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

I loved the book Night Fall. That was the first thing i thought of when I heard the news about the documentary and saw this post. On an unrelated note, I highly recommend all of Nelson DeMille's books, especially his excellent Word of Honor which should be required reading in literature classes, military academies and law schools.

I was always mystified by the accident. Conflicting eyewitness testimony and conflicting scientific testimony is always fascinating. This was a mystery on such a large and tragic scale. I remember reading that US intelligence circles were as mystified by the accident as the civilian world. There wasn't a hint or a rumor of any group taking responsibility. There weren't even any claims of responsibility from people who didn't do it but were trying to make a name for themselves.

The thing that I found most interesting was that the intelligence people decided to have whatever spies they had inside the known terrorist organizations start spreading rumors to that organization that one of their rivals had done the bombing and had gotten away with it. The hope was that that this would spur someone somewhere into saying something like "No, they didn't do it; that was our work." But the article I read said that all of these efforts resulted in nothing more than the terrorists in each organization saying that they too wondered who did it and were glad to know, even if it was a rival.

So in the end, there is conflicting information and evidence and probably no way for us to ever know definitively.

As a former LEO employed in the area during this incident, the information from a number of witnesses (100+) that reported a missile or projectile that ascended just prior to this incident was overwhelming. This was reported by civilians and on and off duty public service workers. All of it was discounted. At the same time, it was reported that the Navy was running exercises about 15 miles offshore, outside of line of sight distance.

sometimes planes just blow up. just a simple fact of life- just like the sometimes a stripper will drop a duce on stage. no need to question it, just move on-

Is that it? We're going with a quantum physics explanation for planes blowing up and strippers pooping on stage?

Stuff happens! Sometimes...

"does it really matter what happened?"

All true. There was also a Navy P-3 in the area at the time of the downing.

I was at the Sikorsky Factory in Bridgeport, CT as the Chief Pilot at the time...the tower guys there had some very interesting radar/transponder tape of the whole incident.

"A lot o' people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch o' unconnected incidents 'n things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything. Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness." ---repo man

So whatever happened to those tapes? Don't leave us hanging... ;)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3VKzqAefBVY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I remember that day VERY well. MY best friends parents were on the plane...they were never found. I had read a lot of info about it. I DO NOT believe in conspiracies...this one, however, stinks like month old tuna.

On a funny side note, on the news the broadcaster said "reports are that the front of the plane sheered off. Experts say that this is very important to maintain flight."

Some of those computer animations of what that plane went through in slow motion are just gut-wrenching. IIRC, the front cabin broke off and the rest of the plane climbed for a bit and then fell. Plenty of passengers had to be awake for the whole ride down. Just gut-wrenching.

Yeah, this wasn't a case of something going wrong at high altitude where hypoxia would keep you sedated.

Sorry for your friends loss. If you don't mind me asking, how did the airline handle the crash in his opinion? We all see the news reports about the crash but what goes on behind the scenes? Do they fly the families to the scene, etc?

The airline handled it very well. In fact, at the eulogy, 3-4 pilots and stewardess showed up and spoke. Afterward, my friend had nothing but positive things to say about their handling of it. He did go up to the Long Island Sound for an event that they held. By that time, he was ready to stop mourning so he only did it to be with his sisters. there was also some sort of financial settlement that he said was reasonable.

I really loved his parents...they were good people. His father took a personal interest in every one of his friends. Before the flight, his father gave me a book from his collection because we had an interesting conversation about the future of the internet.

During the investigation, I never really believed the explanation of the tanks exploding due to I think they said bad bushings between the tanks. It seemed illogical. I also heard a number of reports about people seeing a rocket of some sort going up toward the plane. That was explained as fuel coming out of the plane and then igniting close the the ground and traveling up toward the plane, but I cannot see how that would be possible. I am curious to see what explanation is given now that it is almost 20 years since.

I dont know, I think something would have leaked out by now. People cant keep their mouths shut for that long.

I'm still of the mechanical/electrical, etc, etc.. things fail. school of thought. Not everything has a conspiracy behind it.

The FBI came and got them. Our tower guy was the best and if he thought there was something up, then there was.

I am not a conspiracy type guy...but the way the FBI inserted themselves in the accident investigation was a first for me. I have experience in aircraft mishap investigations and this one was odd from the beginning.

That's just the thing. People haven't been keeping their mouths shut. They were talking about this from the beginning and still do. Then as SeaHawk mentioned, the FBI took over and the nasty rhetoric started. They were labeled as kooks or simply mistaken. Really....mistaken? Now all of a sudden, these same people are conspiracy theorists. So as they lump everyone together in the same category, the peoples interest in the truth wanes.

Those people know what they saw and they include tower controllers, police officer pilots, police officers and just people lounging on the beach or just happened to be looking at something odd that was happening right in front of them.

Just my $.02 having worked for the government long enough to know when to give up the fight.

But the question remains, if it wasn't an accident, then who did it? If it was terrorism, who would do it and why would they keep quiet about it for so long? Could a terrorist group stay quiet this long? The purpose of terorism is to terrorize. I never got why a terrorist would blow up the plane without claiming credit. In the book Night Fall they theorized that bin Laden might have shot the plane down with a missile that didn't contain an explosive head and had some purpose behind not claiming responsibility. I think it was something along the lines of wanting the government to know he was after American interests but that he didn't want it public so he could maintain his relative anonymity. I guess it's possible, I just don't know.

So that raises the next question, if it wasn't an accident and it wasn't a terrorist, then what else could it be? Is it possible it was some sort of government missile fired by accident or that went off course and homed in on a civilian airplane by accident? I have no idea whether such a thing is even possible.

Eyewitness testimony is compelling but highly unreliable. But that doesn't mean that it can be disregarded. It just means that you have to coroborate the eyewitness testimony with independent evidence. And here there is independent evidence that could be seen as corroborating either version of events. I don't believe in conspiracies either, and I suspect there is none here, but I simply have to say that based on the available evidence, I just don't know one way or another.

I haven't thought about the Flight 800 incident in over a decade. Life moves on.

So today, while the Hughesnet guys are upgrading my satellite internet dish (I'm on a wireless card as I type), I'd poked around a little.

The site that pops in the link below is the most interesting since they have great scans of reports, witness accounts, etc. As a warning, the hyperbole factor is set to stun.

Associated Retired Aviation Professionals

Just like how they confiscated all the video from nearby of the plane heading towards and hitting the Pentagon...and all we've seen 12 years later are a couple frames.

This article says there are several cases of Boeing fuel tank explosions. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/opinion/adcock-flight-800/index.html?hpt=hp_t4