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
Remember the demonstration video I linked to you.
Well firstly, I can't watch youtube videos on my other computer. I can on this one. He is using Kerosene, and he was over 140, and he still could barely get it to light.
And it wasn't an explosion. It just barely lit with an open flame directly placed in the liquid.
And you think a little sensor in or above the fuel, at a temperature much less than 140 would ignite and explode?
Openurmind wrote: “No, but I do understand government in general. Everything they do is based on corruption and/or incompetence. Everything...”
So, you believe the government is so incompetent it could shoot down TWA800 but the same government is competent enough to cover it up?
Yeah, those sending units explode all the time. Every day I hear of a few million cars blowing up because the sending units ignited that much dangerous gasoline.
Because that is exactly the explanation they gave back in the day. Maybe not the final, but they pushed and pushed the static electricity one.
So you do believe it climbed after the explosion?
“Well firstly, I can’t watch youtube videos on my other computer. I can on this one. He is using Kerosene, and he was over 140, and he still could barely get it to light.”
#1 jet is basically kerosene.
It lit at 140. So the point of interest is somewhere between 120 to 140. Official data says the flash point is 100.
And at altitude, it is more volatile.
You should watch Texas Gator's video. The guy heated the fuel above 120 degrees and couldn't get it to light with an open flame. He had to get it to 140 degrees before it would get hot enough to light, and then it would just barely light with an open flame.
The video I linked earlier shows a guy trying to light jet fuel with a blow torch. He couldn't do it.
Out of curiosity, what is the significance of the 600 degrees that you state?
Someone pointed out that Kerosene would run in a lawnmower engine. Figuring an 8 to 1 compression, I presumed the temperature in the combustion chamber was around 600 degrees. I thought you may have seen my comment earlier, and so this is why I asked you if you thought the temperature in that tank could have reached 600 degrees.
According to specs someone else posted, the spontaneous ignition temperature of Jet Fuel is 410 degrees.
I don't think anything would ever get that hot inside that fuel tank.
Exactly right on all three points.
Anyone know if the fuel tanks were vented? I would think if the fuel was hot and vapors were rising it would push oxygen out. I have no idea, but seems logical. I know on hot days my lawnmower gas container gets bloated.
You are a kindred spirit.
Nose up, 4 engines full TO power then remove 1/4 of gross weight from up forward (nose being blown off/removed)...yeah I would say the rest of the fuselage climbed for a bit until it lost stability, tumbled and broke up.
More info. (summary):
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/documents/moriches_ny-TWA_800_Overview.pdf
Details:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0003.pdf
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=DCA96MA070
With an actual open flame. Would it light with a spark?
I guarantee it would not light from a spark within the liquid. It would not light from a spark far above the liquid, because it didn't light from the direct flame until he got it right at the liquid.
So *IF* it could even light with a spark, it would have to have a spark in very close proximity to the fuel, which is unlikely, *AND* it would have to be above 140 degrees.
Which is also unlikely.
And at altitude, it is more volatile.
A "fact" not in evidence. At altitude, it has even less air to combust with, if the tanks are un-pressurized. If they are pressurized, than altitude makes no difference at all.
I read it several years ago, and I don't recall anything in it that would explain how the fuel in the tank would be turned into a spray. They try to claim the sensor was an ignition source, but that is just bullshit.
The image of a fire is totally irrelevant to the fact you can't ignite jet fuel with an open flame at normal temperatures.
And clearly according to your own video, you can't light it until you have raised it's temperature to above 140 degrees, and then you can barely light it with an actual open flame. (which is not the same thing as a spark.)
Yes, I should have said "Un-Flammable." It appears to be damn hard to get it to burn when it is in liquid form.
You might find this interesting. Guy tries to light jet fuel on fire with a blowtorch.
No they weren't. That is wishful thinking on the part of people who want to swallow all that coverup slop.
And the plane was over two miles high increasing the atomization.
A lower pressure might induce a higher level of diffusion into the air, but it also lowers the quantity of Oxygen available to combust the fuel.
Making ignition even less likely.
“Well firstly, I can’t watch youtube videos on my other computer. I can on this one. He is using Kerosene, and he was over 140, and he still could barely get it to light.”
#1 jet is basically kerosene.
It lit at 140. So the point of interest is somewhere between 120 to 140. Official data says the flash point is 100.
And at altitude, it is more volatile.
“No they weren’t. That is wishful thinking on the part of people who want to swallow all that coverup slop.”
LOL! The did a test flight with sensors to come up with those temperatures.
You are just wishful thinking because you have to deny the facts.
“And you think a little sensor in or above the fuel, at a temperature much less than 140 would ignite and explode?”
In the video, the liquid is at temperature but the vapor is much cooler. Pure physics.
In the plane, the vapor is above the 100 degree flash point as the whole tank as measured is above 100..
“Making ignition even less likely.”
The calcs are in the report. Ping me when you find an error.
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.