Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jack Cashill: Reopen the TWA Flight 800 Case
American Thinker ^ | June 07, 2009 | Jack Cashill

Posted on 06/07/2009 12:31:42 AM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161 next last
To: alice_in_bubbaland

I do not believe for one minute it was a military training exercise that went wrong.

That plane was shot down by terrorist. Rank and file military would have spilled the beans.


61 posted on 06/07/2009 6:05:51 AM PDT by waxer1 ( "The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests." -Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: waxer1

OK, as a firefighter, I can tell you that liquid fuels DO NOT EXPLODE. Only fuel vapour-oxidzer (O2 in this case) with the right molecular ratio/mixtures (and vapour pressures) will explode.

Jet fuel is sprayed into the compressed air section of a jet engine so that the droplets can sufficiently vapourize and BURN (not explode) in the presence of sufficient oxidizer (O2).

That center wing tank had been partially fueled for quite a while. I *seriously* doubt the air-fuel-vapour mixture above the liquid fuel in that tank was an explosive mixture.

I cannot rationally support the static discharge/explosion in a fuel tank theory.


62 posted on 06/07/2009 6:07:26 AM PDT by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: LS

That is if you believe the government line.

Ok, you are presuming that the wiring is on the inside of the tank. The pilots I spoke with said no. The wiring is on the outside of the tank.

What caused the tank to explode? I have seen pictures of the tank, and it is bowed from the outside in. Why is that? I am no expert, but it seems to me that if the tank exploded it would bow outwards. True?


63 posted on 06/07/2009 6:09:08 AM PDT by waxer1 ( "The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests." -Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

“Since the center fuel tank, and, in fact, all fuel tanks on all aircraft are vented to the outside ambient pressure in order to allow for fuel and tank expansion and contraction as the aircraft ascends and descends, where did the oxygen inside the tank come from that allowed the vapors in the tank to achieve explosive combustion? It’s a really simple question, and one that nobody, not the CIA, the FAA, the FBI, the NTSB, none of them, and certainly not “Mythbusters”. has answered.”

Thank you!


64 posted on 06/07/2009 6:11:00 AM PDT by waxer1 ( "The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests." -Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
I can tell you that liquid fuels DO NOT EXPLODE.

The flash point of Jet-A is 100.4F. This means that all the vapor inside the tank would have had to be at 100.4F, at sea level pressure, for a simple electric spark to ignite it and cause it to burn explosively. The autoignition point of Jet-A is 410F. This means that all the vapor inside the tank would have had to reach 410F in order for spontaneous combustion to occur. Both of these temperatures assume sea level pressure and oxygen content. Neither of these things happened on TWA 800's center fuel tank and even if they did, as you say, there wasn't enough oxidizer to allow for explosive combustion. It just didn't happen that way.

65 posted on 06/07/2009 6:19:04 AM PDT by Thermalseeker (Fight Fascism - Buy a Ford!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
If it had been the Navy that took down TWA 800, they wouldn't have found anything bigger than a wing section. Look what the Vincennes did to that Iranian Airbus. The Biggest piece that came down was a wing. Sad, but there it is.

There is still the problem of the lack of physical evidence of a high-energy explosion. Now, if the FBI (in the days of Reno Justice) had said that, I could see someone's having room for skepticism; but this part of the investigation was controlled by NTSB. If the aircraft had been speared by a SAM, it would be pretty hard to miss or conceal the evidence.

66 posted on 06/07/2009 6:24:06 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
IIRC, the official explanation of the internal explosion of the fuel tank by static electricity never occured before that in any airplane.

In May 1991 a Lauda Air 767 tore itself apart over Thailand. The cause was identified as a sudden deployment of the thrust reverser on the number 1 engine. That had never occurred before and it hasn't happened since. Airliners are carefully designed, manufactured, and maintained. But nothing is 100% guaranteed. On rare occasions failures happen. They seldom happen again because the cause is identified and corrective actions implemented.

67 posted on 06/07/2009 6:25:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag

Hi,

I read Commander Donaldson’s Report. Yes, I agree with you. I know a couple of commercial pilots and they said the same thing you just said. They were told to keep quiet, but they did tell me that most if not all pilots believe that the plane was brought down purposely.

They can’t tell me the means, but in no way did that center fuel tank exploded like that.


68 posted on 06/07/2009 6:26:23 AM PDT by waxer1 ( "The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests." -Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

Thank you for correcting me. ;-)

I knew it was something like that, but I just could not put it into words.


69 posted on 06/07/2009 6:27:44 AM PDT by waxer1 ( "The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests." -Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: alice_in_bubbaland
I still think it was either terrorism or friendly fire from a Navy or Coast Guard training exercise gone wrong. Either way, the goobermint IS hiding something.

So you think that the Navy shot down the Air France flight, too?

70 posted on 06/07/2009 6:29:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

Nor do you answer the simple question of forensics. Where is the explosive residue . . . anywhere?


71 posted on 06/07/2009 6:32:04 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: waxer1
So what caused the fuel to explode?

The center tank was empty. Fuel didn't explode, fumes did.

72 posted on 06/07/2009 6:32:11 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: AlexW

I’m willing to accept it “may have been shot down,” but to do so, neither you nor I can rely on “eyewitnesses.” There is abundant, massive, forensic evidence, none of which shows any missile parts, or explosive residue.


73 posted on 06/07/2009 6:33:02 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“The center tank was empty. Fuel didn’t explode, fumes did.”

Is it true or not that fumes do not build up in the fuel tanks because the tank is vented to the outside of the plane? So it could not have been the fumes.

If you look at the picture of the tank itself why is the tank bowed inward? The source of the explosion came from the outside.


74 posted on 06/07/2009 6:36:38 AM PDT by waxer1 ( "The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests." -Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: LS
Nor do you answer the simple question of forensics. Where is the explosive residue . . . anywhere?

I didn't address the actual cause because I don't know what caused it. I didn't say it was a missile or other explosive device, nor did I ever mention any explosive residue or the lack thereof. Perhaps you are reading someone else's comments and attributing them to me. I don't know what brought down TWA800, but I do know it was not a fuel vapor explosion......

75 posted on 06/07/2009 6:38:31 AM PDT by Thermalseeker (Fight Fascism - Buy a Ford!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Fuel didn't explode, fumes did.

Nope. Didn't happen that way.

76 posted on 06/07/2009 6:39:24 AM PDT by Thermalseeker (Fight Fascism - Buy a Ford!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

lentulusgracchus wrote:
“...the missile theory has a few problems (setting the eyewitnesses aside for a minute), the first being tactical. I’m unaware of a MANPADS that can reach an aircraft reliably at 13,000’. The Stinger’s operational ceiling is about that, or rather less. The copies cranked out by the Soviets and Chinese are about the same, for obvious reasons (their propellants aren’t any better than ours).”

..... TWA800 would have been a relatively easy target for a Soviet SA16/18, which even then was 15 year old technology.

“A further problem for the TWA 800 missile enthusiasts is the fact that the explosion occurred dead-center in the aircraft, whereas SA-14’s, Stingers, etc., are IR homing and typically strike an engine. Recall the DHL Airbus A300 freighter that was struck on one wing (photo) over Baghdad by an SA-14 MANPADS but managed to land safely.”

..... Maybe yes, maybe no. An IR guided missile will target the center of the target’s IR signature. Also, the SA16/18 has multiple fuzings: delayed impact, magnetic, or grazing.

“If TWA 800 had been struck by an SA-14, a) it might easily have survived the attack and landed safely, the 747 being a big, capable aircraft with multiple system redundancy, and b) if it had succumbed, the sequence of events would have been a lot different.”

Even older manpads were capable of bringing down a multi-engine airliner

[ http://www.smokeinthecockpit.com/menu_pages/manpads.html ]

As the IRA once said: “you have to be lucky every time; we only have to be lucky once”.

And the final fly in the ointment is that, presuming a missile attack occured [which I believe] we are assuming that it was a manpad device. It is also perfectly feasible for a larger and more capable missile system to have been fitted to a small ocean-going vessel [think fishing trawler]. Far-fetched? Perhaps. But certainly not outside the realm of possibility.


77 posted on 06/07/2009 6:39:46 AM PDT by Senator John Blutarski (The progress of government: republic, democracy, technocracy, bureaucracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LS

No explosive residue? Perhaps.

But propellant residue might well be another story.


78 posted on 06/07/2009 6:42:39 AM PDT by Senator John Blutarski (The progress of government: republic, democracy, technocracy, bureaucracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: waxer1
I have seen pictures of the tank, and it is bowed from the outside in. Why is that? I am no expert, but it seems to me that if the tank exploded it would bow outwards.

Are you sure about the deformation? I haven't heard that one before.

Still ..... no chemical residues, no abundant shrapnel fragments as one would expect, if it were a missile. Many missiles above the MANPADS class are designed to do much of their disassembly work through fragmentation, such as the expanding-rod warheads common in U.S. Navy SAM's and AAM's.

79 posted on 06/07/2009 6:46:00 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

ping for later


80 posted on 06/07/2009 6:47:59 AM PDT by mick (Central Banker Capitalism is NOT Free Enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson