TWA Flight 800 - Revisited
 

I was watching ABC news this morning on TV and they covered this topic a little bit.

Documentary aims to 'break silence' on crash of TWA Flight 800
Documentary aims to 'break silence' on crash of TWA Flight 800 - CNN.com
The brief portion of the interview I saw had the chief investigator say that a couple of FBI guys outside of the investigation showed up one day and told them what the official story line was going to be.

The team of about six lead investigators involved have waited until they were retired to speak out for fear of being fired and losing their pensions.

If you were able to watch any CBC (Canadian) news back in 1996, you would have serious doubts that anything other than a missile was the cause.

I'm trying to find something from 1996 from the CBC which I remember.

No luck so far, practically pre-internet. Just finding a terrible CBC conspiracy thing hosted by an annoying woman.

Archived on video?
http://www.css.washington.edu/emc/title/7033

I remember it very well. I flew the return leg of the same flight exactly one year after the crash. The plane didn't fly for some reason and I was stranded in Paris for a day. The flight crew had the heebee jeebees. Not really confidence inspiring.

Larry

The idea that the fuel tank exploded was always bunk. Kerosene is not like gasoline. It doesn't produce explosive vapors.

The story is now on Yahoo and Google news, whereas a few hours ago you had to do a search for it and typically found only old articles and Wikipedia stuff.


TWA Flight 800 Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie
By Dashiell Bennett | The Atlantic Wire – 1 hr 59 mins ago
TWA Flight 800 Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie

What I am trying to say is that under normal temps and conditions, it does not produce explosive vapors. Normal operating conditions on an aircraft shouldn't produce an explosive fuel/air mixture. The vapor pressure is too low.

This is a very interesting story based on the events of July 17, 1996. Well worth reading, even if you're not a conspiracy buff.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1371653199.jpg

This is exactly right. I worked for Boeing at the time (and had nothing to do with any of the investigation) but paid attention to this Flt 800 stuff. At one point early in the investigation, Boeing engineers went on record as saying that there was no way fuel vapor in the center fuel tank could be made to explode.

They even did a test where they took a spare tank, added the approximate amount of fuel in the tank and then added an ignition source and they couldn't get it to ignite.

That was the last we ever heard about that. In the end, the official report said that the center fuel tank exploded. :rolleyes:

I'm not jumping on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, but I trust the engineers more than I trust the politicians.

It does if it gets above it's flash point of 125 degrees F (jet A) but that shouldn't happen under normal circumstances.

That is what I was inelegantly trying to say. The temp in the Fuel tank should not have been above the flash point of Jet-A. If it was, then there was something else serious going on.

By comparison, the flashpoint for gasoline can be as low as -45F.

`I was still on active duty in the Air force flying C5's when the "accident" occured and after rtirement in 1999 I worked for Boeing at a 747 training center for 9 years. Myself and a lot of others,that were fluent with the 747 classic,felt (unoffically) that a 'spark" in the center fuel tank was total BS. Uh yea Red -beard,,, jet A will explode, as will hydraulic fluid if vaporized. But that didn't happen... We'll see .....but I'm bettin we will never know the truth.

Yup, it aint easy to get jet A to burn.
It has to be above 125 F, it has to be between around .7% and 5% mixture in air, and it needs a fairly robust ignition source.


Compare that to pure hydrogen, it's hard to keep that stuff from burning.

Edgar,

I was a Gas Turbine engineer for many years. For the old GE units, the #2 would need about 1200-1400 psi to create the fine mist. Later, we used compressed air to atomize the liquid fuels.

Under the existing circumstances for an empty fuel tank at take off even in July at JFK, the tank would not have had explosive vapors.

Tell me about it. I had to design purge systems for coal gasification fuel systems for gas turbines in the 1990s. You can't purge with air, until after you've purged with something else! They used either CO2 or Nitrogen. My solution was to use methane.

The flammability limit on methane is 20 to 1 (air to methane) on the low end to about 4-5 to 1 on the high end.

Hydrogen is 20 to 1 on the low end and 1 to 20 on the high end! It burns in almost any condition. Very dangerous to attempt to use as a motor fuel!

loved the ending even more..

Rika

Zackly, the worst part about H2 is the LEL to HEL spread. That stuff will burn super rich or super lean, it just doan care.
We use up about 70 million scuffs of it a day here at 2000 psi and it makes me nervous.

If the Navy shot it down on purpose, why not do so much farther out where no landlubbers could see it and recovery was so quick? If by accident, WTF? How can they even think of conducting tests near a busy civilian flight path? Even N. Korea gives warnings for ships to steer clear of the LZ radius. Why did anyone believe the fuel spark theory would fly? Wouldn't it have happened many times before if that were the true cause?

That is WAY over the auto-ignition pressure. Keep them pipes leak free!

In the early reporting of the incident, there were two witnesses who were boating in that area (south of Long Island), and they both reported seeing a missile flying up from the surface and hitting TWA 800.

Those witnesses were silenced pretty quickly.

__

Ever hear of the USS Scorpion?

I certainly don't know what caused the demise of 800 but I tend to view the information our government provides us with skepticism. That's only prudent IMO.

The USS Scorpion Buried at Sea