Originally Posted by BE911SC (Post 7544801)

Several people saw a shooter on the grassy knoll too. I'm not saying the P-3 guy is a liar or an idiot but sometimes the explanation is simple. One shooter in Dallas, faulty fuel pump and/or wiring in the 747.

Besides, "the government can't do anything right" right? If that's the conventional wisdom with everything else then how come the government is, conversely, so highly skilled at covering up presidential murder conspiracies and airliner explosions inflight?

People are blabbermouths. (Yes, here I am blabbering on the Internet. Point taken.) If TWA 800 had been shot-down by a military missile firing error it would have come out right away. The news media would have feasted on that. Talk about a great story--the national media would have absolutely eaten that up, especially with a Democrat in the White House. (The media is only as "liberal" as its corporate suits allow it to be.) Someone would have uncovered that fact right away. Pierre Salinger, an early proponent of the missile theory, was treated as a wacko by the media. Yeah, they put him on the air, but it was not as a credible commentator but as a sideshow nutcase. It basically ruined his reputation IMO.

Maybe there is a conspiracy. It would have to include all levels of government and all levels of the media. Any one person who tried to shed light on the conspiracy would have to be dealt with. How? Threaten to ruin their career? Or worse, have the "black ops guys" deal with that person? Sounds like that could spin out of control pretty fast and then the rest of the news media swims in fast and starts feasting.

Sometimes the real explanation is the simplest one.

Originally Posted by Flieger (Post 7544746)

Some of those things are inter-related, so I would say it is not 6 individual things having to line up, but I still think it is more plausible than a missile.

Originally Posted by red-beard (Post 7545075)

All 6 would need to happen or it can't go boom. I am NOT on the conspiracy theory of a missile. But the internal tank going boom requires a lot of things all lined up to happen.

Again, if there is a breaker on the fuel pump and the pump is over loaded, it will trip. That trip should occur well before you reach the point of wire damage. But we are also have to be running a pump on an EMPTY TANK. And whatever has to have done what it needed to cause a spark. And the tank had to be above 160F for the vapors to occur that will cause an explosion.

If any one of those things didn't happen. No boom.

Originally Posted by Flieger (Post 7545150)

Where are you getting the flash point from? The few sources I see say it is 100F for Jet-A or kerosene.

Originally Posted by red-beard (Post 7545194)

>140F or 60C

Here is a link to the JP-5 MSDS

http://www.hess.com/ehs/msds/9942JetFuelJP5.pdf

Originally Posted by aston@ultrasw.c (Post 7545335)

Lets say the "damaged wiring" was a breakdown of the insulation that allowed a spark.

Measuring the performance of wiring insulation in situ is actually fairly easy. All you need is a hi-pot tester. This applies several thousand volts to a conductor with a very low current. The current is so low that no damage is done, certainly not to big honking fuel pumps. When the high voltage is applied you can then measure leakage current with is a direct indicator of the health of the insulation.

So why wouldn't the investigators go and measure a sample of the many aircraft of similar age, type etc and report back.

e.g. 1 in 10 of the aircraft have questionable wiring and will be grounded until they can be repaired.

Just requiring pilots to leave a min level of fuel in the tank seems a bit weak for a corrective action.

Originally Posted by Flieger (Post 7545343)

I believe the fuel minimums were before the accident because they knew the fuel pumps would get damaged by running dry. I thought that after the accident the FAA said that they couldn't route wires through the fuel tank anymore on new planes. Not sure what they did about the existing fleet.

Originally Posted by aston@ultrasw.c (Post 7545363)

If the minimum fuel requirement was in place *before* then don't we have operator error? Assuming the residue was less that the required min.

Originally Posted by gordner (Post 7550374)

This incident led to a lot more than a simple fuel minimum. This was the event that triggered an airworthiness directive requiring grounding the fleet and verification of the wiring prior to dispatch. That was the immediate action, the long term action was removal from service of that style of wiring for that application, and a complete revamp of the disign requirements of fuel tank wiring for all aircraft. Many years later I routinely do testing on aircraft fuel systems that are driven directly by this incident, on many types of aircraft.

Lessons in aviation tend to be expensive, and are rarely disregarded.

Originally Posted by tcar (Post 7565522)

C to C AM?

Those nuts all believe in 'Chemtrails', rusty 'tools and gears' lying around on the surface of Mars, and other nonesense.

That show is for entertainment only.

Zero facts.

Except for the the weekend guys sometimes, but never on weeknights.

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 7565263)

Tonight on C2C-AM for anyone who's interested:

Investigating TWA 800 - Shows - Coast to Coast AM