 747-100.

And for the love of God, I would bet my mortgage and my mother's life that the nose section of "the real" TWA747 is not sitting in the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island for the last 10 years.



eu nasci ha dez mil anos atras, e nao tem nada nesse mundo que eu nao saiba demais
User currently offlinePhilhyde From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4198 times:

I've seen this topic discussed before. If you search around, you'll find pictures that confirm the "extra" windows were plugged. In fact, I believe the accident pictures of port side show one or two plugged.

Big version: Width: 369 Height: 295 File size: 125kb
twa 800 port side 1


[Edited 2006-07-29 02:49:36]


HoustonSpotters Admin - Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
User currently offlineJetpixx From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 871 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4022 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Propfreak

If you look at a similar photo in the database of the same aircraft with a more closer view of the upper deck, you can make out what appears to be a blocked in window in front of the first open window. The quality of the photo is not that great, but it makes UAL's claim above make plenty of sense.


User currently offlineL1011Lover From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 989 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3942 times:

Quoting Jetpixx (Reply 20):
The quality of the photo is not that great, but it makes UAL's claim above make plenty of sense.

It´s not only making sense, it´s a fact!

N93119 had 6 of the 9 windows plugged on each side! When the aircraft hit the ocean surface the fillings of the windows were blown out. The fuselage hit the water with the right front side for that reason all fillings were blown out there, while some remained in place on the left front of the fuselage!

This question was brought up in the magazine "airliners" a while ago and I´ve seen a picture were you can clearly see the 9 original windows with 6 of them being plugged!

So please put all those theories where they belong... in the trash!!!

Best regards

L1011Lover


User currently offlinePhilhyde From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3830 times:

Quoting L1011Lover (Reply 21):
N93119 had 6 of the 9 windows plugged on each side! When the aircraft hit the ocean surface the fillings of the windows were blown out. The fuselage hit the water with the right front side for that reason all fillings were blown out there, while some remained in place on the left front of the fuselage!

It's 7 of 10. You can see in the picture linked above that there is still one on the starboard side.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Academy/Graphics/TWA800.jpg

Quoting L1011Lover (Reply 21):
This question was brought up in the magazine "airliners" a while ago and I´ve seen a picture were you can clearly see the 9 original windows with 6 of them being plugged!

Just out of curiosity, do you recall which issue?



HoustonSpotters Admin - Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3679 times:

Quoting Philhyde (Reply 22):
It's 7 of 10. You can see in the picture linked above that there is still one on the starboard side.

For anyone who can't see it, it's just forward of the "blown out" windows.

In these pictures -- it takes some looking, but I promise it's there, you can make out the outline of a plug aft of the 3rd window (above the second valley in the W)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © A J Best
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anders Nilsson



For anyone who thinks that it's implausable that the plugs may have been blown out as part of the crash, I would ask where is the glass from the remaining windows?

Lincoln



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 1 day ago) and read 3618 times:

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 23):
For anyone who can't see it, it's just forward of the "blown out" windows.

In these pictures -- it takes some looking, but I promise it's there, you can make out the outline of a plug aft of the 3rd window (above the second valley in the W)

In the second pic I do see the plugs. Thanks for showing that.

The crash is still awfully suspicious however it is looked at. At least the theory that it's not a 747-100 can be put to rest. There is still no registration of the aircraft though.

Jeremy


User currently offlineSparkingWave From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 675 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 3483 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 24):
The crash is still awfully suspicious however it is looked at.

This is because the cause of the crash is still not exactly fully understood. No one knows for sure what caused the spark that ignited the fuel vapors in the 747 fuel tank.

However it is looked at, there is more proof that the crash was caused by ignited fuel vapors than in any other theory, whatever it may be.

Eyewitness testimony has been proven unreliable by scientists and psychologists. And conspiracy theories? Well, there's no proof. If they were true, why aren't more planes shot down over Long Island?

SparkingWave ~~~



Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
25 Post contains images Cadet57 : here we go again..    Oh for the love of friggin god. Shut the heck up.... Take off the reynolds wrap, put down the kool aid and shut up. And with
26 B6FAN : **Taken off of wikipedia*** Missile strike (friendly fire) One theory has the US Navy conducting tests of submarine-to-air missiles, accidentally hitt
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
TWA Flight 800 (Quick Question) posted Mon Dec 6 2004 10:28:51 by Bigphilnyc
"Conspiracy? - TWA Flight 800" On History Channel posted Sun Oct 3 2004 22:29:36 by OB1504
TWA 747 Routes Into Athens After Flight 800 posted Wed Jul 28 2004 06:33:32 by Thrust
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
Where Would Be TWA Today W/o Flight 800 Downing? posted Wed Jul 23 2003 20:50:08 by Delta777Jet
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