I’m a skeptic on most conspiracy theories, but I wouldn’t link TWA800 in with those. The government explanation that the fuel tank spontanously exploded never sounded right to me. It’s never happened before or since. Not a conspiracy, just the desire to tie things into a neat package rather than say “We don’t know what happened”. Although the idea that a plane can just spontanousely explode is a lot more worrisme to me than a terrorist attack.
I didn’t interpret the NTSB findings as a spontaneous explosion, but rather one with a clear cause.
“...The government explanation that the fuel tank spontanously exploded never sounded right to me. It’s never happened before or since. ...”
Try gathering more aero engineering knowledge before making such assertions. Not to mention experience.
USAF’s KC-135 aerial refueler (Boeing 720) used the same tank design. Electrical shorts and tank fires have happened so often over the half-century of service by that airframe are so common as to be almost a proverb.
Aircraft may not spontaneously explode, but they are very light, even flimsy structures that contain thousands of gallons of highly flammable liquid fuel - which they have to burn to stay in the air; this means hot metal and giant fire hazards close together at all times during normal operation. Fuel tankage, transfer, gauging, filtering, and flow to the powerplants are constant concerns of everybody involved (designers, builders, maintainers, and aviators), of the utmost urgency.
Aircraft are subjected to a wider range of environmental conditions than any other devices on the planet. They travel quicker than any other conveyance and problems can overwhelm even the savviest crew in a heartbeat.
“...the idea that a plane can just spontanousely explode is a lot more worrisome to me than a terrorist attack.”
The most worrisome aspect of the TWA 800 incident is the apparent truth, that any American could possibly believe the aircraft was hit by a missile fired from any US-flagged warship, aircraft, or ground-based system.
Nobody in the military conducts live fire exercises the way it would have happened, to down an airliner. Live rounds are far too costly to be carried around so casually, in a ready status. Doing so would violate all safety rules and good practice.
Isolated individuals do not have launch authority nor physical control; such missiles are always fired from systems crewed by multiple personnel, with an even larger number of interested parties watching them closely (live fire is rare enough that everybody wants to watch). If anyone - even the captain of a warship - suddenly went off script so completely that there was merely some risk of launching a live missile with a warhead against a civilian aircraft that happened to pass by, the rest of the crew would notice and take countering action (TWA 800 was too high, and too far out, to have been hit by any individually-portable shoulder-fired missile).
Live munitions are fired only on suitably controlled and policed ranges far from population centers, where public access is severely restricted and there is instrumentation to record all possible aspects of the event.
No one bothers to “test” a missile in or around New York City, because no useful data could be collected without that instrumentation, which is sitting out at the test range.
Contrary to deeply held belief, wars are singularly bad situations from which to collect data on system effectiveness.
