Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TWA Flight 800: Conspiracy Or Not?  
User currently offlineTHrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5794 times:

I'm sorry, but I just feel that I have to put this question up...my personal view is that no, it's not.

No missile was detected on the radar, there was evidence of background power harmonics on the CVR, no evidence of pitting, cratering, or hot gas-washing on the metal.

In contrast to this evidence, there is one person who suggested to me that a proximity detonation of a missile could have brought Flight 800 down, as it would have accounted for the absence of all the evidence one would expect from a direct hit of a missile. He also cites the many eyewitnesses who reported a missile. I want to hear what people on here think.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7213 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5774 times:

If you think it is what the NTSB said it was why post the topic?

I did a large, tedious and interesting analysis of evidence report on TWA-800. I know so much about the accident now. Not just about the NTSB report I studied and dissected but also some of the biggest conspricacy theory reports. The investigation was a little shady but that is because they thought for a while this could have been a bomb. There were a few public comments which were odd. The biggest thing going for the conspricacy theory would be the eye witnesses saying there was a missle. Even with all that I am 99.8% sure TWA 800 occurred because of an explosion in a nearly empty center wing fuel tank. After studying so much about that flight it just makes too much sense what the NTSB says.

Also conspiracy theories these days would be so difficult to keep under wraps.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently onlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5719 times:

A number of eye witnesses claimed they saw a missile. The NTSB believes what they saw was after the explosion and after the front of the plane fell off. Burning fuel as the rest of the plane climbed uncontrollably could look like a missile. I'm sure the eye witnesses believe what they saw but I know first hand a marine layer can play tricks with your eyes. A bomb would have been far easier and far cheaper to pull off than a missile but neither ever really panned out. One could argue that the current NTSB theory is exactly that, a theory, not 100% unchallengable fact. It is a theory that works quite well when tested. There are some videos on youtube testing this with an old airliner center tank. They didn't need much voltage to catastrophically detonate.

User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5685 times:

I know the sister of one of the eye-witnesses. This particular EW is young, of sound mind etc. and is utterly convinced of the fact she saw something resembling a missile trail rise from the surface of the ocean, disappear into the sky... and the explosion occurred AFTER.

But you'd have to concede that to keep such a conspiracy secret would be literally impossible. So a centre fuel tank explosion it is.

[Edited 2013-05-12 01:14:43]

User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2453 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5291 times:

I'll admit, right after it happened my reaction was of the - one eyebrow raised - type. The missile reports, the military sorties over the area, and so on. Then I started listening to the facts and it made more sense. Particularly the fact that Boeing has had similar events occur to other models in their line up.

Even if it was an accidental shoot down, as others have said already, somebody would have said something by now.

Center tank explosion.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6127 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5146 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flymia (Reply 1):
Also conspiracy theories these days would be so difficult to keep under wraps.

I disagree

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 4):
Even if it was an accidental shoot down, as others have said already, somebody would have said something by now.

Not if only a few people know about it.... There were secrets from WWII that took 50 years to come out so a few people keeping their mouth shut isn't really a big deal.

People have said they know what really happened and they just get shut down by people who who say "look what the NTSB said" If some guy came around and said "I can tell you exactly what happened and I can prove it" there would still be a large number of people say he is lying because the government investigation says something different.

I am not a conspiracy believer in general. That being said the TWA 800 incident is the only conspiracy that I think makes any sense and I can see the government wanting to put the blame on anyone but themselves.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently onlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4991 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 5):
There were secrets from WWII that took 50 years to come out

A very valid point but WW II was a multi year bloody affair. There are some things that happened then where people did indeed talk but it got drowned out and forgotten until much later. The one big secret that I can think of that was kept for almost 30 years was the cracking of the Enigma code. There were some hints here and there but mostly the people involved did indeed keep their mouths shut. Even after the secret was made public it was almost another 20 years before the Lorenz cipher work was released to the public. Lorenz used technology similar to what our Cold War enemies used so it had to stay classified until computer encryption took over. So long story short yes it is possible the secret could be kept but I have a feeling someone would have turned the whole thing over to wikileaks years ago if there was a cover up.


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2258 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4979 times:

Did not the guy who stole the seat fabric went to jail, and he had evidence of explosive material, if it was a mid fuel tank explosion why all the trouble of sending Him to jail..

Just asking.

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineshuttle9juliet From UK - Scotland, joined Jul 2010, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4825 times:

747s do not just blow up.
150 eye witnesses said they saw something streaking toward the aircraft .
There was also reports of naval activity in the area prior to the downing.
IMO I think the Navy shot it down by accident and after realising their horrific mistake detonated the missile, but by that time it was too late as maximum damage had occurred.
Clinton administration would not want the world to know the Americans had caused a massive embarrassment upon themselves.
Oh and wasn't this around the time of re elections ?


User currently offlinegatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 874 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4819 times:

Quoting THrust (Thread starter):
In contrast to this evidence, there is one person who suggested to me that a proximity detonation of a missile could have brought Flight 800 down, as it would have accounted for the absence of all the evidence one would expect from a direct hit of a missile. He also cites the many eyewitnesses who reported a missile. I want to hear what people on here think.

As far as I know, most anti-aircraft missiles do not explode with a direct hit, but explode near the target, sending all sorts shrapnel into the target aircraft. For example, the current Sidewinder missile has around 200 titanium rods that break apart into thousands of pieces after the explosion. These holes would clearly show up on the skin of the recovered aircraft pieces.



Cha brro
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2894 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4815 times:

This thread is going to get interesting, let me grab my popcorn....




"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlinegatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 874 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4797 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 1):
Also conspiracy theories these days would be so difficult to keep under wraps.

Especially when you consider the amount of people involved in naval exercises. Someone would've come forward already to capitalize on the media coverage (and $$$) they would garner from breaking this story...



Cha brro
User currently offlineEASTERN747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4683 times:

Didn't they put all the pieces together (as much as they could) and from the pictures I saw, it was quit extensive. I believe that would most certainly show whether the explosion was from the inside or outside. Also, as stated before, a missile would have left a telltale shadow.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4568 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 5):

There is a big difference in keeping a secret to further the public good and keeping a secret of an unethical horrific event you were a part of. That alone kills most conspiracy theories for me.


The problem I have with most conspiracy theories is that they are a house of cards based on assumptions. They take some evidence or observation and say "this could have happened." It is an assumption, and it may be a pretty probable assumption. For argument's sake, let's just say each assumption is actually 75% likely to be what the conspiracy theorist says it is.

So after the first assumption, they get another assumption and use those two assumptions as the base for the next assumption, which in turn is used for another assumption. 75%^4=32%, in other words, the odds for any of the assumptions happening is pretty great but the odds of all of the assumptions lining up is pretty slim. It gets to the point where I say "well yeah, I guess all those event could have happened, but that's so convoluted it makes 30 times more sense that there wasn't some huge government conspiracy/coverup/etc"


And on the missile thing... how many people know what missiles striking aircraft look like? How many know what an explosion separating the aircraft's nose or whatever looks like? Eye witness reports are terrible, even in groups. IIRC, I even saw a study on this where someone says they saw something and everyone else "reremembers" the event to include what that person said. I think it might have been this case but I'm not sure.

My opinion: nah, fuel explosion, next.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7213 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4496 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
There is a big difference in keeping a secret to further the public good and keeping a secret of an unethical horrific event you were a part of. That alone kills most conspiracy theories for me.


Exactly. The amount of money someone who actually knew the "real" story would make if they came out and told them would make someone come out already if there was anything to hide. Lets also keep in mind the people in this investigation. People want to say the NTSB is behind this. What a joke that is. The NTSB is a civilian organization. The investigators are not agents, they are not spies there is little to no secret information the NTSB has or uses. The NTSB wants everything they find out to be public and they are also the best accident investigators in the world. The last thing any NTSB investigator would do is keep a cause of an accident a secret. If the NTSB knew or thought it was a bomb or missile they would say it or at least one of the investigators would come out and say it.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
And on the missile thing... how many people know what missiles striking aircraft look like? How many know what an explosion separating the aircraft's nose or whatever looks like? Eye witness reports are terrible, even in groups. IIRC, I even saw a study on this where someone says they saw something and everyone else "reremembers" the event to include what that person said. I think it might have been this case but I'm not sure.


This is also a big point of my analysis. However, one thing I did suggest would be a good idea is for the FBI and CIA to make a new video of what happened with modern technology. The video they showed the eye witnesses was with mid 90s technology and many of the eye witnesses said what the CIA/FBI showed in the video is not what happened. They should have and I think they still should make a video with modern technology and show the eye witnesses now and see what they say. Probably too late now but I am sure many of those people did not forget what they saw.
One witness was a military helicopter pilot though.

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 11):
Especially when you consider the amount of people involved in naval exercises. Someone would've come forward already to capitalize on the media coverage (and $$$) they would garner from breaking this story...


Certainly.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 7):
Did not the guy who stole the seat fabric went to jail, and he had evidence of explosive material, if it was a mid fuel tank explosion why all the trouble of sending Him to jail..


He did not go to jail. He was a TWA Captain who was part of the investigation and he was given probation for stealing government property. The evidence at the time was government property. Now if this plane was shot down by the U.S. why in the world would they allow TWA Pilots to be part of the investigation.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1107 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Something that bothered me about the explosion and downing of TWA Flight 800 is as follows and it is only my speculation from the time it happened. I am a retired aircraft mechanic and have worked on 747s. But this does NOT mean my thoughts from the time this happened are valid. The 747 has a hinged panel below the center fuel tank which is secured closed by three screws which can be removed and reinstalled with a speed handle with a philips screw bit. After the screws are removed there are three snap closed latches that hold the panel closed which is further secured by the three screws.
I have always wondered if someone could have opened the panel and attached a "bomb" to the structure above the panel and secured the panel. The bomb would have been triggered by a barometric , altitude sensor, which would start a timing mechanism after it reached preset altitude. It could of also had two timers, one which would delay the activation of the barometric sensor which would then start the second timer.
This aircraft had an originating flight that started in Athens, Greece which, I believe, may have had poor security, thus making it easier for someone to place the bomb above the previously mentioned panel. The aircraft, I think, made a stop in London and then flew on to New York in the US. It was scheduled to return to Europe, but took some type of delay while in New York.
I always thought that this possible "bomb" was installed on the aircraft in Athens and was designed to explode after it began it's return trip from New York over the Atlantic much further east of the United States so that the aircraft would fall further off the US shore and in much deeper water making it more difficult to recover. This bomb, if there was one, exploded shortly after take off due to the delay in New York.
As a point of note, there was a 747, if I am correct on the aircraft type, that had a bomb explode in the aft cargo compartment while at the gate in Japan. I do not remember the date other than it was earlier than TWA flight 800. It was believed that who ever planted the "bomb" wanted it to explode while the aircraft was flying over the Pacific Ocean.   


User currently onlinesierra3tango From Bahrain, joined Mar 2013, 363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4246 times:

Have a look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aer_Lingus_Flight_712

Time does not necessarily bring out the truth


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4223 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 5):
I disagree

And you base this on...?

Quoting falstaff (Reply 5):
People have said they know what really happened and they just get shut down by people who who say "look what the NTSB said"

They "said" they knew what really happened. Then why nut publish a paper, display their evidence, go to the media?

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 8):
747s do not just blow up.

What an asinine comment. Plenty of aircraft have exploded at altitude for various reasons. And even if you don't believe the NTSB report, there is no denying that the theory put forward is plausible.

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 8):
150 eye witnesses said they saw something streaking toward the aircraft .

Every single eyewitness of something "streaking" has been timed to after the explosion, ie they were looking at the wreckage.

Do you claim "conspiracy" after every major aircraft accident, when hundreds of witnesses report seeing the aircraft in flames? No, because eyewitnesses - especially if they are far away, are unsure of what they are looking at, or are surprised are incredibly unreliable and like to remember what they think it would have been interesting to see.

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 8):
There was also reports of naval activity in the area prior to the downing.

Coincidental, and is the case with many crashes at sea - funnily enough, navies, being seafaring military arms, often have activity at sea.

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 8):
Clinton administration would not want the world to know the Americans had caused a massive embarrassment upon themselves.

Which would have set up the much greater "embarrassment" (not to mention the arrest of many officials, including the President) when the conspiracy was inevitably uncovered.

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 8):
Oh and wasn't this around the time of re elections ?

It was in the same year as an election, which happens once every 4 years. One in four is not exactly an impossible chance.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 728 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4185 times:

Bent metal does not lie. Particularly about the direction it was bent. The pieces tell an unmistakable story of an explosion originating in the fuel tank.

So, sorry, there was no missile. People can of course imagine all kinds of elaborate conspiracies, like having the NTSB fabricate evidence, or that the moon landing was faked. It is difficult to prove a negative, but what is the likelihood of pretty much everyone working in perfect synchrony to build a cover-up in any of these topics? None.


User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4126 times:

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 8):
150 eye witnesses said they saw something streaking toward the aircraft .

Why exactly would 150 people be watching an aircraft taking off in the dark? I just don't believe this.



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4115 times:

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 8):
150 eye witnesses said they saw something streaking toward the aircraft .

You want us to believe there were 150 people outside after sunset watching an airplane fly at 13-15,000 ft seven or eight miles off shore.

That before the explosion, they saw something streaking toward the aircraft.

BS

What most of the people saw was the effects of the explosion with some debris gaining altitude due to momentum and the fall of debris.

We all know that eyewitnesses to aircraft crashes are wrong in their initial view of what happened the vast majority of the time. They fill in details from their expectations, not from their actual memory.

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 8):
IMO I think the Navy shot it down by accident

I can assure you, if a US Navy ship had fired a missile that night, dozens of people would have leaked the information quickly. People in uniform understand operational security, and BS security clamp downs. Coverups never work in the military.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 7):
the guy who stole the seat fabric went to jail,
Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 7):
why all the trouble of sending Him to jail

Because he is a thief who stole evidence and ruined the chain of custody, making it impossible to determine what was exactly on the seat, and where it came from.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4096 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 5):
Not if only a few people know about it.... There were secrets from WWII that took 50 years to come out so a few people keeping their mouth shut isn't really a big deal.

Very few knew about Nixon and his staff approving and directing the breaking into offices of the Democratic Party in 1972.
Until they did.

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 8):

747s do not just blow up.
150 eye witnesses said they saw something streaking toward the aircraft .
There was also reports of naval activity in the area prior to the downing.
IMO I think the Navy shot it down by accident and after realising their horrific mistake detonated the missile, but by that time it was too late as maximum damage had occurred.
Clinton administration would not want the world to know the Americans had caused a massive embarrassment upon themselves.
Oh and wasn't this around the time of re elections ?

Do yourself a favour, if you really think all that utter nonsense you just embarrassed yourself by posting.
If you actually believe any of it, then you'd best keep off any commercial aircraft.
If the NTSB has somehow faked the TWA 800 accident, what else has gone on with the safety of airliners?
You don't trust the aviation regulators, fine, stay on the ground.

Anyone who has been in the engineering part of the airline biz, knows just how much extra regulatory work has arisen since TWA 800, around the issue of fuel tank ignition especially on aging airliners.
So that's all been done just for fun has it?
All the other agencies, in all those other countries, with the involvement of other manufacturers not just Boeing?
No one says, 'this does not look right'?

There have been other fuel tank ignitions, not just in the air either.
No aircraft 747 or otherwise 'just blows up' might be true, there is always a reason, that you think yourself above the highly trained, highly qualified, dedicated to the safety of airliners people who found the must likely cause, is somehow invalid as they don't seem to have your 'a bloke down the pub told me....' type of 'analysis' is depressing but all too familiar.


User currently onlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6357 posts, RR: 31
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 15):
that had a bomb explode in the aft cargo compartment while at the gate in Japan. I do not remember the date other than it was earlier than TWA flight 800. It was believed that who ever planted the "bomb" wanted it to explode while the aircraft was flying over the Pacific Ocean.

That was baggage from a CP Air 747 that had just arrived at NRT. It went off inside the baggage distribution system and killed, I believe, two Japanese workers. It was part of the plot that brought down the Air India 747 off the Irish coast back in 1985

How many airliners have actually been blown up by a missile by mistake? I know that Italian DC-9 over the Mediterranean and a Tu-154 in some ex-Soviet republic. Are there any others?

As for the OP, no conspiracy, center tank explosion.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10765 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4017 times:

I think the same people who were behind the Kennedy assassination brought down TWA800 

No, seriously, while the NTSB theory makes sense, the wholesale disregard of what so many eye witnesses said will always cast a shadow. Many might have been in error, sure, as eye witnesses often do interprete events wrongly. But still, it sounds odd to me that so many should be in doubt, and so few eyewitnesses do support the findings. If the US military did some rocket weapon exercise in that area that day, and that seems to be the case, and something went wrong, which might have happened, then they would have had plenty of reasons, and plenty of dollars to hide it. But, as others said, such thing cant he covered up forever. I tend to think the NTSB is right, for 84,59%.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3985 times:

Quoting na (Reply 23):
the wholesale disregard of what so many eye witnesses said will always cast a shadow.

They were not disregarded. They were questioned by the FBI, their storied examined, their timeline written down and compared. I don't think the FBI found a single person who said they actually saw something before the explosion and could accurately describe the event. Some of the eyewitnesses quoted by conspiracy theorists were over 25 miles away.

Almost all the eyewitness who can be verified to be in a position to actually have seen the explosion describe things arcing into the sky above the aircraft, and presume it to be a missile passing through the aircraft.

Quoting na (Reply 23):
If the US military did some rocket weapon exercise in that area that day, and that seems to be the case,

The US Navy was not doing any live rocket weapons exercises or testing that day. No missiles with motors were put on rails that day.

The area is used to test drill dummy weapons some times, but never live weapons. It is too close to air routes and populated areas.


User currently offlinestratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1653 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4042 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 22):
How many airliners have actually been blown up by a missile by mistake? I know that Italian DC-9 over the Mediterranean and a Tu-154 in some ex-Soviet republic. Are there any others?

Yep and this one we shot it down and actually have never admitted doing it even though we paid off the Iranians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655


I am also not one to give in to conspiricy theories like the many involving the World Trade Center. But this one I did buy into a little mainly since we have actually shot down a civlian airliner by mistake it seemed plausable. But like others have said too many people involved in this to successfully cover something like this up..However, I don't trust our govenment as far as I could throw it either.

[Edited 2013-05-12 19:07:32]


NWA THE TRUE EVIL EMPIRE
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 25):
actually have never admitted doing it

The US Navy and the US government have not denied that the aircraft was shot down by the USS Vincennes.

The question has always been why was the aircraft not properly identified.

No - I don't trust the politicians in our government either.

However, I do trust the near couple million people wearing the uniforms, especially the mid-ranking people who do the hard work.

One thing which makes it so hard to keep secrets in the US government is the politicians. When one group gets voted out, the next group coming in looks for everything they can find in the files and secret files to make the opposite party look bad.

In my experience it appears that most of the people in politically appointed offices - congressional staff members - White House staff - staff of various executive agencies - all have not real concept of security. If a secret can be used to give them an advantage - they will leak the information.

People in offices who are not on the news every day work very hard to 'impress' news media and others with their inside knowledge.

That actually works to the advantage of the people of the United States - because so much that the various administrations want to keep from the public is eventually leaked.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4044 times:

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 25):
However, I don't trust our govenment as far as I could throw it either.

As rfields5421 mentioned, I don't think I've met anyone in the military that would NOT say anything if something like this happened. I'm sure the military is littered with them, but how on Earth do you find a ship full of these people? And if it was an accident, you just coincidentally had a ship full of the shady people not saying anything?

I know there are horribly corrupt politicians out there, but some of these grand conspiracy theories are just way to vast. Either that or the NWO is so good it's just futile to fight them  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3916 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Funny. Here I was, thinking this site had smart people on it. I guess not.......

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3854 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 28):
Funny. Here I was, thinking this site had smart people on it. I guess not.......

Care to elaborate on exactly what that means? As there are people arguing on both sides here (although arguably more from the side of logic and evidence) your post is effectively meaningless.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 29):
your post is effectively meaningless.

As is most of this discussion - nobody's going to change their mind about what they say happened. I don't care to elaborate because I'll offend half the people in this discussion and that wasn't my goal (or, at least, I didn't want those I was offending to know they were being offended). I was deliberately cryptic and vague.

TIS

[Edited 2013-05-13 09:55:32]


www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3807 times:

In my time in the industry, there have been two major airliner accident events that have brought changes, in procedures, inspections, maintenance programs and even human factors.

They are, the structural failure of the Aloha 737 in 1988 and the loss of TWA 800.
Looked at in this context, sceptics one hopes will at least understand why some of us are so aggressively dismissive of all this crap around the lost 747.

This fig leaf of eye witnesses, as ever exaggerated and distorted by the nutters, ignores that with the best will in the world they are a very unreliable source of information.
More so when they don't really know what they are looking at, at a distance, at night.

(None of the very tell tale evidence in the wreckage that a missile would cause either).


User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3785 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 31):
This fig leaf of eye witnesses, as ever exaggerated and distorted by the nutters, ignores that with the best will in the world they are a very unreliable source of information.
More so when they don't really know what they are looking at, at a distance, at night.

Due to the general tone I really didn't felt like responding, but there has been enough half truths dished out that at least some need correcting.

"I know what I saw. I saw an ordnance explosion. And whatever I saw, the explosion of the fuel was not the initiator of the event. It was one of the results. Something happened before that which was the initiator of the disaster."
(statement by Frederick C. Meyer, NY Air National Guard heli pilot who was just above Gabreski (KFOK/FOK)).

"Almost due south [of the helicopter], there was a hard white light, like burning pyrotechnics, in level flight. I was trying to figure out what it was. It was the wrong color for flares. It struck an object coming from the right and made it explode."
(statement by Capt. Chris Baur, another NY Air National Guard heli pilot)

Quote:
I don't think the FBI found a single person who said they actually saw something before the explosion and could accurately describe the event.

This is very much wrong. There are many reports that follow the path of the "flare" rising from the ocean floor towards TWA800 (not 10, but >100).

In addition to that, I believe a short in the FQIS system was the most likely culprit. Just like to set the record straight in regards to the number of EWs and their statements. Don't just wash them away.

D.


User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1855 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3774 times:

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 8):
IMO I think the Navy shot it down by accident and after realising their horrific mistake detonated the missile, but by that time it was too late as maximum damage had occurred

This makes no sense, as the missile is designed to explode to bring down an aircraft.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 20):
can assure you, if a US Navy ship had fired a missile that night, dozens of people would have leaked the information quickly. People in uniform understand operational security, and BS security clamp downs. Coverups never work in the military.

In 1996, the smallest ship to carry SAMs was an FFG, which has a crew of 200 or so, and every sailor onboard an FFG knows when a missile has been fired. They are not a slient firing weapon, and the damage they do to the ship itself is very pronounced(scorched non-skid, burnt paint ETC..).

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 25):
Yep and this one we shot it down and actually have never admitted doing it even though we paid off the Iranians
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 26):
The US Navy and the US government have not denied that the aircraft was shot down by the USS Vincennes.

The question has always been why was the aircraft not properly identified.

The Vincennes shot down what it thought was a threat, later to learn that it was a computer issue(the track number of the Iran Air was swapped with an A-6 desending to land onboard a carrier in the Indian ocean, so to the Vincennes, it looked like the target was desending to attack them).

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineRedd From Poland, joined Jan 2013, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

Quoting THrust (Thread starter):
I want to hear what people on here think.

Simple, in this age never believe what governments tell u... It might have been the center fuel tank, 911 might be good and well saudi terrorists. The Boston Bombers might well have been pubescent kids for which Boston was shut down and regular people were abused on the streets for shopping..... Vote left or right, still f¤cked.

[Edited 2013-05-13 12:56:17]

User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2453 posts, RR: 5
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3689 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 30):
I was deliberately cryptic and vague.

So much for your credibility.   

Quoting damirc (Reply 32):

With all do respect to these members of the military, had they ever seen a live firing of this type?



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3681 times:

Quoting damirc (Reply 32):

And eye witnesses never see things incorrectly?  
Quoting Redd (Reply 34):
Simple, in this age never believe what governments tell u...

The government is not some omnipotent force... it is made up of people, a TON of people. I am in the Navy and I absolutely cannot fathom an entire ship-full of sailors covering this up. Absolutely ridiculous, I'd bet I'd survive jumping out of an airplane at 30000' without a parachute and surviving before I believe you could get a ship full of corrupt sailors to cover it up. Impossible, yes, impossible. I also cannot accept that a bunch of shady officers set up the Boston bombing for similar reasons. The conspiracies I have the least problem with involve way fewer people, but even those have holes


I don't even know why I argue against conspiracy theorists, they'll never change their minds. In this case, it's just best to ignore them



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4838 posts, RR: 26
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3673 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 36):
The government is not some omnipotent force... it is made up of people, a TON of people.

This is what cracks me up about conspiracy theorists. They believe the government is some singular source of power running things like the "Men in Black."



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3659 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 35):
With all do respect to these members of the military, had they ever seen a live firing of this type?

Considering at least Mr. Meyer spent some time in Vietnam and had SAMs fired at his helo there I would venture to say he did (probably not of this supposed exact type, but enough to warrant serious consideration of his eyewitness report).

Verbatim quote from him:
"I'm not a professor with a PhD in explosion watching. I'm an eyewitness. I know what I saw. I saw an ordnance explosion. And whatever I saw, the explosion of the fuel was not the initiator of the event. It was one of the results. Something happened before that which was the initiator of the disaster. Everyone involved in the FBI and NTSB are intelligent enough to know that.".

(to clear up - Meyer & Baur were piloting the same helicopter).

Mr. Baur also stated "Almost due south [of the helicopter] there was a hard white light, like burning pyrotechnics, in level flight ... it was the wrong color for flares. It struck an object coming from the right and made it explode." (so from this you can gather he could not positively identify the type of "object" he saw hit the plane).

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 36):
And eye witnesses never see things incorrectly?

Well, you know that they do. In every crash you'll have people claiming the airplane was on fire while still in the air... So at least some eyewitnesses reports are notoriously unreliable. But all of them? ^^

http://raylahr.entryhost.com/FBI.pdf - read here the witness reports and count how many report the "flare-type" object rise from water level travelling east to west (while TWA800 was travelling in the exact opposite direction). Interesting.

D.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3631 times:

Quoting damirc (Reply 38):
Well, you know that they do. In every crash you'll have people claiming the airplane was on fire while still in the air... So at least some eyewitnesses reports are notoriously unreliable. But all of them? ^^

http://raylahr.entryhost.com/FBI.pdf - read here the witness reports and count how many report the "flare-type" object rise from water level travelling east to west (while TWA800 was travelling in the exact opposite direction). Interesting.

I've got a ton to do in just a few short hours, but I'll try and take a look tomorrow. I've heard that part of the plane flared up a bit. IDK, look at it tomorrow. But I'd still bet my life savings that a boat full of sailors would not stay quiet.

I'm not gonna be a super patriotic flag waver and say that we don't have shady people in our military, we do, but I literally think it's impossible to make a boat full of sailors cover up this egregious, horrible killing of US citizens. In times of war/war secrets/even atrocities against foreign citizens I can see, but no, not the slaying of citizens. And to think that only a few officers on the ship knew... you don't know about a ship's scuttlebutt.

Now intentionally hand selecting a crew, somehow, and having them all on that ship kinda answers how it would be covered up, but then you have the whole "we shot it down on purpose." No, I don't go there either. It's one of those technically plausible things but that's so bizarre and far fetched and it's 1000xs more likely to have been the official reason than the conspiracy

Look at the big picture, not an anomaly. Again, I'll look tomorrow, but I doubt that many people were looking at the plane near night time. Probably saw the light/explosion, saw the nose (?) "flare up," and then when missile was mentioned, you re-remember it. IIRC there have been studies of large groups of eye-witnesses modifying what they saw based of what others have said



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinejohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2594 posts, RR: 7
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3629 times:

As an aside to this topic, I have a close medical examiner friend who stated he worked this accident.

Finding so many horrifically maimed (parts of) bodies turned him away from his occupation for a few years.
He also said they used to put sandbags in the coffins to make it somewhat easier for families, when in actuality there might be a portion of a finger present.


User currently offlineRedd From Poland, joined Jan 2013, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3596 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 36):
I don't even know why I argue against conspiracy theorists,

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just don't swallow everything I hear on the news. A good example is George Bush's excuse for invading Iraq, WMD's. Americans in the majority believed it. I thought at the beginning that it was bullshit, I could not tell you for sure but it turned out to be sure. Boston was shut down completely, I mean people were not being allowed out of their homes because there were looking for some young punk who built a pipe bomb???? I was watching here on the news and youtube and I was pretty shocked, it looked like Marshall Law. There is an agenda behind many things that we don't know about, or aren't meant too. Saying that does not make someone crazy.

Americans swallow way too much of what they are fed by the government and media, and if someone gives an alternative theory they are called a conspiracy theorist. Accept or be ridiculed, great policy. Free thinking should not be ridiculed.


User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5852 posts, RR: 4
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3577 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 36):
I don't even know why I argue against conspiracy theorists, they'll never change their minds. In this case, it's just best to ignore them

But why are you and others adamant to stuff your views and make them change theirs, they have a right to their theory however wrong it may be to you.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10765 posts, RR: 9
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3566 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 36):
The government is not some omnipotent force... it is made up of people, a TON of people. I am in the Navy and I absolutely cannot fathom an entire ship-full of sailors covering this up. Absolutely ridiculous, I'd bet I'd survive jumping out of an airplane at 30000' without a parachute and surviving before I believe you could get a ship full of corrupt sailors to cover it up. Impossible, yes, impossible.

Fully agreed. Even in a marsian state like North Korea that would be difficult.


User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 2003, 14074 posts, RR: 62
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3554 times:

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 15):
I am a retired aircraft mechanic and have worked on 747s. But this does NOT mean my thoughts from the time this happened are valid. The 747 has a hinged panel below the center fuel tank which is secured closed by three screws which can be removed and reinstalled with a speed handle with a philips screw bit. After the screws are removed there are three snap closed latches that hold the panel closed which is further secured by the three screws.

What panel are you talking about? The 747 has the three aircon packs right under the center tank, each with big, hinged access panels with quick access latches. Plus there is (close to the wing gear well) the small panel for external air for engine start.
Btw., I´m an A&P mechanic / licenced engineer currently working on 747s.

Jan


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3543 times:

Quoting damirc (Reply 38):
read here the witness reports and count how many report the "flare-type" object rise from water level travelling east to west

Why don't you link to the NTSB report of the witnesses? Rather than a bunch of conspiracy sites?

Meyer is reported as a helo pilot, a C-130 pilot, a F-16 pilot.

His statement is revised, edited and changed depending upon which site you search.

However, I cannot find anywhere that he repeated his 'statement'.

But the statements of Meyer, his copilot and his flight engineer are very different from what is reported across the web

From the NTSB Report page 245 - http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf

Quote:
The witnesses in the HH-60 helicopter

Crewmembers (the pilot, copilot, and flight engineer) in a New York Air National Guard (NYANG) HH-60 helicopter, who at the time of the accident were performing instrument approaches about 11 nm from where the main portion of the wreckage fell into the ocean, were interviewed by the FBI shortly after the accident. According to documentation of those interviews, the pilot of the NYANG helicopter stated that he first observed a red streak of light moving very fast from right to left and that it was traveling in a gradually descending arc almost horizontally. He stated that he observed the streak for about 1 to 2 seconds after which he saw an explosion. He described the streak as having the trajectory and image of a shooting star. In an interview with the Safety Boards initial Witness Group (conducted on January 11, 1997), he indicated that he observed a red-orange streak of light moving horizontally for about 3 to 5 seconds in a gradually descending arc that he described as a ìgentle descending trajectory similar to a shooting star. He then saw what he described as an explosion, followed 1 to 2 seconds later by a second and possibly a third explosion.505 He stated that he then saw a fireball, which he described as ìfour times the size of the sun, that hit the oceanís surface about 10 seconds after he first saw the fireball.506 The HH-60 pilot indicated that the fireball followed the same trajectory as the streak. According to the witness documents, the pilot stated that he had no idea what it was and that he never saw anything that he identified as an airplane.

The witness documents indicated that the copilot and flight engineer from the HH-60 stated that their first observation of the event was of flaming debris at an estimated altitude of 4,000 to 5,000 feet and that this flaming debris hit the water about 8 seconds after they first spotted it. According to the witness documents, the copilot stated that, although he did not remember it on the evening of the accident, the next day he remembered seeing an object streaking from his left to his right just before the appearance of the fireball. He characterized this object as being like an ìincendiary device or a
pyrotechnic.î He stated that he then saw a succession of three explosions, each longer than the last.

So basically every thing you've quoted above is a lie according to Meyer.

Some additional information from the NTSB Report on Witnesses

Quote:
The Witness Group determined that of the 736 witnesses, 239 were sound witnesses, 179 were sight and sound witnesses, 258 were streak-of-light witnesses, and 599 were fireball witnesses.

(The Witness Group defined a streak of light as an object moving in the sky that could be variously described in witness documents as a point of light, fireworks, a flare, a shooting star, or something similar. The definition noted that a streak of light was usually described as ascending, but could also be described as arcing over and/or descending. The Witness Group agreed that the streak of light definition must not meet the definition of a fireball and that it must precede any report of a fireball by that witness.)

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.

In addition, 210 witnesses reported seeing both a fireball and a streak of light.

Of the 591 witnesses whose reported positions were plotted,

seven were positioned within 5-nm ground distance of the last secondary radar return from TWA flight 800.

About 200 witnesses were positioned between 5- and 10-nm ground distance of the last secondary radar return.

More than 200 witnesses were positioned between 10- and 15-nm ground distance of the last secondary radar return.

About 80 witnesses were positioned between 15- and 20-nm ground distance of the last secondary radar return.

Nearly 100 witnesses were positioned more than 20-nm ground distance from the last secondary radar return.

There are not 100+ reports of a possible missile - 38 [/quote]

Quote:
The streak of light reported by many (of the 258 streak-of-light witnesses) may have been the accident airplane during some stage of its flight before the fireball developed. Most of the streak-of-light accounts are generally consistent with the calculated flightpath of the accident airplane; however, 38 witnesses described a streak of light rising straight up or nearly so. These 38 witness accounts seem to be inconsistent with the calculated flightpath of the accident airplane.

There is also a report from a passenger on US Airways flight 217 that he saw the blinking lights of an airplane below his flight (USA 217 was 8,000 ft above TWA 800), then saw a "flare" moving left to right for 10-15 seconds then an explosion.

Radar data determined the plane below USA 217 was a US Navy P-3, and that a passenger looking out the right side windows of USA 217 would have been on the wrong side of the airplane to see TWA 800 at any point, even after the explosion.

[Edited 2013-05-14 06:08:26]

User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3485 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 45):
Why don't you link to the NTSB report of the witnesses? Rather than a bunch of conspiracy sites?

For the simple reason that the FBI only submitted to the NTSB only 448 witness reports as opposed to 670 witness reports that have been gathered by the FBI. (with 222 missing). But if you doubt the veracity of these documents you are most certainly free to submit your own FOIA request to the FBI and will receive the same batch.

I don't mind where it's linked to/from, but it's better to dispute the source rather than dispute the eyewitness reports.

Quote:
Meyer is reported as a helo pilot, a C-130 pilot, a F-16 pilot.

.

Sources please. Meyer was at that time piloting an HH-60 (although in the 302 it's written UH-60) to the best of my knowledge. In regards to the Meyer "witness report" - it wasn't procued on an FBI-302 form, it was written down short-hand style in a 2.5x4" notebook (from what he said afterwards). I am not exactly sure who you've tagged as a liar - either me or Mr. Meyer, but I'm just going on what I've read in several sources. Considering how litigation happy the US Society is and considering his testimony was included in the Washington Times ad with his full name ( http://twa800.com/images/times-8-15-00.gif ) I'm pretty sure he would've sued someone penniless if it was misrepresenting what he said.

Regarding the US Air 217 passenger. Cherry picking. Read the eyewitness reports as linked and form your own opinion - this is the raw data as submitted by people, not the twice digested data that made it into the report.

The FIRO group's analysis comes to different numbers though:
- 182 people reported a rising streak of light
- 134 people reported the origin or trajectory of the streak of light
- 67 people recounted the origin of the streak of light (with 93% of those 67 reporting it originated at the surface)

Again - for me both the FQIS system short circuit and a shootdown (either accidental or intentional) are tied. What I'm peeved about is how the investigation was performed at times. Read it from Mr. Speer's (the ALPA representative in the investigation) affidavit here: http://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/l-james-speer.pdf (yes, a conspiracy site!). The investigation was unfortunately not all that transparent ^^

D.

[Edited 2013-05-14 11:43:18]

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3465 times:

Quoting damirc (Reply 46):
Sources please.

Do a Google search on his name - you will see the identical quote listing him as a helo pilot, a C-130 pilot, a F-16 pilot.

Quoting damirc (Reply 46):
I'm just going on what I've read in several sources.

No.

There is only one source of the false statement attributed to Meyer, repeated on dozens of sites.

Meyer has given up trying to clear his name of the falst statement.

You also haven't mentioned that at least two dozen different source of various fireworks that evening, about half of them on boats offshore.

Another point is that there were not public reports of a missile until after Pierre Salianger's report on Nov 7, 1996 - almost four months after the crash.

The Donaldson report by William S Donaldson, whose family keep TWA800.com operating, cites the theory that the plane was shot down by a missile - a terrorist missile fired from a small boat off shore.

TWA800.com is a completely biased, bogus, BS source. Don't tarnish yourself by citing that site.

[Edited 2013-05-14 12:44:06]

User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3456 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 47):
TWA800.com is a completely biased, bogus, BS source. Don't tarnish yourself by citing that site.

Whatever. What I've linked was signed affidavits attributable to people who were in the "observing seat" to speak. I have not linked any interpretations (where I did mention one analysis was the FIRO group eyewitness analysis). I've linked the FBI 302 reports that have been obtained by FOIA requests. These material are verbatim and without interpretation.

So basically you are saying Meyer is a liar if I read you correctly?

A link to Meyer's affidavit: http://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/o-fred-meyer.pdf ... this is the version that I would (along with the FBI record) hold as the one with the most provenance. Proving provenance of his quote from other sites and sources might be problematic (he said - she said).

D.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3444 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 37):
This is what cracks me up about conspiracy theorists. They believe the government is some singular source of power running things like the "Men in Black."


And there is something that cracks me up even more!

My favourite conspiracy theory is that every conspiracy theory was created by a secret CIA PsyOps cell in order to distract the population from the REAL truth.

TWA 800 was brought down by a missile? Lame.

The 747 in question was commanded by Martian alien diplomats who had visited earth in order to buy humans for a breeding programme. The CIA, wanting to cover up that visit, paid eyewitnesses to tell the NTSB anything about "missiles" or a "fireball".

But the plain and simple fact is that the 747 was a disguised UFO, capable of warp-speed space travel.




David

[Edited 2013-05-14 13:55:08]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3434 times:

Quoting Redd (Reply 41):
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just don't swallow everything I hear on the news.

Trust me, I don't either. You'd be a fool too. I see too many people take that to the opposite extreme and believe nothing anyone with an ounce of authority says

Quoting Redd (Reply 41):
There is an agenda behind many things that we don't know about, or aren't meant too. Saying that does not make someone crazy.

Of course not. Some of the ridiculous theories makes them crazy. I hear them out and I enjoy reading about them. There are a very few that make sense and I could actually see, most are just wild

Quoting Redd (Reply 41):
Americans swallow way too much of what they are fed by the government and media, and if someone gives an alternative theory they are called a conspiracy theorist. Accept or be ridiculed, great policy. Free thinking should not be ridiculed.

Again, of course it shouldn't. But it seems like the ones calling others closed minded are usually brainwashed themselves (by other conspiracy theorists and then say others are the sheeple, lol)

I wasn't even pointing you out. I may have quoted you but I'm talking about the crazier people of the group. Skeptics I don't have a problem with... one should not just accept what is given to them blindly. Conspiracy theorists (by my definition, and this may be exaggerated) take a complicated event that may be hard to explain and make it twenty times as complicated!

I don't even think a bomb would be out of the realm of possibility. I don't think it happened, but it makes more sense than a missile. I absolutely 100% don't buy that, I still cannot begin to fathom a ship full of sailors all covering up the killing of hundreds of Americans, even if it was an accident. I run into a few shady military folk, but the odds of them ALL being that shady is essentially 0. Plus, I know the official reason is just "from the government" and I should question it and all, but it makes more sense than the other bogus arguments. In that case, the government wins... I'm not gonna believe in something off the wall just to be free thinking and not held down by "the man"

Quoting 777way (Reply 42):
But why are you and others adamant to stuff your views and make them change theirs, they have a right to their theory however wrong it may be to you.

True, and I didn't mean to come across as hostile. Though I do get defensive because I've debated many conspiracy theorists and most the time they are extremely hostile and even after hearing them out they call me a brainwashed sheeple just because I don't buy into their over the top garbage. And yes, I do go into it with an open mind



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7213 posts, RR: 9
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3353 times:

I just don't buy the NTSB being part of this. Again these people are not agents or part of the CIA they are civilian federal employees. These are people who want to help prevent further accidents and the best investigators in the world. So the theorist want me to beleive this highly educated investigators are all keeping a huge secret about what really happened to TWA-800. I'm just not buying it.


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3316 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 51):
I just don't buy the NTSB being part of this.

From reading the report the NTSB did an excellent job, they went into very minute details in their investigation. It is certain that the center fuel tank did explode. The reason for it is not 100% certain even in the NTSB conclusion.

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system."

D.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3307 times:

Quoting damirc (Reply 48):
What I've linked was signed affidavits

No, you've linked to a bunch of 'documents' which would not be legal proof in any investigation or case.

None that you have linked legally identify the person making the statement, none are notarized. Many, especially the Meyer statement are inconsistent in their tone and context, which indicate the different sections were written by different persons at different times.

They are typical of the fictional BS that people post on the internet to 'prove' their theories when no real proof exists.

Quoting damirc (Reply 46):
Considering how litigation happy the US Society is and considering his testimony was included in the Washington Times ad with his full name ( http://twa800.com/images/times-8-15-00.gif ) I'm pretty sure he would've sued someone penniless if it was misrepresenting what he said.

Have you ever been sued, or tried to sue someone?

Unfortunately, I have had copyrighted work of mine stolen, posted on the internet and sold as someone else's work.

Here is what it takes - $15,000 cash up front to an attorney to investigate to determine if a law suit is possible. $50,000 additional cash up front to file a law suit.

The chances of obtaining a judgement run about 50/50, though it can add an additional $50,000 in costs easily if the thief/ slanderer offers any opposition to the suit.

The chances of recovering enough money to pay the legal fees and costs out of the pocket of the person suing - less than .1%. Because the person sued only has to declare bankruptcy, if the web site is owned in the US.

A person might possibly be able to take away a domain name from the offending site, but you cannot stop the person from moving the data and hosting it on a new web site in a foreign country.

Yes, a lot of stupid law suits are filed in the US. Almost all of them are against companies with deep pockets/ lost of money. Some lawyers will file such a suit for the publicity value along. Just a few dozen per year - in the whole country.

Grabbing headlines with such a lawsuit helps bring in paying clients who will spend almost everything they have for 'satisfaction' without a real chance of recovery. And since a company knows it cost $50,000 to $100,000 to even try to defended a frivolous lawsuit - too many pay off the plaintiff for $1,000 or $5,000 just to make the suit go away.

Unfortunately, a libel or slander case against a conspiracy web site, and the 50-100 other sites which have repeated/ carried the false information is one where it is impossible to collect money, or stop the false information.


User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3304 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 53):
No, you've linked to a bunch of 'documents' which would not be legal proof in any investigation or case.

They are sworn statements by eyewitnesses. Worthless then.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 53):
They are typical of the fictional BS that people post on the internet to 'prove' their theories when no real proof exists.

Pardon me, but I will rather believe what is written there than various (still unsourced) claims which attack Meyer's credibility.

In regards to the copyright claims - nice, but they are distracting from what we have been debating.

So okay - you disqualify Meyer. How do you feel about the IAMAW report then (they were party to the investigation)?

http://twa800.com/iamaw/iamaw_submission.pdf
(yes, again they're linked from twa800.com because they are not to be found on the ntsb.gov site ... go figure).

We have the IAMAW claiming not everything was done in line with protocol (unless you call tagging random items with locations), we have Speer (the ALPA representative) claiming that not everything was quite kosher, we have eyewitnesses (and whose testimonies were prohibited to be talked about at the public hearing) and then you wonder why there's mistrust?

Do you then at least believe the IAMAW's submission or is that also invalid?

D.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3290 times:

Quoting damirc (Reply 52):
The reason for it is not 100% certain even in the NTSB conclusion.

What do you think happened then? I know it's probably annoying having me constantly bring up the boat, but do you think an entire crew would just lie about this? And what would be in it for them? We aren't a bunch of shady drones in the military, officers are even taught to disobey orders if it's an illegal action. I can see war crimes slipping through the cracks, but do you see the hundreds of citizens on a ship being ok with not mentioning their ship killed a bunch of innocent Americans? Even if we up the conspiracy and say that they were somehow "threatened," threats only go so far



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3265 times:

We will never agree. I see a conspiracy. One by the owners of that web site and others to create a false impression of a cover-up. It makes them a little money, so to keep the money coming in - they perpetuate the myth.

Quoting damirc (Reply 54):
I will rather believe what is written there than various (still unsourced) claims which attack Meyer's credibility.

I'm not attacking Meyer's credibility. His statements as reported in the NTSB report are clear.

I am saying the "statement" attributed to him on the TWA 800 web site is complete and utter fiction. Putting words in his mouth that he never said. I cannot find one source anywhere that actually attributes those statements to him except those which use the TWA800 fictious statement.

Quoting damirc (Reply 54):
They are sworn statements by eyewitnesses.

I don't think so. I strongly disagree that people actually made those statements. They are fiction. They are also missing a great deal of information which would support their being 'sworn statements'. They are nothing but nicely faked pieces of paper falsely representng people's stories.

Quoting damirc (Reply 54):
Do you then at least believe the IAMAW's submission or is that also invalid?

The IAMAW and the ALPA submissions are included in the NTSB report. Those are reliable, not the ones on TWA800.

The IAMAW and the pilot's union reps have a job - to try and ensure that nothing in the investigation report reflects poorly on the performance of their members. Not exactly unbiased fact finding.


User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3263 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 55):
What do you think happened then? I know it's probably annoying having me constantly bring up the boat, but do you think an entire crew would just lie about this? And what would be in it for them?

Tough one. I think there's a fair chance that if it was indeed a shootdown that it was not a friendly fire incident as is "usually" explained. There a few (very few!) interesting eye witness reports, and I will quote one of the most interesting ones, that, if true, would open a new possibility.

Eyewitness 73 (presumably, this is from the FOIA acquired documents from the FBI):

... and his friend ... were surfing from approx. 7:00 to 8:15 at the above beach (Smith point outer beach) on the evening of 7/17/96, and were approx. 100 ft off shore. While surfing, they noticed a white "Pro Line" type fiberglass boat, which appeared to be 19-20 feet in length. This boat was approx. 300 ft further out in the water, making it approx. 400 ft. from the shore. The boat was occupied by two dark haired white males, who were no tishing and ... noted the boat was not anchored. At approximately 8:15 ... and his friend ... stopped surfing, departed the beach and began to make their way to "Great Gun Beach" marina which was directly north of where they had been surfing, but over the sand dune, and on the inlet. At approximately 8.30 PM as ... and ... were pulling away from the marina dock in their boat, ... noted a flare rising from the ocean side of the sand dune, in the vicinity of where he and ... had been surfing, and in the general vicinity of where the aforementioned boat had been. (this eyewitness report can be found on page 144 on http://raylahr.entryhost.com/FBI.pdf ). This is the option that is often overlooked - that was an intentional shootdown.

Now after that "flare-type" object was fired we have dozens of reports of an orange/red type object ascending to the skies leaving a white trail. After some time this flare type object reached a point higher than TWA800 and in an arc descended towards TWA800. Now here is where the problems arise.

There is no certainty that the missile actually detonated on impact, actually the evidence does speak strongly against it. There is however the famed IB-377 fragment from the fuselage just aft of the L3 door that showed both inbound penetration (smallish), and the skin near the L3 door "... had various degrees of scraping, dimpling and fracturing." (this item was sent to the Brookhaven National Laboratory, but again - the reports are missing in action). (reference to this paragraph is on Page 8 of http://twa800.com/pdf/brookhaven-report.pdf ).

Now, where exactly is the L3 door - straight above the wings (the closest seating rows being 28 and 29) and also right above the CWT that exploded without a doubt. So do we have any other indication, that there might have been something else in that area?

Here's the quote (Page 18 of http://twa800.com/exhibits/missileanalysis.pdf ) from the "TWA flight 800 Missile Impact Analysis by Richrd Bott, Survivability Division, Systems Engineering Department, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, CA":

"Left Side Hole From STA 1040-1241, Stringer 26L to 29L.... it is physically possible that the aft end of this hole could be an entry hole because of the missing substructure: but entry angles are extremely limited because of the surrounding structure, such as wing, trailing-edge flap and landing gear bay upper skin, none of which show any significant signs of smearing or penetrations. The most likely entry angle would range from an azimuth of 100-135 from the nose of the aircraft and an elevation of -5 to -60 degrees from the horizontal plane of the aircraft (ie from the front left, but pointing downwards).... Interestingly only one armrest from the adjacent row of seats (row 28L) has been positively identified. Row 27L seats have been recovered, and the two inboards seats are relatively intact. The flight attendant's seats just aft of row 28L are burn-damaged, but don't exhibit significant signs of distorting or penetration".

So we thus far have the possibility of a "streak/flare-like" object travelling upwards from the water surface to an altitude above TWA800, that arced downwards and toward TWA800 where it might have exploded close to TWA800 and might have penetrated the skin of the aircraft. It is also worth pointing out that the upper skin of the left wing was very fragmented, especially when compared to the upper skin of the right wing - as seen on Figure 3, Page 13 of http://twa800.com/exhibits/missileanalysis.pdf ). Worth reading is the Conclusion which does not discount the possiblity of a missile/manpad launched missile (albeit pointing out that it would be nearly impossible to prove or disprove such a theory).

So okay - was there anything else that is unexplained thus far? Well, it turns out that the medical examiner found some 20 similar pieces during the autopsies. These pieces were approximately 5 mm in diameter and charcoal colored (the item is refered to as IB-28, the initial description is on page 9 of http://twa800.com/pdf/brookhaven-report.pdf - with the analysis on Page 10 of the same document). Quote: "SEM analysis that the material was multiphase having a base matrix containing Al and Ti .... Three other distrinct areas could be observed, two were similar to the matrix, but contained significant amounts of Zr (Zirconium), the other was mostly Al with Ca, Ba (Barium) and Ce. Now, Zirconium and Barium as materials are somewhat suspect and could be pointing towards a missile. How such pellets could be embedded in the victims of TWA 800 is somewhar odd. The origin of these pellets could never be established.

So ... what about the CIA produced animation about the zoom climb of TWA 800 (the canon version of TWA 800 claims that when the CWT exploded TWA800 in turn climed a few thousand feet and that is what the eye witnessed had reported as the rising streak ...). Let me point you to Attachment II (TWA Flight 800 Radar Analysis by FBI-Contracted Radar Expert Michael O'Rourke) on http://flight800.org/FIRO_pet_attach.pdf (starting with page 15 of this document). First item to note in this document is on page 18 - "The above information indicates that some portion or component of the aircraft kicked out to the right nearly immediately after loss of the transponder signal and experienced a throw to the right of the aircraft's flight track of between 0.25 and 0.5 nm. Once it lost the momentum that caused its departure from the aircraft, the part or parts associated with this debris descended to the ocean surface very near vertically with minimal lateral movement." Interestingly that does seem to fit with a strike from the left. And about that climb - it may be that it never happened. On the same document read from page 24 onwards - word of warning - this is not original documentation, but FIRO derived data. The radar data does seem to indicate that TWA800 sped up from 356kts to 380kts after the event - which is slightly inconsistent with a climb, and it would rather point towards an immediate descent.

And as pointed to before: http://twa800.com/iamaw/iamaw_submission.pdf is well worth a read - especially since it's only 10 pages long. Of special note: "The damage to the L3 door area is significant for two reasons. The first is relative proximity of the L3 door to the splatter deposits on WCS and the seconds is the damage to areas near the L3 door that appear to originate from the exterior of the aircraft. The following are the damaged areas of the L3 door:...
.. the direction of force that caused the locks removal from the forward frame ... damage to the floor area under the L3 jumpseat. Approximately nineteen holes in the fuselage below the L3 door that appear to originate from the exterior of the aircraft. Deformation to the fuselage below the window belt forward of the L3 door.
".

Anyways ... I'm still not 100% convinced that it was the short circuit in the FQIS that brought down TWA 800. What I can not explain is the fact that there is no reason not to find it was a missile if that is indeed what has happened. So this is why the official explanation makes more sense. But as said - I'm not convinced of it fully.

D.


User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 56):
I am saying the "statement" attributed to him on the TWA 800 web site is complete and utter fiction. Putting words in his mouth that he never said. I cannot find one source anywhere that actually attributes those statements to him except those which use the TWA800 fictious statement.

Okay. Your right to do so   I have been intentionally quiet when you described how much legal in fees it would be cost for a simple ANG Pilot to sue the FIRO for a statement that is published on their site. Would it change your mind if you were aware, that the same Mr. Frederick C. Meyer is an attorney in his civilian life? I actually wonder what he would say if he were to be directly contacted ^^. His e-mail address can be found online (as long as his office phone number).

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 56):
I don't think so. I strongly disagree that people actually made those statements. They are fiction. They are also missing a great deal of information which would support their being 'sworn statements'. They are nothing but nicely faked pieces of paper falsely representng people's stories.

I think you have it wrong. These are the completed witness reports. You are refering to the NTSB witness reports - actually the NTSB did none of the witness reports - they were transmitted witness reports from the FBI, initially only 448 at first and the complete set only when the NTSB discovered some 200 witness reports were missing from the relayed material.

In regards to the IAMAW Submission - please find it (if you can) on the NTSB site .. it was previously located at http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/exhibits/IAMAW_submission.pdf - but it is nowhere to be found these days. If I'm correct the documents linked is the one that was submitted to the NTSB, and was previously located also on the NTSB site - however these days I can not find it anywhere - DMS on NTSB is timing out ... would appreciate it if you have a link that may clear up any inconsistencies.

D.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Quoting damirc (Reply 57):

Well I am on duty now so I just skimmed through your post. While I still disagree, I'm at least glad you are not pinning blame on a whole crew of sailors. A random, small operation is a lot easier to swallow. The cconspiracy theorists that assume every single government, military, and police officer is in on *insert cover up here* are completely ridiculous.

I guess to follow your post is a why? I can't think of any government reaction that resulted except for things relating to fuel tanks (which unsurprisingly fits right in to the NTSB report) and no terrorist group claimed responsibility. Terrorists don't kill just for. Kicks, they want people to know so their cause gets attention

All the conspiracy theorists are presenting are a few odd facts mixed in with a lot of shaky evidence or pretty outlandish motives



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3248 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
I guess to follow your post is a why? I can't think of any government reaction that resulted except for things relating to fuel tanks (which unsurprisingly fits right in to the NTSB report) and no terrorist group claimed responsibility. Terrorists don't kill just for. Kicks, they want people to know so their cause gets attention

As pointed out - this is where I am also lost. Ramzi Yousef was a guest of the government in 1996, and his trial was in progress (he was actually convicted for the Bojinka Plot in September 1996). And as you correctly stated ... none of the usual suspects stepped forward to claim responsibility.

Some time ago I've read an interesting article that debated that TWA800 was an unintended target (no clue where I've actually found that tidbit of information). Namely - TWA800 was a bit early that evening due to the fact that it was classified as a Lifeguard flight and it was given priority departing (it was carrying human tissue for transplantation to Paris). Around the same time an ElAl 747 classic was also departing JFK - and it would've left JFK earlier than TWA 800 from what I recall. Both airplanes had reasonably similar color schemes (when viewed from below) - both were predominantly white, with TWA800 having a red cheatline and the ElAl a blue cheat line.

If it was retribution for the capture of Ramzi Yousef that the terrorists would have stepped forward no matter what they hit. In the second case there would be a possibility of the terrorists rather keeping quiet once they realized they've hit the incorrect plane. Possible, but not probable.

Anyway - I hope you'll have more time to read through the links to confirm the quotation for yourself   Anyways.. work calls  

D.


User currently offlineJyang772 From United States of America, joined May 2013, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3161 times:

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 10):
This thread is going to get interesting, let me grab my popcorn....

Ahem...



User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3124 times:

I wasn't even going to get involved in this conversation, but I must ask an amatuer question. If a missle, accidental friend or targeting foe, were responsible for this tragedy, wouldn't SOME evidence of that vehicle have been recovered? I should imagine that a nuclear device might vaporize itself upon detonation, but wouldn't some fragments of a more pedestrian SAM leave behind traces? I am under the impression that the ocean floor was practically microscopically processed for bits and pieces. Just wondering...again. regards...jack


all best; jack
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 62):

Yes, I think so that you'd find fragments of a larger missile. If you want to cover up using a large SAM, you would have to dredge the ocean floor before any other party (NTSB, FBI...) does. Otherwise, they would be liable to find evidence of that missile.

A shoulder-fired SAM shouldn't have the range catch up with a 747 at 15'000 ft. The FIM-92 Stinger's maximum range would be maxed out, and the Stinger is infrared-guided, and would rather destroy the engines than the fuselage. The Rapier SAM has a maximum ceiling of 10'000 ft, so it is out too.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 20):
You want us to believe there were 150 people outside after sunset watching an airplane fly at 13-15,000 ft seven or eight miles off shore.


A sultry evening in July on Long Islands East End will have far more than 150 people by the waters edge on the South Shore of the Hampton's. You have Yacht clubs, Weddings, Private home parties, fund raisers and beach side bars. The night of the 800 event was a classic, Perfect Long Island night until...

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 24):
The US Navy was not doing any live rocket weapons exercises or testing that day. No missiles with motors were put on rails that day.


And so says James Kallstrom...and I say BS. Grumman @ Calverton, 7 miles to the north, would regularly test weapons systems in their F-14, Radar Tracking and other exercises in MOA 106B just to the south of Westhampton beach/Gabreski Airport [FOK]. While I personally have spent hundreds of hours surfing off these very beaches and thousands of hours flying and working @ FOK airport, I can assure you, live munitions have regularly been spent off the coast of Long Islands south shore however in all my years of enjoying the east end I have never, never seen military warships off the coast. Such was not the case this night, while I personally did not witness any Naval vessels off the beach hundreds identified a destroyer and surfaced submarine.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 15):
but took some type of delay while in New York.


Your mentioned delay was blamed on a rogue piece of luggage. The real story behind the delay is the airframe N93119 was scheduled to deliver a P&W JT-9 to France via a wing mounted pod attached to inboard wing stores. The engine was being delivered by the Aegis Group to JFK from Long island but was hung up in traffic on long Islands 495, the notorious LIE, worlds largest "parking lot". It was then decided the aircraft could hold no longer and was dispatched. My source?...My friend dispatched the engine and other TWA mechanic friends of mine @ JFK took me to the pod @ JFK to photo document it myself. It rested in the same corner of the hanger since the event till AA took over the facility.
As for the wreckage...much of the fuselage was reconstructed as most here are aware of and now rests somewhere in a hangar in VA as a study subject to up and coming NTSB students. What most don't know as well is ...where is the rest of the non constructed wreckage today?...According to the FBI, TWA 800 is still an open ended investigation. The wreckage was scrapped and destroyed in a north shore Long Island scrap yard mandated by the NTSB secretly. While they claim family members were made aware of this, those members that told me said they were never notified of this and this angered them. If this event is still an open ended investigation, then the scrapped wreckage would be considered evidence. Still today about 4 tons of the debris remains on the ocean floor. While surfing out east every once and a while I will see Nomex pieces and syntactic foam in the beach debris...a stark reminder of the sad, eary night out in Westhampton...one night I will never forget.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3083 times:

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 15):
After the screws are removed there are three snap closed latches that hold the panel closed which is further secured by the three screws.

Several access panels exist in the fairing area and are quickly and easily opened if you know how to operate a Hartwell latch...just PUSH.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3071 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 62):
wouldn't SOME evidence of that vehicle have been recovered?

James Kallstrom hired local fishing boats out of Shinnecock Inlet to dredge the Ocean Bottom with specially manufactured nets. This after all the debris they wanted to extract from the ocean was complete. Long after the black boxes were recovered. The fisherman were not excited 'bout missing their fishing season but were given offers they could not/ should not refuse. While the idea of the US Navy taking down a commercial transport vessel by mistake is a stretch, I don't for one minute believe a spark detonated 50 gallons of Jet A in a 20 x 20 x 7 room and completely decimated a 747. That 50 gallons requires atomization. As far as the ambient ground temp @ JFK was toasty, the aircraft was well enough into flight where cooling and tank venting would have already commenced. My cousin flew KC-135's in Iraq, Ground temps up to 105F all with 72,000lbs of Jet Fuel on board. Never was an issue.


User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

soon7x7; Interesting about the fishing boats hired to dredge for debris, but you never stated the outcome. I'm assuming they found nothing (?)

BTW, your comments about 72,000 lbs of fuel at high ambient wouldn't necessarily produce an explosion. A full tank of fuel is far less dangerous than an empty or almost empty tank because of the fumes when subjected to an ignition source . The residual fumes ignite explosively whereas full tanks usually extinguish the ignition source because of lack of sufficient oxygen. Am I wrong here? regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineGrisee08 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3013 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is all I want to say. The NTSB may be a government agency, but there is no price tag on safety at the NTSB. They would not gain anything by covering up anything. Their job is to figure out what happened, and make recommendations on how to fix it. They did that, and to my knowledge, this has not happened again. Which means they did their job, and they did it right. Modifications were made, and 747s, which had been in the air for over 25 years at that point continued to fly and get Ma and Pa Kettle to their destinations. 800 was an accident, albeit a tragic accident, but we have to move forward. Nothing we do, or say will bring back the lives lost. God rest them! Too many "What Ifs" exist with this topic. Live and learn to let go of them.


You're Losing The Game!
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3007 times:

Quoting Grisee08 (Reply 68):

   

One can ask the "cui bono?" question. Whom does the whole stuff serve?

Us. The passengers. The air crews.


If TWA 800 had been shot down, you could not learn anything about making aviation safer. If TWA 800 had been shot down by the US Navy – like in the Vincennes/Iran Air disaster – there would be only recommendations in order to make Navy operations safer. In the Vincennes disaster, Captain William C. Rogers III was known to be trigger-happy, and there was criticism leveled at the computer user interfaces aboard the USS Vincennes.

But these things have not helped making civil aviation safer.

By assuming an engineering error the NTSB has chosen the most prudent way to act. If they recommend anything about a faulty wiring, it will make flight a lot more safer than assuming that the A/C hat been shot down.


David

[Edited 2013-05-17 13:56:29]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13140 posts, RR: 15
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2977 times:

Conspiracies like as to TWA 800 in part are popular for a number of reasons.

Many don't want to believe that some mechanical or human failure caused such a disaster. With TWA 800 that is complicated by the fuel tank explosion officially accepted reason for it's demise. It is something few understand how and why it could have happened, especially in mid-flight.

At first, the government took the attitude that this was an act of terrorism, as it happened at a time of other terror attacks against the USA, possible revenge for the Gulf War, that TWA is an "American" company.

Others go by bad observations, some see what they want to see or only see if from one perspective in vision, possible prejudice as to who to give blame to.Think of the old story of the Blind Men and the Elephant.

That some wanted someone else to keep the blame away from them. TWA wanted to blame anyone but themselves to limit their liability.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2901 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 67):
soon7x7; Interesting about the fishing boats hired to dredge for debris, but you never stated the outcome. I'm assuming they found nothing (?)


Last I heard was more dredging was planned for several more weeks and after what was called a "good catch"...further dredging was cancelled and that was the end.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 67):
BTW, your comments about 72,000 lbs of fuel at high ambient wouldn't necessarily produce an explosion. A full tank of fuel is far less dangerous than an empty or almost empty tank because of the fumes when subjected to an ignition source . The residual fumes ignite explosively whereas full tanks usually extinguish the ignition source because of lack of sufficient oxygen. Am I wrong here? regards...jack


While this is true Jet A requires misting/atomization...or a spark in a lean environment. According to the TWA MX. I met N93119 was one of there better maintained airframes and they stated to me the thought of routing bundling high voltage wire runs w/ low voltage wire runs that concern themselves with the fuel tank sensors and pick up was a bunch of "Hoarse __it" to quote them.

Quoting Grisee08 (Reply 68):
This is all I want to say. The NTSB may be a government agency, but there is no price tag on safety at the NTSB. They would not gain anything by covering up anything. Their job is to figure out what happened, and make recommendations on how to fix it.


Until TWA800 the NTSB was always the agency to spear head crash investigations and if any fowl play was in question the FBI was invited to chine in and conduct their own investigations. With TWA800,1/2 hour after the incident I was out @ KFOK. The overwhelming presence of FBI surprised me. You have to understand that in midsummer out in the Hamptons, Partying, A-List Fund raisers, Backyard parties and sustained "Spring break like atmosphere exists". That is the East End. The presence of all the FBI had me wondering what was going on. I flew that airport every Sat/Sun for 21 years and knew what was normal, what was not. NO TWA Rep, No FAA, No NTSB, just Feds. Something was not correct in the Hampton's that night. Subsequently James Kallstrom mandated Robert Francis from the NTSB take a back seat at all press conferences which Robert Francis clearly was not happy with as evident by his demeanor around Kallstrom. In short, no love existed between the two. The NTSB was only allowed to conduct their own investigation after much of the very suspect debris had been sent out for forensics and ...disappeared.

I've been to other major transport crashes and investigations were conducted differently as well as the handling of the debris.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 70):


While I don't suspect our Navy took this airframe out by mistake, I absolutely don't agree the center wing /wire arc theory at all. Too many other aspects of this unfortunate event don't add up. The CIA Climb Theory of gaining 3,200 ft after losing the Section 41/42 into the ocean is aerodynamically impossible. When did the CIA become Aerodynamic engineers?. The P-3 Orion, type you never see over Long Island unless transiting...2 INOP XPndrs?...In NY Airspace?
Net...Friend of my woman worked in ISP Tracon. He told her he personally observed a target approach TWA 800. Anotherfriend of ours worked for the ME. She stated the entrance of projectiles and debris into the passengers torsoes entered with forces indicative of high pressure explosions. Anothe friend and pilot was travelling Eastbound over the beaches pointed directly @ the area of the accident and witnessed a rising missile. He was called in to be a witness and what resulted was a very nervous man that was told "what he didn't;'t witness". The general press was allowed to go out of a US coast guard cutter for the day to document the recovery. They were only allowed to get to one mile to Grapple and the Grasp. Can't do much with that. Other crashes I have covered the press was always pretty much free to roam, some exceptions of course. I personally turned in three bags of beach found debris...one to the NTSB up in Hauppauge at the hotel they stayed at. They were completely disinterested...should have saved gas and thrown it out. Secondly, the Coast guard Station @ Shinnecock Canal, they were very interested and thankful even asking for the LAT/ LONG of the location. This debris was going to be eaten up by incoming tide so that's why I bagged it. Thirdly, smith point Park. Found much airframe parts and a boot w a foot in it. Nasty...SAD. The police took that. Lastly...the families themselves feel this accident has much more of a story than they were initially led to believe. Hindsight is 20/20. Looking back terrorism was affecting US Aircraft abroad and its passengers long before TWA800 accident. However the new wave of terrorism seemed to have its roots about the same time and while keeping threats and perhaps some actions by groups against the US, the US government had much to gain at keeping known state sponsored events like this if it were as well as the Commercial carriers that serve the North Atlantic Route to Europe and the middle east out of JFK. It is in fact the only route used. If it were in fact becoming a target range for terrorists, this would do much to reduce the appetite of international travelers from both sides of the Atlantic. This accident occurred about the same time as othe freak crashes that Have Never been duplicated by the same respectable airframes...Swissair, MD-11, Air Egypt 767-300, AA 587, TWA 800. Coincidence?..perhaps...suspect ?...I think to a degree...Have we seen the same identical accidents/ incidents in the respective types for the same reasons?...nope.

For those that just can't handle the fact that the US government could or would never hold back information...just watch the three current scandals on tonights news...and its old news...another day, another politician, another scandle. SNAFU...
N93119 fuselage section


User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week ago) and read 2843 times:

Well,

some searching netted me this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNT7EQObFnA

(Mr. Meyer speaking in front of the camera what he saw).

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 62):
I wasn't even going to get involved in this conversation, but I must ask an amatuer question. If a missle, accidental friend or targeting foe, were responsible for this tragedy, wouldn't SOME evidence of that vehicle have been recovered?

Very good question. In regards to the potential "missile" at least to my knowledge no materials that could potentially be linked to one have ever been found. The after effects of the potential missile might have been the potential PETN/RDX traces between rows 17 and 28, and the pellets embedded in the victims (the ones I've linked to above, the ones with Zirconium and Barium).

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 69):

By assuming an engineering error the NTSB has chosen the most prudent way to act. If they recommend anything about a faulty wiring, it will make flight a lot more safer than assuming that the A/C hat been shot down.

Another excellent point. During the investigation they have found plenty of frayed wiring on an airframe (N93119' sister ship so to say) that did lead to improvements.

D.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2832 times:

Quoting damirc (Reply 72):
Zirconium and Barium

Zirconium alloy is used in atomic reactors, Barium is a fission product... what's their use in aviation, if there are any?


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2813 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 73):

The only remotely close ingredients that you could peg as having any radioactive qualities on the 747 would be the Depleted Uranium flight control counter balance weights and /or the EXIT signs with Tritium in them. Other than that, Zirconium, Barium???...Don't know.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 75, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 74):

Zirconium isn't radioactive. It is used because zircalloys are very corrosion resistant and do not easily capture neutrons That's why casings of nuclear fuel rods are made of zircalloys.

But:

High temperature parts such as combustors, blades and vanes in jet engines and stationary gas turbines are to an increasing extent being protected by thin ceramic layers. These ceramic layers are usually composed by a mixture of zirconia and yttria.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium#Applications)



David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2759 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 5):
I am not a conspiracy believer in general. That being said the TWA 800 incident is the only conspiracy that I think makes any sense and I can see the government wanting to put the blame on anyone but themselves.

I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories either; (except for the ones that have been PROVEN to be true, with PHYSICAL evidence ); (which this one was NOT) (at least, to my knowledge)

The only thing that I can think of that would be more difficult to physically prove than the cause of an in-flight explosion on an airliner with solid evidence, would be to prove a "theory" with NO evidence. (the former being very difficult, the latter being impossible)

Flight 800 was brought down by degraded insulation on wiring running through a fuel tank. fuel tanks are relatively safe as long as they are full of fuel; but after all the fuel has been removed (and burned by the engines), you have a very large volume of VERY flamable vapors, needing only one thing to create an explosion; 1 small spark;

I spent more than 10 years loading and transporting gasoline, av-jet, av-gas, and other kinds of flamable liquids in tank trucks; we spent countless hours attending mandatory safety meetings, dealing with the safe handling and transportation of petroleum products; I can tell you this; a LOADED tank truck is a "potential" GREAT BIG fire if it's involved in a wreck; by contrast, a trank truck that has just delivered a load of gasoline, ( and is now completely empty of liquid, but is completely FULL of gasoline vapor........is a potential "great big EXPLOSION"; ( always remember that when you are anywhere near one in traffic ) (the same exact things apply to jet fuel, carried in the fuel tanks of big airplanes)

All this talk about "eye witnesses"...........ask ANY prosecutor, any judge, any lawyer, what the LEAST reliable "element" is in any court case, and they will all say the exact same thing.........."eye witnesses".

Note;

I typed this yesterday, than didn't get around to posting it; so this is what I firmly believed, YESTERDAY; today, (just now, in fact), I spent over an hour reading all of damric's posts, THEN I read (and re-read) soon7X7's posts; now what do I believe ? boy.......I'm not sure; both have obviously spent a LOT of time and effort in coming to their conclusions. My "opinion" ? I have always maintained that "opinions" are rarely, (if ever), any better than the facts which support them; and soon7X7 certainly has (or had), a hell of a lot more facts to supports his conclusions than I have, as regards the tragedy of TWA800.



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 77, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2735 times:

The deep trouble with witnesses is that they *always* try to make sense of the stuff they have seen. For good evidence, one needs to freeze somebody's brain at the instant of the disaster, bring them into an intensive care unit, and be ready to take down their testimonials. 

As a sidethought, I have to strictly separate results and my interpretations as a biologist. The "results" part of any publication is as matter-of-factly as possible. It is not open to any subjective deliberation. Every person must be able to see the same results if he or she were in the lab with me.

The "discussion" part is the stuff where I can give my more or less objective judgement. That's where I can say... "well, according to my education and experience... blahblah...".

That's the problem with witnesses who, for the most part, do not have any experiences with observing missiles or explosions. Chances are 99% that they have seen such. In Hollywood movies.

If any witness is sure of having seen a missile, it's reason for suspicion. In the National Air 747 crash in Bagram, we've seen how perspective can distort flight path and A/C attitude by a huge amount.

So if we read that the witness has "seen" a missile, we need to understand what mental image of missiles the witness actually had before observing the incident.

And there's a good reason why in air accident investigation reports witnesses' reports don't count as much as metallurgical samples, FDR, CVR... but they are extremely valuable when it comes to stuff that only witnesses can observe, like a pre-flight dispute between air crew members, or a repeated cowboy attitude when it comes to landings in low visibility.

The TWA800 website's insistence on witness testimonials may stem from legal practice, where witnesses are paraded in and out of the courtroom.


David

[Edited 2013-05-20 15:04:59]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 78, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2725 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 77):
The deep trouble with witnesses is that they *always* try to make sense of the stuff they have seen.
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 77):
That's the problem with witnesses who, for the most part, do not have any experiences with observing missiles or explosions. Chances are 99% that they have seen such. In Hollywood movies.
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 77):
So if we read that the witness has "seen" a missile, we need to understand what mental image of missiles the witness actually had before observing the incident.

Exactly, that is what I've been trying to say, although not very successfully. I'm not very eloquent with words. The most compelling evidence for the shootdown of TWA 800 is, IMO, the eye-witnesses, but it's hard to not take what eye-witnesses see with a grain of salt.

You pointed out (and I did earlier) that 99.9% of the population has never seen a 747 blowing up, a missile hitting something, etc.

Also, I saw a TV program where they had a fake UFO scene with fake government or military personnel attending to it and had people stumble upon it. Afterwards, they interviewed the people and they were way off the mark. I want to say they also dropped key words which made them "re-remember" what they saw, I forgot. Wish I remembered the show.

So the shaky reliability of eye-witnesses and the lack of other compelling evidence makes me lean heavily towards the official report. Other theories can never be disproven, so they'll never die, but until they can provide better evidence, I'm gonna have to go with the more believable version: the government version. If the government covered it up for real, well, good job government, you win, I'm a sheeple  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 79, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 78):

That's very interesting! I hope you can turn up the specifics of that experiment.  

Something I suggest reading is "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman, a psychological bestseller book. There he presents a plethora of examples where people's "objective" thinking is seriously wrecked.

I can't remember an example that refers to eyewitnesses, but one very stunning example is this...

Real estate agents were asked to provide a figure for the value of a home. Some of the agents were fresh from college, some were experienced. They did not only see the home with their own eyes, but were also randomly given a higher or a lower "neutral" estimate of the home's value, apparently stemming from a third-party agent. The effect? Those who've seen the higher value gave a higher estimate of their own. And it were the experienced real estate agents who, upon questioning, specifically denied being influenced by the third-party estimate.



David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 80, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2708 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 79):
That's very interesting! I hope you can turn up the specifics of that experiment.  

I tried searching but sadly UFO and all my other keywords get millions of unrelated hits. It was just a TV program anyway, so I'd value scientific studies over it anyway. Still interesting though

I'll admit that although I try my best to not be bias, a tiny bit has overcome me and I have done my best to shake it off. It doesn't help that I started out very defensive on this thread since the conspiracy theorists I'm used to arguing are very direct and hostile but damirc and others here have been very civil.

I have looked at everything with an open mind and although I'm not swayed over, I can see their reasoning and respect it. Most the conspiracy theorists I've seen have used garbage evidence, it's pretty bad. One last note, I'm not using conspiracy theorist in a negative way even though it often carries a negative connotation

PS: anyone want to see what I'm talking about when I say illogical conspiracy theorists? Go to the Flat Earth Society's forums... beware, you'll probably rage over their ridiculous claims!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 81, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 75):
Zirconium isn't radioactive

I just referred to any Exotic materials used in the 747 that otherwise may be found in other more critical industries like the Nuclear Industry but you are right...

Yttria???...what is that?


User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 82, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2576 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 77):
That's the problem with witnesses who, for the most part, do not have any experiences with observing missiles or explosions. Chances are 99% that they have seen such. In Hollywood movies.

Well. If you have object A travelling up, and object B travelling from right to left that certainly means that TWA 800 blew up and zoom climbed a couple of thousand feet (while not losing any speed according to the radar, which is a world first!) then yes, people really have no experience observing missiles   (sorry, the cynical me had to write a paragraph ).

Anyways ... be it as it may. There is no one looking into that any further, so I think this is a closed case. I am still not content with the FQIS wiring causing the CWT explosion fully, but that is just me   I certainly appreciate that this debate was a really civil one, so a great thanks to all the participants  

D.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 83, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2573 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 81):
Yttria???...what is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttria-stabilized_zirconia

 
Quoting damirc (Reply 82):
so a great thanks to all the participants

   Thank you too!

Quoting damirc (Reply 82):
(sorry, the cynical me had to write a paragraph ).

That's good. Because we all need to examine our feelings.  

Just imagine this... you see something traveling up. Something exploding. And an hour later you learn that a 747 has exploded, most probably with all lives lost.

There is an enormous pressure on the witnesses to "invent" a story that makes sense to them. Just note that witnesses may feel that they are seen as unreliable when they just say "I've seen something traveling up and then I've seen something exploding".


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2542 times:

One has to know their limitations...sorting out that one is mine...Yttria...I'll take your word on that...thnx anyway...j

User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 85, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2492 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 71):
While this is true Jet A requires misting/atomization...or a spark in a lean environment.

You made a lot of very good points, and I'm not going to argue any of them, but you're a little off base with the above.
There are a lot of misconceptions about petroleum products; having worked for seven years at a Texaco river terminal / bulk distribution center, and having survived a petroleum fire that was caused by faulty equipment, and having been interviewed by a number of very knowledgeable petroleum engineers in the aftermath of that big fire, PLUS having loaded and hauled countless loads of Av/gas and Av/jetA to airlines at CVG, I have learned a bit about jetA and it's properties.

A few facts about different fuels; all petroleum fuels are volatile; ( which is a measure of how readily the fuel combines with oxygen ) gasoline is VERY volatile; Av-jetA is less volatile than gasoline; diesel fuel is less volatile than Av-jetA When you fill a very large fuel tank with fuel, you need to do it with a pretty fair sized hose or pipe, with a fair amount of pressure, or it will take all day to fill the tank; what a lot of people are unaware of is, when you load large quantities of ANY fuel into a fuel tank, it creates a lot of turbulence; the larger the quantity, the more pressure, the greater the turbulence, and the more static charge is created; when tank trucks are being loaded, it's absolutely mandatory that that they are properly grounded, thereby disapating the static charge as fast as it's being created.

Most people assume that gasoline is more dangerous to load and unload, (because of it's much greater volatility than Av-jetA), but the fact is just the opposite; Av-jetA is actually MORE hazardous to handle than gasoline, because of one property it has; It creates MUCH more static charge as it's being loaded and unloaded, and in "sloshing" around in a fuel tank, than gasoline does. I should mention, I didn't learn all of this from reading a book; I learned much of it from several Texaco engineers, several days after an 8,000 gallon tank truck one of our drivers was loading with Av-jetA created an arc as he was pulling the loading pipe up out of a compartment; I was standing on the loading rack operating the meters, about 5 feet from the pipe which caused the arc, and we BOTH saw it; at the time this happened, I was loading two tank trucks with gasoline, (each with two loading pipes, and each pipe delivering app. 600 gallons per minute ), plus one truck behind the one being loaded with Av-jet; within the next few minutes, the resulting fire destroyed all four tank trucks being loaded, plus two more behind the ones under the loading rack, plus the entire $1,000,000 loading rack, made a permanent cripple out of the driver (who jumped 15 feet onto concrete, and caused my feet and legs to turn dark pruple all the way up to my waist, after running off the loading rack and landing 20 feet away on concrete. Trust me......Av-Jet needs NO "misting" or "atomization" to "ignite"..........all it "need" is ONE spark !

This all happened at the Texaco bulk terminal on the Ohio River in Cincinnat, Ohio, in the 1960's; to this day, it's still the biggest petroleum fire in the entire history of the Cincinnati Fire Department, ( which is the oldest paid fire department in the U.S.)

To understand the difference between a "big fire", and a "big explosion", you would need someone with more knowledge and experience than I have, but I CAN assure you, Av-jetA is very capable of causing either one.



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 85):


I'm a true proponent of rote experience and or those that are closely related to subject matter under discussion. Obviously in your case you know much about fueling, transport of fuels and the characteristics of fuels in different environments. All I know is my own experience from re-fueling aircraft, topping off the trucks @ the fuel farms at the end of the day, etc. So I'm all ears. Having stated the above...post TWA800 event...I was equally close to investigators, the press, family members, the TWA MX that worked on N93119 and the very individual that dispatched her the fate full night. So while I don't site specific sources in my arguments here...it was my close proximity to the event and many years of follow up that has me contributing to this topic. One I have been very passionate about. Post event...I lived in the back of a Ford Taurus station wagon out @ Shinnecock by some summer cottages w/ the press. This event got under my skin. Being a pilot,a mechanic and an aerospace photojournalist...certainly you could understand my enthusiasm. This occurred in my back yard so to speak. When I evening surf on Long Islands south shore I would sit on the board Always watching the evening Euro flights out of JFK eastbound climbing out for their long flight ahead...Still do. It is a common sight here and you can set your watch to it.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 85):
To understand the difference between a "big fire", and a "big explosion", you would need someone with more knowledge and experience than I have, but I CAN assure you, Av-jetA is very capable of causing either one.


Of course...just have to watch the videos of 9/11...Jet-A in a closed environment can burn up to 2000F. At my current job part of my responsibilities is to have performed on every interior we do, Fireblocking tests , Vertical burn tests of every material we install on the aircraft including the adhesives. The follow up FAA paper work is monumental. In short jet aircraft are dangerous firetraps. when something goes wrong...it is bad. Nothing on the airframe could be designed to withstand a complete burn out except the black boxes. So the purpose of the testing I have to perform is to ensure the occupants have the required time to evacuate safely before total consumption.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 85):
Av-Jet needs NO "misting" or "atomization" to "ignite"..........all it "need" is ONE spark !



I'll never dispute an experience you apparently endured however the circumstances to a degree are different than an aircraft in flight with other dynamics adding to the mix like aerodynamic pressures, aircraft speed, ambient temperature, from you say...sounds like a chain reaction Hollywood Style took place. Sounds like you learned how to pray real fast. Jet A throws some heat and you don't have to be close to it!

Either way...Since you familiar with volume can you imagine 50 gallons of Jet A in a 20'X20'X7' room w/ fire stops and baffles decimating a 747.? Ever watch scrapper bust up a 747?...I video tapped (4) Tower air 747's @ JFK getting broken up and have cut up myself fuselage structure, flight control surfaces and JT9 engine cowls myself and I can assure the 747 is one tough structure. N93119 would have had to experience an enormous high pressure event to fall from the sky in the many bits it did.

Consider the Excelaire/Gols midair over the Amazon...the New 737 broke apart during its tumble from altitude as did some of 800, but what ended up on the ground in the Amazon were large sections of the aircraft while N93119 was just bits. Suppose we could go on with this forever and many if not most don't like this topic for whatever reason, many here are pilots and as a pilot myself I am always intrigued by the causes of such events. The sad aspect of lives lost and the gut wrenching truths the families must endure thinking of what their loved ones must have experienced...it serves as a reminder that anyone of us when flying can be a second away from disaster. The NTSB always made it their job to draw conclusions based on the evidence and they were amazing at that task but what I personally witnessed w/ 800 was not your typical follow up investigation. Source?...myself.


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...
To Be Or Not To Be A Flight Attendent posted Sun Jul 9 2000 15:03:12 by Airmale
Cancun During Spring Break: Safe Or Not Safe posted Sun Jan 27 2013 08:57:20 by Elite
Blind Copy (Bcc) Option On E-mail: Ethical Or Not? posted Thu Dec 20 2012 07:02:55 by EDKA
NHL Season Or Not? posted Mon Aug 20 2012 12:20:28 by connies4ever
Slash & Fergie - Good Or Not? posted Fri Nov 12 2010 19:53:24 by YVRLTN
To Buy Or Not To Buy Presenter Dead! (UK TV) posted Mon Mar 1 2010 15:35:16 by LHR380
Surplus PC For 80 Bucks... To Buy Or Not To Buy posted Tue Sep 29 2009 12:52:13 by DesertJets
Fair Or Not Fair.... posted Mon Dec 22 2008 05:03:15 by Cgnnrw
Believe It Or Not, But It's Snowing In Houston posted Wed Dec 10 2008 14:57:11 by OPNLguy
Financial Bailout... Or Not? posted Thu Sep 25 2008 19:45:10 by StuckInCA