Posted on 06/07/2009 12:31:42 AM PDT by neverdem
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.
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.
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?
“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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for correcting me. ;-)
I knew it was something like that, but I just could not put it into words.
So you think that the Navy shot down the Air France flight, too?
Nor do you answer the simple question of forensics. Where is the explosive residue . . . anywhere?
The center tank was empty. Fuel didn't explode, fumes did.
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.
“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.
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......
Nope. Didn't happen that way.
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.
No explosive residue? Perhaps.
But propellant residue might well be another story.
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.
ping for later
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.