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 ...
When the PanAm flight was hit by lightning and blew up the FAA mandated that all aircraft be equipped with static discharge wicks. In the event of a lightning strike, the plane conducts the excess electricity through its skin and structure to the wicks where it is safely discharged back into the atmosphere. And therefore it doesn't go BOOM.
Do you have a link to that please? I'd like to read it.
Or maybe they misspoke without knowing the facts?
Or maybe they misspoke without knowing the facts?
Non-Sequitur is also EOD and we stick together. We have a long list of stories that we always tell that match.
Bite your tongue! I'm ex-Navy, thank you very much, with a lot of sea time on DDGs and FFGs. I'm waiting for someone to dredge up "The Navy Shot It Down" again, then I'm all over it.
Doesn't that shoot the TWA 800 theory in the foot then?
Now you ARE kidding!
Which one?
That is a factually correct statement. For the most part, the problem has been engineered correctly. In fact, millions (billions?) of dollars and thousands of hours have been spent on designing aircraft based on the fact that everyone knows aircraft fuel tanks are a virtual bomb waiting to go off. Fortunately, the job has been done pretty well. But not perfectly. And there new guidelines, procedures and requirements being introduced to this day to minimize the opportunities for future explosions like the one that destroyed TWA 800.
"Plus the fact that I've flown recently and the floor of the plane gets cold VERY quickly. It would need to be hot, in the air, to explode."
No offense, but that is a classic example of a statement from someone who knows very little about what they are talking about, explaining away a situation that truly does exist, despite what "they've felt on the floor". Did you know for example, that beneath that floor is ducting that carries air hot enough to melt significant portions of the aircraft you are sitting in...the entire time you are flying in it.
I keep forgetting. Panetta and Stephanopolos are freakin' genius' who knew everything about everything. No way they could make a mistake.
That's interesting. I found all his arguments based on fact and actual experience allowing him to make real decisions based on logic and rational thought. What do you base your logic and rational thought on in this case?
It wasn't a lightning strike. It was determined that a high voltage electrical line touched the fuel probe lines OUTSIDE of the tank, this caused the fuel probe line to have a much larger charge of electicity than it could handle, this caused an arc in the fuel probel. Communications and the black boxes appear to have lost power for an instant prior to the explosion. It had nothing to do with static electricity.
Inspection of aircraft wiring of that type of system and age revealed that frayed wiring was common through out the airline industry.
I'm not offended but let me tell you, if they had all that da** hot air, they should have used some for our feet. I nearly had them in my lap trying to keep warm!
They were the lying mouthpieces that were told what not to say.
It probably happened almost every time that aircraft flew. Adding a spark into the mix only happened once. And the heating problem had already been identified by the USAF before TWA 800, and as a result, they changed their procedures regarding ground operations and the air conditioning packs. They obviously felt the threat was a real one.
I guess I was thinking of Sqantos. Anyway I did have a 36' sailboat that I did an Atlantic crossing on in the winter time. I learned you shouldn't try to cross the North Atlantic in the winter time in a 36' sailboat.
I would never bring that up about the Navy shooting it down, you got to hit it first. :)
I still say bunk. But you cann buy Clintons bull if you like. I just wouldn't expect you to. I am really surprised.
If I ever see your airplane sitting on the runway I will wash it for you.
And I'll tell you what I've said to others. I'm surprised when any Freeper buys what Clinton was selling.
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.