Posted on 06/07/2005 5:04:39 PM PDT by CHARLITE
My Momma had a saying, "If someone acts like they're guilty, they usually are."
Having FBI intimidation of witnesses, reporters, workers, just looks like they're acting guilty.
Having CIA reports trumping NASA reports on aviation looks like they're acting guilty.
Having witnesses who say they saw something streak to the plane and then the plane exploded only to later, after many visits from the FBI, say they saw something fall from the plane after it exploded looks like they're acting guilty.
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's PROBABLY a duck. (Though at the zoo the other day, we saw some Teals that look like ducks and quack like ducks, but they're Teals.)
Paul
I want to ask you a serious question about your assertions. You said twice "smokeless". The plane went down shortly after dark. The smoke trail would have cleared well before dawn when someone would have been able to see it clearly, correct? With the explosion as big as it was, and the debris field covering as large an area as it was, is it possible that they mistook an upwards smoke trail for a debris trail downwards?
I'm NOT a pilot, NOT an investigator and have NO experience with these things. But, I am a logical person, and when you have three interviews within 2 hours of the plane going down from 15 miles away from each other and three different people looking at it from three different angles all say they saw something going up and then an explosion and then all three of them recant their television interviews within a few days after spending time with the FBI, doesn't something strike YOU as suspicious??
Paul
No. But I believe the data is included in the accident investagation report.
The chemical explosion was the result of mechanical failure. It wasn't "spontaneous". It was initiated by a spark. And spark induced explosions of fuel vapor have happened countless times.
Naw, it's just that the Clinton's have a copy of the same photo of W with the goat that Vincente Fox holds to keep the Mexican border open.
That's not true. It was dusk and still light enough for people to observe an airliner over 10 miles away.
"The smoke trail would have cleared well before dawn when someone would have been able to see it clearly, correct?"
The smoke trail would have been immediately present from any missile traveling toward TWA 800. It would have been incredibly obvious at the time of the incident. So obvious that anyone observing the incident could not have failed to see it. If it existed.
"With the explosion as big as it was, and the debris field covering as large an area as it was, is it possible that they mistook an upwards smoke trail for a debris trail downwards?"
Yes. However, almost nobody mentions a smoke trail at all. Up or down.
"But, I am a logical person"
So am I. And logically, if three people really did say such a thing that was recorded on television, and then recanted what they said later, I'm sure there would be plenty of records including video of everything they said. Do you know where that video might be?
LOL!
This is the first I've heard this, were they on a company sponsored vacation or something? I'm sure TWA was not too happy to have the blame shifted to the fuel tank so some of their maintenance procedures are suspect now.
Gee, it looks like some whistle blowers are more equal than others, but then, we already knew that.
Name one time when a commerical jet aircraft exploded spontaneously because of a spark incuded explosion of fuel vapor. I have not heard of any other explosions other than the mythical explosion of TWA 800 in the "official" cover-up report. I'll see if I can find you a link to the articles on the military labs testing of jet fuel. Their conclusion was that they couldn't get the fuel to explode at any actual operating temperature in a 747.
I don't have the report. Please post the data.
How did air get into the fuel tank ?
mark for later
It is a myth propogated by conspiracy theorists that fuel vapor in aircraft is not explosive and that such explosions have never happened before TWA 800. Ironically, (or maybe not) one of the sister aircraft to TWA 800 (another 747-131 built for the Iranian Air Force) was destroyed while airborne due to an explosion of fuel vapor in its #1 fuel tank. The aircraft was struck by lightening while in a descent. The lightening strike triggered an electrical surge which resulted in a spark igniting vapor in its empty #1 fuel tank.
But in total there have been at least 19 incidents of aircraft exploding due to fuel vapor igniting for various reasons. Here is a link detailing each....19 Fuel Vapor Explosions
The NTSB report is a 341 page PDF file. You can read it yourself here...TWA 800 Aircraft Accident Report
What do you mean? Empty aircraft fuel tanks are not vacuums. They all contain air, among other things.
There's no evidence that TWA 800 was struck by lightning or that any kind of equipment failure occurred on the flight that night. But there's a lot of evidence that TWA 800 was struck by a missile. The NY Times initially reported that the FBI found residue from explosives on the plane wreckage. Later they followed the Clinton party line and switched to the exploding fuel tank theory. If you want to believe the official conclusions and the CIA's rediculous animation of the crash then go right ahead. You have the right to ignore any evidence you want to ignore. But I wouldn't dismiss Cashill and other highly competent people who doubt the official conclusions too quickly. You can start by reading some of the threads about TWA 800 here at FR.
If you believe the NTSB report concerning TWA 800 is a government lie produced to cover up a crime, you are by definition a conspiracy theorist. You may be right (obviously I don't believe you are), but you are a conspiracy theorist nonetheless.
"My point it that aircraft fuel vapor is not explosive under normal operating conditions of commericial aircraft."
I think it would be more accurate to say it is always explosive, it just doesn't explode under normal operating conditions due to carefully engineered systems designed to isolate it from sources of ignition. But obviously, based on a long history of fuel vapor explosions, those systems sometimes fail.
"There's no evidence that TWA 800 was struck by lightning or that any kind of equipment failure occurred on the flight that night."
It is true the TWA 800 was not struck by lightening. However, it is untrue to say there was no equipment failure on the flight that night. The fuel quantity indicator system was experiencing a series of electrical surges that was causing inaccurate fuel readings in the cockpit. One of the last comments recorded on the cockpit voice recorder (about one minute before the aircraft explodes) is from Captain. He says, "Look at that crazy fuel flow indicator on number four." It was short circuiting in that system that is attributed to producing the spark inducing excess voltage in the center wing tank.
"But there's a lot of evidence that TWA 800 was struck by a missile."
The irony of that statement is there is NO evidence TWA 800 was struck by a missile. ALPA, Boeing, TWA and the NTSB all agree on that point. You listen to paid conspiracy theorists like Cashill for your information. I'll stick with the true experts.
Bump for later
What's that Hillary?
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.