Posted on 06/22/2006 8:43:39 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
Editor's note: On the evening of July 17, 1996, at 8:19 p.m., TWA Flight 800, a Boeing 747, took off from Kennedy Airport, bound for Paris. At 8:31 p.m., over 730 people watched Flight 800 explode, killing all 230 of the people aboard.
Not long afterwards, millions of Americans watched their televisions in fascinated horror as search and rescue crews looked for survivors among the flaming debris. Only dead bodies were recovered.
Flight 800 is mostly an ugly memory for people these days. The U.S. government issued an explanation that a fuel tank had somehow exploded. Yet, they flatly denied any evidence existed of foul play, including the possibility that Flight 800 had been blown out of the air by a missile.
All but a few journalists accepted the government's version of events. Few bothered to investigate the numerous eyewitnesses, the radar records and the physical evidence that all suggested a strikingly different explanation of Flight 800's untimely demise. And those few who did question the government's version were made to look like fools or, worse, thrown in jail and prosecuted as criminals for meddling in an official investigation.
What really happened to Flight 800? ....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The question was if jet fuel could explode.
The little fuel that was in it was heated by the airconditioner unit under it. The airplane was delayed in taking off and sat for a long time running the airconditioner. Had it only set for a short period of time, the fuel tank had been fuller, there had not been a short in the wiring, the air/vapor mixture had not been just right, the aircraft would still be flying.
The real cause in a way, was just very bad luck when you look at all of the things that had to be in place.
See 114.
I find your acceptance of the government's determination as to the cause shows a lack of logical and rational thought. You don't happen to work for the feds, do you?
That's not proof.
If I can trick one of them into doing the experiment I am asking them to do. That is provided they have a remote camera.
If I can pull that one off, we will have more entertainment on FreeRepublic than we did when the guy was singing to the bears.
The tank was heated by the airconditioner unit that was under it on the runway.
And this happened only once? You're kidding. Right?
I disarmed bombs and did explosive accident investigations for the Federal government for several years. I am retired now but the answer would have been yes.
I trust him.
On this aircraft, once was all it took.
December 8,1963, PanAm Flight 214, Boeing 707. Flight from San Juan to Philadelphia. At 8:58 while in a holding pattern over Philadelphia the aircraft exploded and crashed. The investigation ruled that it was struck by lightning which ignited vapors in the reserve fuel tank.
Christmas eve, 1971, internal LANSA airlines flight in Peru, Lockheed Electra. Plane eploded and broke apart in mid-air after being hit by lightning.
June 22, 2000, internal Wuhan Airlines flight in China, Xian Yunshuji Y-7-100C. Struck by lightning over Shitai, China and explodes.
Use the following words as a search and it will take you to several references (aircraft lightning explosion). I found several references to explosions in the fuel tanks caused by this. Do your own search and let me know what you find. Be honest and post your findings for everyone else to read.
What it took was an administration full of liars and con men.
Both Panetta and Stephanopoulis have slipped, on the air, and said it was terrorism.
Leon Panetta Just Characterized TWA 800 as Terrorism
News Blackout on Stephanopoulos's incompetence as a "correspondent."
Thanks, I was going to let HIM look it up.
Like you said, they slipped.
So do you believe everything Panetta and Stephanopolos say?
The newest one was 2000. The others were older. The only American flight was in 63 and an older plane. Do we know if the foreign planes were as rigourous in maintenance? And please, I'm being serious. I'll do some exploring.
But I bet no one watched the videos in my link, did you.
There are many available. Just do a Google search, but here is one that is especially applicable to this case....
"Comments: The Boeing was operated on a military logistic flight from Tehran to McGuire AFB via Madrid. The flight took off from Tehran at 08.20h GMT and climbed to a cruising altitude of FL330. After establishing contact with Madrid control, clearance was received to CPL VOR via Castejon. At 14.25h the flight was cleared to FL100. At 14.30 the crew advised Madrid that they were diverting to the elft because of thunderstorm activity, and at 14.32 Madrid cleared ULF48 to 5000ft and directed him to contact Madrid approach control. At 14.33 the crew contacted approach control and advised them that there was too much weather activity ahead and requested to be vectored around it. Last radio contact was when ULF48 acknowledged the 260deg heading instructions and informed Madrid that they were descending to 5000ft. The aircraft was later found to have crashed in farmland at 3000ft msl following left wing separation. It appeared that the aircraft had been struck by lightning, entering a forward part of the aircraft and exiting from a static discharger on the left wingtip. The lightning current's conductive path to the static discharger at the tip was through a bond strap along the trailing edge. Concentration of current at the riveted joint between this bond strap and a wing rib were sufficient conductive to cause the flash to reattach to this rivet and to leave the discharger. Fuel vapors in the no.1 fuel tank then ignited. The explosion caused the upper wing skin panel to separate, causing a drastic altering of the aeroelastic properties of the wing, and especially the outboard section of wing. The outer wing began to oscillate, developing loads which caused the high-frequency antenna and outer tip to separate. The whole wing failed a little later."
"And I have to tell you that I believe these guys before anyone else."
So you believe a bunch of guys with a stated agenda before you believe Boeing who has the most to lose in this case when the mishap is attributed to a design flaw? And you believe them over ALPA (Airline Pilots Association), who is chock full of aviation professionals and who support the NTSB findings?
Looks like gaffes or slips of the tongue. Mouth engaged before brain said "Ooops, Can't be honest".
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.