Posted on 07/14/2021 3:11:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800, a Paris-bound 747 out of JFK, blew up off the coast of Long Island. It seemed somehow fitting that James Kallstrom, the public face of the FBI investigation into the plane's destruction, would die two weeks before the 25th anniversary. As a patriot, a Vietnam vet, and an outspoken critic of all things Clinton, Kallstrom once held promise as the insider most likely to come clean. He never did.
As to my own involvement with this story, until the evening of February 23, 2000, I was as naïve as a CNN anchor. Before that evening, I would have dismissed out of hand anyone who dared suggest that elements of the FBI and CIA would conspire with the White House and the New York Times to cover-up the cause of so public a disaster.
February 23, 2000 was the night my education began.
Earlier that evening I had listened with some interest at a Kansas City country club as investigative reporter James Sanders spoke about his inquiry into the 747's fate. At a dinner afterwards, I found myself sitting next to James's wife, Elizabeth. A sweet and soft-spoken woman of Philippine descent, she filled me in on the personal details. At the time of the disaster, she was a trainer for TWA. She had been a flight attendant for some years before that.
Of the 230 people killed on that ill-fated flight, 53 were TWA employees, many of them Elizabeth's friends. At one of the numerous memorial services, Elizabeth introduced James to Terry Stacey, a 747 manager and pilot who was working on the investigation.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
They do catch fire and no conspiracy is needed.
FAA finally takes action on fuel inerting
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2011-01-27/faa-finally-takes-action-fuel-inerting
Excerpt: For those who doubt that a center fuel tank could explode again, at least two such explosions have occurred both before and after TWA 800. Two that I am familiar with involved Boeing aircraft and both, fortunately, occurred on the ground. The first occurred before TWA 800, in May 1990; in that accident a Boeing 737 with 120 passengers on board had just pushed back from the gate at Manila Ninoy Aquino Airport in the Philippines when an explosion tore through the center fuel tank. Although eight people died, it is certain that all aboard would have been killed if the explosion had not occurred on the ground. The aircraft was destroyed.
The second instance occurred in May 2006 and involved a Boeing 727 freighter on the ground in Bangalore, India. The left wing fuel tank exploded while the aircraft was on the ground. None of the crew was injured but the aircraft was destroyed. (While all three aircraft accidents I am familiar with involved Boeing aircraft, the same potential for explosion exists in other aircraft, including Airbus aircraft.)
Boeing has agreed to pay $12 million for failing to meet a deadline to submit service instructions that would enable airlines to reduce the risk of fuel tank explosions on hundreds of planes, among other violations, the Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/travel/boeing-fined-12m-failing-quickly-address-fuel-tank-blast-risk-n484551
747 on the ground fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie4x9MfP6G4
“Commercial aircraft do not have nitrogen inerting systems installed. They’re too costly and heavy to be practical from what I understand.”
Astonishing! I put many in chemical and petrochemical plants. One of such tanks had more vapor space and pumping in/out capacity than the largest commercial aircraft fuel tanks’ capacity many times over..
In a commercial aircraft it takes one 1500 psi nitrogen cylinder and one spare, very small piping with small pressure reducing valves and pressure transmitters/switches/gages. Connect to several tank nozzles, set the fuel tank pressure to +2” WC, and you’re done. All you need is to replace a cylinder when empty, switched to the spare and you’ll get a panel alarm.
“The AC units are below the center tank, which would prevent a direct heat exchange of the airflow against the bottom of the aircraft and the center tank.”
That will not stop the 400 mph cool/cold air from cooling the fuel tank in no time.
If we have chafed wires and mixed voltages and static electricity in contact with flammables with no inert atmosphere, more explosions will not be unexpected.
Perhaps, but at the time I was looking for an anouncement of that grounding.
I never saw or heard of one.
I did see a small announcement, years later, that the last 747 needing a new fuel pump and sensor assembly had been upgraded.
Presumably it was in service up to that point. If the 747s were flying ticking time bombs, surely one country somewhere would have forbidden them in their airspace?
Therefore, I assume it wasn't a flaw in the aircraft.
It was enemy action.
Seven years and nineteen days after the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655. That's 7 years and 19 days by the Christian Gregorian Calendar, does anyone know what that delay is in the muslim lunar calendar Iran uses?
Are you talking about an internal explosion, or an external explosion? I’d imagine high explosives blowing into a jetliner would react quite differently than a pressurized tank explosion from within. How would you know where the wing tank would rupture first? The pressure should act upon all surfaces equally, and the tank should rupture at its weakest point, regardless of where the fuel was ignited.
11 days.
Perhaps you should build them for Boeing. I believe they paid a $12 million fine to the FAA for not meeting the deadline to install such a system about five or so years ago.
That will not stop the 400 mph cool/cold air from cooling the fuel tank in no time.
Odd that it doesn't cool the plastic inside windows on the plane that quickly. And there's not even whole bunch of machinery between the actual window and that little plastic inside window.
If we have chafed wires and mixed voltages and static electricity in contact with flammables with no inert atmosphere, more explosions will not be unexpected.
The NTSB predicted one every 4.5 years if no actions taken. There was another less than five years after flight 800.
Also, that static electricity theory was one that neither my father (the 747 expert) nor me bought into.
With a quick google search, I discovered they weren’t grounded, which considering how long the investigation took and the lack of a subsequent incident in close proximity to the first (as happened with the 737MAX accidents) perhaps isn’t surprising. Grounding an entire class of civilian aircraft is a big deal.
But, reasonably early on - 1996 - the FAA began a series of maintenance instructions and other incremental steps that eventually culminated in Special Instruction ruling from FAA...
I said I didn’t really know when I started to wake up. Then I thought more about it, and figured it started with Vietnam, and how the government lied to us. I woke up further when Jimmy Carter was President. Later, it was Ruby Ridge and Waco, but in recent years, I really got educated, and I think the FBI is a criminal organization.
Again, if a government agent tells me the sky is blue, I will go outside to see if he is lying to me.
George Stephanopoulis let it slip in an interview with Peter Jennings on 9/11 that the plane strikes were the first successful terror attacks since TWA 800.
“Perhaps you should build them for Boeing.“
I didn’t build them. I calculated the requirements, drew the P&IDs and specified the equipment, piping and instrumentation. I’m now retired, however.
“Odd that it doesn’t cool the plastic inside windows on the plane that quickly. And there’s not even whole bunch of machinery between the actual window and that little plastic inside window.”
Nothing odd about it. It’s quite simple. Two or more thermal plastic/glass panes with almost full vacuum in between constitutes an aircraft window. It’s heat/cold insulation.
Excellent point. Well stated, sir.
Post 16 and 113, please.
It was not. The flight was deliberately shot down by agents of a wealthy Iranian family in retaliation for the USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air flight 655 back in 1988.
I know this because I know someone who was involved in the investigation and who told me exactly what happened and what evidence there was to support this conclusion.
They used a small boat and a surface to air missile to attack flight 800. Clinton ordered a deliberate coverup. And yes, this is exactly what the person told me, and no, this person is not a flake and this person was indeed in a fairly high level position at that time.
I conveyed this information to Jack Cashill about 10 years ago and he wanted to speak with this person directly. I contacted the person and the person said they could not do so without inviting unpleasant ramifications onto themselves, but this person left open the possibility of speaking on the matter eventually.
“The Navy personnel involved were probably killed in an accident”
Hundreds and hundreds of Navy personnel? All killed? Wow.
I wish I could tell you what I know. I can tell you this, there was better evidence than a radar track, but it was never made publicly known.
Yup. Although I have recently been made aware that there were people still alive on the Thresher for a day or so after it was disabled. They just released a report on this which details the submarine "Seawolf" activities. They reported 37 active pings from the Thresher after it was regarded as "lost."
It wasn't an errant missile from the US Navy. It was a deliberate shoot down by agents of a wealthy Iranian family.
And Sander's book had a dim picture of a (rogue?) missile sneaking by a back terrace family party that evening. {can't find the picture and can't post a picture} {Looks like much has been scrubbed from the web}
It wasn't a stinger. Jack Cashill knows what sort of missile it was because they recovered parts of it. Jack Cashill was working with a partner on this project and he has been writing reports on his progress from time to time over the last decade or so. I read his commentary on flight 800 whenever I see it.
That's not true. The outer and middle windows do not have a vacuum in the space between them. Ever notice the little hole at the bottom of the middle window? The pressure in the space between the two windows is the same as the cabin pressure. (And of course there's no vacuum between the middle and inner plastic window you can rest your head against. Those aren't air tight.)
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.