Posted on 07/09/2025 4:16:16 AM PDT by MtnClimber
A Pair of Lawsuits Promise to Expose the Truth Behind the July 1996 Disaster.
On July 17, 1996, TWA 800, a Paris-bound 747, blew up ten miles off Long Island’s south shore, killing all 230 souls on board. In the days leading up to the anniversary, I will share some fresh insights on this tragedy and the much too successful cover-up that followed.
After 25 years investigating the destruction of TWA Flight 800, I have learned to temper my enthusiasms. That said, I continue to take heart when I see signs of life. Perhaps the most promising development in the case is the progression through the courts of Krick v. Raytheon.
Ronald Krick is the father of Oliver Krick, a 25-year-old student flight engineer killed in the crash. Krick has been joined in the suit by relatives of other deceased passengers and crew. The defendants are the Raytheon Company, the Lockheed Martin Corporation, and the United States government.
The Krick suit gained momentum when it absorbed information gleaned from a FOIA suit brought by Tom Stalcup, a no-nonsense physicist who has been pursuing this case since he was a grad student in 1996. To establish his claims Stalcup was granted subpoena power and was able to depose several key witnesses from within the investigation.
Stalcup appeared in the 2001 documentary, Silenced, produced by me and my late partner James Sanders. In 2013 Stalcup and the late Kristina Borjesson, formerly of CBS News, produced the excellent documentary, TWA Flight 800. What follows are extended passages from Krick v. Raytheon.
—On July 17, 1996, a Boeing 747 headed for Paris took off from New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport at around 8:20 p.m. Within twelve minutes of takeoff, the plane exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Long Island, New York. All 230 passengers and crew members perished.
—After the incident, the federal government released a false report contending that the explosion was the result of an electrical fire in the airplane’s center fuel tank.
—Only recently, thanks to the work of physicist, Dr. Thomas Stalcup, through his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) litigation in Massachusetts federal court, has evidence emerged proving that TWA 800’s explosion was not caused by any defect in the airplane, but instead by an errant United States missile fired at aerial target drones flying nearby.
—The evidence unearthed by Dr. Stalcup establishes that the United States, including its agencies, such as the United States Missile Defense Agency (formerly known as the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization), the United States Department of Defense, and the United States Navy (the “Government Defendants”), acting in concert and working side-by-side with Raytheon Company and Lockheed Martin Corporation (the “Contractor Defendants”) and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive (collectively the “Defendants”) were testing the Aegis Weapons System and firing SM-2 missiles with live warheads from warship(s) at aerial missile targets off the coast of New York in close proximity to commercial airline flight paths. One such missile struck TWA flight 800, causing it to break apart and crash into the Atlantic Ocean, killing everyone aboard.
—Newly discovered evidence also shows that these Defendants engaged in a top-down cover-up to prevent the public from learning the truth about TWA 800. Proof of this cover-up, and of Defendants’ underlying culpability for the crash, was only recently unearthed by Dr. Stalcup after more than a decade of FOIA litigation against the Government Defendants.....SNIP
I most certainly don’t possess those qualifications! However, beyond the numerous, similar eye-witness accounts at the time, was the discovery of explosive ordnance residue on the wreckage; for which the government apologiists at the time offered a rather un-convincing “Bondi”-like explanation! Books have been written on the topic. Check ‘em out!
Are you implying the video I linked is fake?
Many thanks; regarding coverup by Clinton administration, could there have been a monetary connection between Alamoudi as piasa mentioned here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4327650/posts?page=160#160
and Iran, which would be another reason for Clinton to cover it up?
Totally irrelevant to the plane fire in the video.
Pinging diogenes lamp to bob Ireland post
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4327650/posts?page=215#215
And kept good files! ❗
Compression raises the temperature up probably 6-8 times, (I'd have to do some calculations with Charles' law to be sure) so inside a cylinder, the fuel temperature is probably around 600 degrees, the pressure is 6-8 times normal atmospheric pressure, *AND* the fuel has been atomized by the carburetor.
Are you suggesting the fuel pressure in that center fuel tank was raised by a factor of 8, and that something in that tank atomized the fuel?
https://youtu.be/MTlNjRDOJ5E?feature=shared
How about you watch this instead?
Quite right!
“Are you suggesting the fuel pressure in that center fuel tank was raised by a factor of 8, “
No.
“and that something in that tank atomized the fuel?”
Yes.
I have tried it, they cheated... Air fuel mixture is so critical in any gasoline engine that this did not work without cheating. You can’t even start it to run without the mixture being right on the money. They would have had to start it on gas and then switch it over after the temps got right.
You have never had even your choke set wrong on a carbureted gas engine? Really?
What if President Clinton ordered it shot down? Would that be illegal or could it be argued done for national security?
They did the calcs first then the demonstration to verify their calls.
The calls are provided. Where do you see they faked the calcs?
I think you have a lot of misconceptions about liquid fuels. You said jet fuel is “nearly inflammable.” I’m guessing you believe inflammable is the opposite of flammable. That is incorrect; they are synonyms. Flammable and inflammable mean the exact same thing.
While Jet-A is not a flammable liquid, it is a combustible liquid. Here are the definitions of both according to OSHA HAZWOPER:
§1910.106(a)(19) Flammable liquids - Any liquid having a flashpoint below 100°F. (37.8°C.)
§1910.106(a)(18) Combustible liquids - Any liquid having a flashpoint at or above 100°F. (37.8°C.)
Since Jet-A has a flashpoint at 100°F, you are correct in stating that those fuels are “nearly inflammable.” They are close to being inflammable (aka flammable) but alas are merely combustible.
Now you mention that liquid fuel won’t burn, which is correct, but that also fuel vapors won’t burn. This is absolutely incorrect. Just look at the definition of flashpoint according to OSHA HAZWOPER:
1910.106(a)(14) Flashpoint - the minimum temperature at which a liquid gives off vapor within a test vessel in sufficient concentration to form an ignitable mixture with air near the surface of the liquid
So Jet-A has to be heated to above its flashpoint to give off vapor, but then requires the proper air/fuel ratio (concentration) and an ignition source. Here are the properties of Jet-A from Chevron’s MSDS:
Flash point: 37.8°C (100.0°F)
Lower explosion limit: 0.6% (V)
Upper explosion limit: 4.7 % (V)
Autoignition temperature: 210°C (410°F)
So according to Chevron, above 100°F with a concentration between 0.6% and 4.7%, Jet-A will ignite with an ignition source (and will ignite without and ignition source above 410°F)
Note that in the firefighting measures section, Chevron states this: “Do not spray on a naked flame or any incandescent material. Take necessary action to avoid static electricity discharge (which might cause ignition of organic vapors). Keep away from open flames, hot surfaces and sources of ignition.”
In summary, don’t use the workings of a turbine engine (or reciprocating diesel engine) which uses the heat of compression to heat air to above diesel/kerosene/Jet-A’s autoignition temperature where the fuel merely needs to be sprayed into the cylinders or combustor cans to ignite or guys on Youtube trying to light diesel with sparks and flames below its flashpoint temperature as proof that you can’t ignite jet fuel with sparks at all.
All you need it for the jet fuel to be above its flashpoint and have a concentration between 0.6% and 4.7%, and it most definitely will ignite with a spark or flame.
maybe it was in the best interest of our country to not broadcast our incompetence..that is up for debate.
truth never goes out of fashion..
I remember at the time a poster wrote. "..the dog didn't bark"...there was no massive airport shutdowns or recalling planes iirc...everything went on as usual.
And, didn’t the Navy divers have to sign non disclosure and wasn’t whistle blower protection removed from them?
That was my immediate thought when I read that. Clinton would be a lot more interested in covering up Iranian involvement if he stood to profit from covering up Iranian involvement.
But I don't know. This is the first I recall hearing about Alamoudi.
How about watching this video where kerosene at ATMOSPHERIC pressure ignites between 120 and 140 degrees.
Temperatures in the center fuel tank were in that range.
And the plane was over two miles high increasing the atomization.
https://youtu.be/OSgNL8b8V14?feature=shared
Yes.
What would atomize the fuel?
Face the facts speculation is not an answer.
“What would atomize the fuel?”
Heat.
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.