TWA 800: Breaking -- Air Traffic Controller Tells All

To which you posted the photo of a Auxiliary Power Unit in the tail of an aircraft that was NOT a 747 claiming that something in the tail couldn't heat the fuel tanks . . . a totally non-responsive rebuttal to Moonman62's very correct and on topic point. Moonman62 was right, and you were completely off the deep end

You posted the salient points I made, and still do not understand them?

The under the wing vents for the air condition system are only used in flight. They do not operate when the aircraft is sitting on the ground. When the aircraft is sitting on the ground, they use a ground based air condition system to pipe cool air directly into the airplane's main duct.

As for the APU, I asked him how he expected the wing fuel tanks to get hot when the engines weren't running, and then I showed that not even the auxiliary power system (which is ran on the ground to provide power for a sitting aircraft, and which was discussed earlier) would heat the wings.

No, i'm not off the deep end, you are just wading through an old conversation and pulling out bits which are out of the context of the entire original conversation, and trying to do.... something with it.

I'm not sure where you are going with this old thread, but I get that the gist of your efforts are to demonstrate that I have made some sort, any sort, of mistake.

Now I don't know why you are finding this old thread so interesting, but I no longer see it as relevant to much. I possess information which I am sorry to say, you and most of the rest of the nation do not have, and so far as i'm concerned, I know the answer regarding what happened.

I will see my source later this year, and I will once again ask my source if there is any way that my source's information can be gotten out to the public.

But given the nature of what it is, the source of this particular information would be instantly identifiable, and I cannot blame a person for not wanting to find themselves in the middle of a serious controversy and potentially dangerous controversy.

Maybe if Hillary gets indicted and Bill gets indicted, my source will develop the courage to come forward, but so long as those two scumballs are running loose, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of their wrath either.

Do you really understand the discussion? The wing tanks were never an issue in TWA-800, DiogenesLamp. The CENTER WING TANK is a tank that is position between the wings in the fuselage, not in the wings. The issue with TWA-800 was that the air-conditioner system WAS claimed to have been running because the flight was delayed on the taxiway for almost an hour before being allowed to take off. It was NOT being cooled by a piece of equipment at on the tarmac. AND, the engines were running, although at idle. The APU was also running.

The APU has never been a bone of contention in this discussion because it was never brought up.

You DID make a mistake in challenging Moonman62's comment about the heating of the fuel because it doesn't have anything to do with it. You claimed the fuel was being heated by such a device and challenged it based on that comment when that comment was only discussing the heat source as the air-conditioning unit, not the Auxiliary Power Unit. No one has ever claimed the heat source was the APU.

Your anecdotal source is akin to I know someone whose second cousin has a friend. . . etc. It holds no water in such discussions because you refuse to post what he said at all, you only claim "special knowledge" which you claim trumps everything else. That is appeal to unknown authority without bothering to even say who, what, or even why that appeal has any validity for us to judge why we should give your claims any weight. You've created a special logical fallacy all your own.

FAA has a more complete list where fuel cells exploded.
Track-back the thread and you will see people categorically deny fuel tanks have exploded and I proved otherwise.

Explosions have occurred due to wires and other sparking sources routed through the fuel tanks. My USAF list is a partial list of such explosions and the FAA has more examples. Again, it has happened contrary to those that are ignorant of aircraft design and operation.

That’s it . If you want to debate further you are going to have to find someone else. Not an insult, just bored. It’s all been said.

The energy is still hot enough to ignite paper, let alone Jet Fuel.

The kindling temperature of paper is that famous title of Ray Bradbury's Science Fiction dystopia Novel "Fahrenheit 451". . . or 233º Celsius. However, the ability to ignite anything is a function of heat plus time and area across a sufficient fuel and air mixture. An electrical spark, a plasma, is always several thousands of degrees in temperature. What is required to ignite something is to maintain those several thousands of degrees for enough time to initiate ignition.

That is the real question involved. How long in time and distance did the spark exist? Were both sufficient to involve enough fuel and air to ignite a self-sustaining combustion?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.