Posted on 08/05/2007 12:03:42 PM PDT by Freedom'sWorthIt
Called "No Survivors"
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I've worked with tanks, confined spaces and UEL/LEL situations for 17 years now and the center tank theory is about the most ludicrous example of a government explanatory case I've ever heard.
The conspiracy whacko's are the side that keep fronting that impossible tank theory, not to mention the ones so unoriginal that they need to keep posting that dumbass "Sheesh, not this **** again" picture for the 5,000,000th time...
TWA 800? Isn’t that the one that was hit by a missle off of Long Island?
So... what is CNN claiming? That the missle hit the fuel tank?
In the case of TWA 800, we have hundreds of spontaneous eye witness accounts by people of a wide variety of backgrounds and professions as well as geographic perspectives all claiming to have seen the same thing: something streaking upwards towards the aircraft and then an explosion. For a few hours, the FBI and other investigators acted as if these accounts were credible and then suddenly the mindset and track of the investigation changed to support any theory except a missile. It quickly settled on a spontaneous explosion of the fuel tank.
In the case of the WTC attack, where hundreds if not thousands of people saw the first attack with their own eyes in close proximity to the building and many others, perhaps millions saw the second attack live on television. I saw the second attack live myself.
The similarity is that in the first case, in my opinion and that of many others, few facts support the official version and many facts support a missile attack. It has been my observation that of the people who disbelieve the official account of the incident, many are conservative. In fact, I don’t know a single conservative who accepts the government version without reservation. In my experience, only people on the Left accept the fuel tank explosion explanation.
In the WTC attack, the weight of the facts agree with the accounts from eye witnesses. In my experience, most of the people who think that the buildings were destroyed by explosives instead of the aircraft are liberal, and few who are conservative accept this alternate explanation.
In both cases, it is not the particular points of the theory of the event but what those theories imply.
In the case of TWA 800, if it was shot down as a deliberate act, then our government made a choice not to find evidence that would require us to take military action against those who carried the attack out. The implication being that Clinton wanted to avoid having to go to war in the Middle East. This is reinforced by the decision to treat the 1993 WTC bombing, as a crime as opposed to an act of war.
In the case of the theory that the 9/11/2001 WTC collapse was an “inside job” with planted explosives, the implication of that theory is that Bush wanted an excuse to go to war for various reasons, including cheap oil, to be able to invoke martial law, to suspend the Constitution, to bring about the End of Days.
not to mention the ACTUAL VIDEO of the missle streak that was SHOWN ON TV (possibly only once) then removed...
How do I know? I saw it. several others here have too.
There are tens of millions of autos and light trucks on the road with open fuel pumps that run continuously while sitting in the gasoline liquid and vapor inside the vehicle’s fuel tank. This is perfectly safe. They cannot explode. The setup that Boeing has used for decades is just as safe.
The hijacking of Egypt Air 990 in October of 1999 out of JFK did little to warn the Democrat whitehouse. The terrorist piloted the commercial airliner into the ocean off Cape Cod with a couple of hundred souls on board. This occured while the SOB was talking to Allah. What did Clinton and Gore do about airport security after that episode? Sandy Berger and his crew did squat to protect travelers. They had a chance to revamp security and make sure these nutball Muslims were stopped. Clinton did nothing.
See also:
Excerpts of statements by eye witnesses:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/STATEMENTS.html
“We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of fact,
we thought it was from a boat. It was a bright reddish-orange color. Once it
went into flames I knew that it wasn’t a flare.”
- Lou Desyron, Flight 800 eye-witness; ABC World News Sunday; 07/21/96.
“I looked up because it sounded like thunder. I kept looking trying to
figure out what it was. And that’s when I saw a flare come off the water.
The flare, trailing orange flame, shot up roughly at a 45 degree angle, then
rapidly increased its angle of ascent. Then it appeared to strike
something. This was the strangest thing I ever saw. Everyone calls it a
‘missile theory,’ but when you see something, you know what you see, and I
didn’t see a ‘theory’.”
- Tom Dougherty, Flight 800 eye-witness; interviewed on Hard Copy, 1996
“It was what we would best describe as a boat flare, a reddish object going
up. It went up and a few seconds later we saw an explosion in the sky. I
can’t say if it came off shore or on shore. At first, we thought it was a
boat flare. It zigzagged a little. We thought it was strange. Then, several
seconds later, we saw an eruption of fire. We never heard anything. We saw a
fireball, and at that point we identified what was an aircraft. We could see
it fluttering down. We were the third boat on Long Island to report the
incident to the Coast Guard. It was something going up to it beforehand.
Yes, I saw flaming debris go down. Something attracted us to the area before
it exploded. And even my wife and my oldest daughter, we all were witnesses
to it. There definitely was something there first before the aircraft went
down.”
- Donald Eick, Flight 800 eye-witness; October 20, 1997; The
Press-Enterprise, Riverside, CA.
“It looked like a big skyrocket going up. The flash looked like a rocket
launch at a fireworks display”.
- Paul Runyan, Flight 800 eye-witness; N.Y. Daily News, 11/09/96
“More than 150 credible witnesses - including several scientists and
business executives - have told the FBI and military experts they saw a
missile destroy TWA 800. ‘Some of these people are extremely, extremely
credible,’ a top federal official said. ‘When we asked what they saw and
where they saw it, the witnesses out east pointed to the west, and the
people to the west pointed to the east’.”
- The New York Post, September 22, 1996.
“Almost due south [of the helicopter], there was a hard white light, like
burning pyrotechnics, in level flight. I was trying to figure out what it
was. It was the wrong color for flares. It struck an object coming from the
right and made it explode.”
- Capt. Chris Baur, eye-witness to Flight 800 crash; July 1996.
“My God! Somebody’s shooting at that airplane!”
- Crew of a British Airways jet flying behind Flight 800 whom radioed to air
traffic control; July 17, 1996.
“I know what I saw. I saw an ordnance explosion. And whatever I saw, the
explosion of the fuel was not the initiator of the event. It was one of the
results. Something happened before that which was the initiator of the
disaster.’’
- Frederick C. Meyer, An Air National Guard helicopter pilot who witnessed
the explosion of TWA Flight 800; 7/29/97; Riverside Press.
“I know what I saw, I saw several fires go across the sky. One hit the plane
at the tail and the second hit at the front, just before the wings. The fire
came from both ends and met in the middle and exploded. Then the nose
dropped, hung there for a minute. I understand that when a plane bursts into
flames the flames fall, but this was a fire going up towards the plane.”
- Barbara Pacholk, Flight 800 eye-witness; November 19, 1997; The New York
Post.
“We know what we saw. We weren’t drunk. I looked up and my immediate
response was, I never saw an alert flare like that. It was projecting upward
with a stream of smoke behind. I don’t think our accounts will be reflected
in the final version [of the FBI report]. I have a hard time believing that
the FBI believes its conclusions. I don’t believe that the truth is ever
going to come out.”
- Jim Naples, Flight 800 eye-witness; November 24, 1997, The New York
Observer, (p.16)
...see page for more
That bounced off the ocean?
ML/MJ
While I disagee with him, Rush seems to buy it.
ML/NJ
Unfortunately, the facts have been buried so deeply that I doubt we’ll ever learn the whole truth about that tragic night.
There have been a couple of other Boeing accidental fuel tank explosions, although not on 747s.
Air travel is so safe now that any sort of catastrophic mechanical failure mode is going to be rare.
Only one DC-10 ever crashed because an engine fell off. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Buried deeply????? Really???? Took me about 2 seconds to find the facts...
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/OSI-99-18R
The 737 has essentially the same configuration so when you think of the number of 747 and 737 take offs and landings there have been since 1970, when the 747 came into service, and compare that with the number of (supposed) Center fuel tank explosions there have been ......
BTW the NTSB were unsuccessful in recreating the alleged explosion despite trying all sorts of tricks to make the environment more flammable. They eventually faked it.
The "hijacker/terrorist" was the pilot, employed by Egypt Air. What do you the Clinton should have done?
The jet airplanes do not use gasoline for fuel. The kerosene, or oil, they use is not particularly explosively flammable, although it can be made to burn if the tank is already split open and fuel is everywhere.
And I’m still wondering what documents were stolen by Sandy Berger for the 911 commission which involved civilian aircraft as terrorist threats.
One Aviation Week article from several years ago quoted a classified report that Flight 800 was on the very outermost edge of the "footprint" of even the best shoulder-fired missiles. There's no direct view of the exhaust, and the missile would be almost out of fuel before it got to the aircraft. Hardly an attack that would provide a high degree of confidence.
It's known that the forward section of the aircraft was instantly sliced off from the rest of the plane. That's why all voice, data, and black box recordings stopped instantly. A smaller plane, hit by a full-sized SAM, would still be functional enough for the black boxes to continue working, even for a few seconds. Unless it was hit with enough explosives to shred the entire aircraft instantly (like some of the demo films of missile tests against drones). You could blow the wing off a 747, and there would still be enough time for a mayday, and continued recording on the black boxes.
The same article mentioned that there was one incident of a center tank exploding on a jet airliner (tens of thousands of jetliners of all kinds, not just 747s). It happened on the ground, and there was enough evidence to show it was caused by a combination of major damage to high-voltage wiring passing through the tank, and just the right fuel-air mixture in the tank. Jet fuel is far less volatile than gasoline, and you have to work really hard to get the right fuel-air mixture, and a strong enough spark. It's like trying to get an explosion from diesel fuel.
The only method to produce the acknowledged evidence of instant "decapitation" (previously unknown in all of aviation history) is a high-powered explosive placed on and around the join section where the forward cabin is attached to the main body of the fuselage. Five to ten pounds of Semtex would start the process going, with aerodynamic forces finishing the job a few milliseconds later.
The implications are more dire than having someone on a boat shooting at you. It meant someone with engineering knowledge would have to get explosives inside the aircraft, and placed at the one location where it could provide a kill with a high degree of confidence.
IMO, the "exploding center tank" is pure BS. Based on what we've seen in Iraq, a MANPAD does not provide a high enough degree of damage, and it strikes a rear wing edge, or an engine, not the middle of the fuselage. Even aircraft hit by full-size SAMs do not go down in the manner of TWA 800. That leaves only an energetic explosive planted in exactly in the right spot by someone with access to the innards of the aircraft.
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.