Posted on 10/18/2005 6:18:49 PM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
Or why George Stephanopolous called it a "bombing" during ABC's 9/11 coverage.
But of course, the only reason we think it was terrorism is because we all want it to be so desperately... (God, I'm so tired of that lame argument)
Or why George Stephanopolous called it a "bombing" during ABC's 9/11 coverage."Katrina-class reporting."
Forget the facts, go with rumor, hearsay and the most outrageous depiction you can muster ...
It was a waste of time...Okay you aviation experts you, what is the record concerning fuel tank explosions in aircraft?
None?
1 - 5?
5 - 15?
more than 15?
. I know what I saw.Two words after the conspiro-loons have 'worked over' your mind and your memory all these many years later:
"Suggestive recall"
Center tank detonation. Sure.Somehow, I don't think that the heating ability of even an entire Hibachi can compare with the amount of heat energy 'soaked up' by the CWT that day, which in turn would have vaporized any trace amounts of fuel present the tank that day, mixing with the remaing air (containing oxygen) providing ALL the components necessary for a fuel-air explosion upon the application of the an ignition source (like FQIS wires that had come in contact with higher voltage wires in the wire bundles of the aircraft).As an experiment, they dumped an entire Hibachi full of red-hot coals into a huge fuel tank full of the ...
Yea right... Just keep repeating that....and all the bad things will go away. Ignore it long enough.... and you can build that mental utopia in your own little world called bliss. Try to make someone else drink that Kool-Aid. *chuckle*
Speak clearly. Are you saying George Stephanopolous did not refer to the "bombing of flight 800" during ABC's coverage of the 9/11 attack?
He was asked by Peter Jennings about how the White House would respond to such an event. Stephanopoulos referred to his experience in the White House during the Oklahoma City bombing and the "boming" of TWA Flight 800.
It's a fact. And millions of people heard it. And, try as you might, you can't make it go away.
I think two other members of Clinton's administration have referred to the 'bombing' of TWA800. One just recently. Perhaps another Freeper could remember who they were.
We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding. -- John Kerry, "Larry King Live" (9/11/01)
That sound bite would have made for a devastating campaign ad. Too bad Team Bush didn't have to guts to use it.
"There are facilities in the White House, not the normal situation room, which everyone has seen in the past, has seen pictures of. There is a second situation room, behind the primary situation room, which has video conferencing capabilities. The director of the Pentagon, the defense chief, can speak from a national military command center at the Pentagon. The Secretary of State can speak from the State Department, the president from wherever he is, and they'll have this capability for video conferencing throughout this crisis. In my time at the White House it was used in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, in the aftermath of the TWA Flight 800 bombing, and that would be the way they would stay in contact through the afternoon. -- George Stephanopolous, ABC News (9/11/01)
None?
1 - 5?
5 - 15?
More than 15?
Then, how many seconds did it take for the mortally wounded aircraft to FALL back to the altitude it was at when the explosion occured?
You see, _Jim, the problem is that we KNOW within a one second window exactly when (and where) the initiating event occured... and we know when and where the wreckage of the 747 splashed down into the Atlantic within a 4.4 second window. We know that the time between those two events was between ~38 and 42 seconds.
The CIA's ridiculous scenario had the noseless, powerless (according to Boeing, the engines revert to idle in the absence of a signal from the cockpit) wreckage climbing 3500 feet which the theoretical maximum IF all of the aircraft's forward momentum was instantly converted into an upward vector, trading forward momentum for altitude. This climb would have taken, according to the CIA, ~8 seconds... if it were possible for the aircraft to exceed its rated climb rate of 1000 feet per minute at altitudes below 10,000ft. The laws of physics state that the fall from the peak altitude BACK to the starting altitude would take exactly the same amount of time... 8 seconds. Add those sixteen seconds to the ballistic fall time FROM the initial altitude of 13,800 of a minimum ~38 seconds... and TWA-800 could not have impacted the Atlantic earlier than 54 seconds from the initiating event. But, _Jim, we KNOW from the passive radar returns that the main body of the aircraft impacted the ocean only ~38 to 42 seconds from the initiating event. There is literally no time to add a "Zoom Climb" and the fall from the peak altitude to the ballistic fall that we know did occur ... and if the Zoom Climb had occured, since to get that climb, forward momentum had to be traded for altitude, TWA-800's main wreckage would have not have hit the ocean where it did... exactly where the naval ballistic trajectory computer calculated a simple ballistic fall from a PEAK ALTITUDE of 13,800 feet from the initiation point at the observed forward velocity said it would, not five miles closer to the event point that the 3500 foot zoom climb would have required.
When critics demonstrated the impossibility of the CIA animation scenario, the NTSB came up with its own slightly modified 1600 foot Zoom Climb for its animation... one that required ~10 seconds to climb and fall... and used only half the forward momentum... but that still required the plane to splash in between 48 and 52 seconds after the initiating event... but the plane was already in the water at least 6 seconds before. In addition, it would have splashed down almost 2 miles closer to the initiating point than it did.
Now we have a THIRD impossible Zoom Climb... the National Geographic's 1900 foot climb... Making polished animations of a turd does not change the nature of the turd; it is still a turd.
In reference to your original question, are we talking about only commerial aviation? Or do we include gasoline powered planes and military jet aircraft that use a more volatile formulation of jet fuel? Does it matter what caused the explosion (some were ignited by bombs, projectiles, lightning, etc) or are we only looking at "spontaneous" explosions ignited by "unknown electrical sparks"?
The NTSB reports that there were three (3) fuel tank explosions that resulted in loss of life (346) in the past 15 years including the 230 people on TWA800. The explosion in the Phillipines is questionable (some claim, for good reasons, it was a bomb) and the Spanish flight tank explosion was attributed to a lightning strike. If we look at 747s that have experienced fuel tank explosions... ZERO until Flight 800.
If we just limit the question to "commercial" aircraft, then between 1959 and 2001, fourteen commercial aircraft have experienced a fuel tank explosion. The majority of those explosions involved gasoline powered aircraft.
Between 1970 and 1990, thirteen military aircraft have experienced total destruction because of fuel tank explosions (again, using a more volatile form of Jet Fuel) AND the majority of those were also gasoline powered aircraft.
The above figures are apparently for either incidents in the US Military and commercial aviation only. An unknown number of incidents could have occured in other nations' military without being reported.
Does that answer your question sufficiently, _Jim?
This was just one example among many of the CWT explosion proponents' failure to present their theory's critics' positions or even the actual facts fairly.
An independent investigator, Tom Kovach, acquired copies of the training logs for the St. Louis airport police and also spoke to the K-9 training officer involved in the training of the bomb sniffing dogs.
Although the officer did not note down the tail number of the aircraft (Flight 800's is 17119) on which the exercise took place on the specified date, he did carefully note both starting and ending times in his log. The ending time was within 15 minutes of the time that the aircraft that would later become Flight-800 was to take off with a full load of passengers. As I am sure you are aware, it takes quite a bit of time to load the plane with passengers, much less to prepare the plane for the flight... fueling, loading food, water, cleaning, etc. The dog trainer noted that the aircraft used was entirely empty and no other personel were present during the entire training exercise. Ergo, the plane used in the exercise was not tail number 17119 and actually was another plane parked at the same terminal. In addition, the trainer recalled the color of the interior decor... and it was not the same as the decor of 17119.
"According to the “block time” reports, which I obtained directly from TransWorld Airlines, the airliner left the terminal about fifteen minutes after termination of the exercise. The problem is that explosive detection exercises are done in unoccupied areas, for a number of reasons. So, if the aircraft was unoccupied at the time of the training exercise, then we are to believe that an entire 747 airliner was “turned around” — refueled, baggage loaded, cabin cleaned, lavatories serviced, pre-flight inspection completed, food and supplies loaded into the galleys, fresh drinking water pumped into the tanks, and hundreds of passengers boarded — all in less than fifteen minutes. Or, we are to believe that, after the completion of all of the above, the captain of the airliner allowed explosives to be placed aboard his flight-ready aircraft. Both are preposterous."
It's been claimed in posts above that explosives residue was found on the plane.
It's also been claimed by the authorities that this residue was due to training bomb-sniffing dogs on the plane.
Further it has been claimed that a participant with a bomb-sniffing dogs training crew states that TWA 800 was not the plane used.
I'm curious to know which of these claims you believe.
DVR Alert, "Seconds From Disaster" TWA Flight 800 will air again on Tuesday December 5th at 3:00 PM on the National Geographic Channel.
I wanted to start a thread to alert people about it but I couldn't figure out how.
PS... The National Geographic's "Seconds from Disaster" film showed the impressive destructive test of a quarter-scale model 747 Center Wing Tank in an explosion of the vapors in the tank. What they did NOT tell anyone in the narration was that they could not get Jet-A fuel to explode so they had to substitute a mixture of Hydrogen, Propane and Oxygen to "simulate" the explosion's damage
___________
Where did you get this information?
Just go to the top of this thread and hit POST AN ARTICLE.
Then just fill in the blanks and follow the directions; it practically won't let you do it wrong, I swear!
Go ahead; everybody does it once for the first time!
Multiple sources.
Krok's "Spark" The 1/4 Scale Center Wing Tank Explosion Test - Dr J.E. Shepherd, J.C. Krok and J.J. Lee or the Explosion Dynamics Laboratory, California Institute of Technology conducted a 1/4 scale center wing tank explosion test. Their techniques have been questioned regarding the use of Hydrogen and Propane to assist in the explosion, and recently, their ignition source. Critics contend that Jet A1 fuel, used by itself, would not have caused the explosion in the above experiment, and that the "spark" used was extremely large--unlikely to occur within a center wing tank.
http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/reports/twaph22.pdf
"the combustion behavior of heated gaseous Jet-A fuel-air mixtures can be replicated using a mixture of hydrogen-propane premixed with air. The choice of this simulant fuel- air mixture is based on reproducing burn rates and over pressures in laboratory-scale dvessels 6. The use of the simulant fuel by passes the difficulties associated with heating liquid jet fuel, hence, the quarter- scale test apparatus required minimal external environmental control. "
http://www.prod.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.pl/2000/000445.pdf
"In the initial TWA Flight 800 investigation quarter-scale testing program, a simulant fuel was used to reduce complexity and provide well-defined initial conditions for the modeling studies 5."
http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/reports/twaph1.pdf
"To reproduce the combustion behavior of the light components of Jet A aircraft fuel with low pressure air, tests were conducted using a mixture of propane and hydrogen1 as the combustion gas to simulate the Jet A fuel used in commercial aircraft [10]."
There are a lot more but these, although repetitive, should be sufficient since they come from the "horse's mouth."
On the Discovery Channel they played an episode of "Best Evidence" tonight examining the disaster. A demo crew took a similar tank, duplicated the conditions, and got it to blow up with just 75 millijoules of electricity. That's about the same amount of energy you expend shocking yourself on a doorknob.
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.