Correct. An explosion from "fumes" has to occur when the 'fume/air' mix is precisely X (I don't know what it is for kerosene fumes.)
In the case of natural gas, though, the mix has to be precisely 7% IIRC.
So there are a LOT of co-incidences which must have happened--besides the fact that there was NO OTHER Boeing plane on which this EVER happened.
Exactly! No one seems to ever put out the refutations of the "facts" of the gov't, NTSB, FBI, CIA, etc.......
Another certainty is that fuel leaking, or falling in mass for that matter, from an airliner moving at climbing speeds would not form a tight line that would look like the trail of a rocket if ignited. More Richard Clarke BS!
Clarke, however, has had a hard time keeping his story straight. In an earlier New Yorker article on O'Neill soon after Sept. 11, Clarke tells reporter Lawrence Wright that it was O'Neill who insisted that TWA Flight 800 was out of the range of the Stinger, and O'Neill who believed that the "ascending flare" that the witnesses saw must have been something else, like "the ignition of leaking fuel from the aircraft."
Clarke lies whenever possible. Clarke was/is Sick Willy's boy.
"So there are a LOT of co-incidences which must have happened--besides the fact that there was NO OTHER Boeing plane on which this EVER happened."
One coincidence is the Navy being in the neighborhood that evening.
There was a study a few years back mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. They were considering changing fuel tank design, but when they found there would be one explosion in twenty years, on average, they decided it wasn't cost effective.
Er, how about seven other planes (including military a/c?) Or to quote from Dr Bernard Loeb:
previous fuel/air explosions in the center wing tanks of commercial airliners that contained Jet A fuel have confirmed that a center wing tank explosion involving Jet A fuel can result in destruction of an airplane. Specifically, I am referring to the November 1989 accident involving a Boeing 727 operated by the Colombian airline Avianca that occurred during the climb after takeoff, and the May 1990 accident involving a Boeing 737 operated by Philippine Air Lines that occurred on the ground at the airport.
Speech date 8/22/2000
There also was, after Dr Loeb gave his speech, another fuel-air explosion which destroyed a Thai 737 on the ground. See here. Initial reports were that that was terrorism, too, but it was found to have been a tank blast in the "empty" centre wing fuel tank. (Empty tanks, every pilot, mechanic, and engineer learns, always contain a quantity of 'unusable' fuel, so they are never truly empty once the machine has ever had fuel in it).
Dr Loeb missed this famous accident to an Iranian Air Force Boeing 747 in Spain. (At the time, Iran was a monarchy under Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and an important US ally in the Middle East). In this case, lightning may have been the ignition source but the explosion that destroyed the plane inflight and killed all on board was most probably a fuel-air blast. I suspect that Dr Loeb did not mention this accident because the finding of probable cause is not 100% for fuel-air.
You really shouldn't post very strong statements of fact when authoritative contrary information is just a Google away. I will presume you have made an honest error. As far as the explosivity of Jet A, check the Cal Tech "Explosion Dynamics Laboratory" on line, they have done extensive research and they explain themselves in laymen's terminology, or in as much depth as you woulf like. As you point out, if the mixture is too rich (too much fuel) or too lean (not enough fuel) combustion, and therefore explosion, is not possible.
For many years aero engineers thought that it was inevitable for you to have a combustible fuel/air mix at certain ranges of altitude and temperature. So the answer has been to try to keep the third necessary ingredient (fuel, oxygen... and ignition), the ignition source, out of the fuel tank. The TWA 800 accident was unable to determine the actual ignition source. To the horror of the investigators, there were several potential suspects. In a belt-and-suspenders approach, the FAA ordered them all fixed. (NTSB investigates, FAA regulates).
After a while, the FAA was not comfortable with even that and as a result inerting systems will be required. (this removes ingredient #2, oxygen). The good news is that FAA and Boeing have come up with a lighter weight and less costly system than the military had been using. In the meantime, as I understand it 74's are all flying with the CWFT full, or at least with too much fuel for combustion of the fuel-air mixture ("too rich").
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F