Posted on 06/19/2013 4:09:14 AM PDT by servo1969
No argument on that, but it is still a fact that the sulfur is found in the longer chains.
Which part? That the center tank wasn't almost empty? That the air conditioning unit were not located underneath it? Or that they were not capable of heating the fuel vapor in the tank? I would think that any of that would be easy to check.
>> “The NTSB report has actual facts and they point directly to the center fuel tank exploding.” <<
.
They have vastly more evidence showing rocket fuel components on the entire interior of the plane.
Even nearly empty tanks have to be heated far beyond any temp that would be possible in flight to explode.
It was a clown show, and you know it.
Dragging the 'trufer' crap into this thread reveals your agenda, freak.
“That the air conditioning unit were not located underneath it? Or that they were not capable of heating the fuel vapor in the tank? I would think that any of that would be easy to check. “
And it was checked on a similar hot day with no fuel tanks were found to be of vaporous temperature. That A/C theory was shot to Hell. Besides, 747 aircraft fly on even hotter days with just as empty tanks and no explosions, even with aircraft that supposedly had similar faulty wiring.
I don't know enough about fuel fumes to know how hot they have to be or how much pressure they need to be under, but if not the NTSB explanation then why is everyone immediately jumping on all these crazy missile theories, all of which are more impossible than a spark in the fuel tank? The Navy shoots it down. Muslims from a boat shoot it with a Phoenix missile. Muslims from the shore hit it with a Stinger. They're all more wild than the one before, and ignore basic facts about whatever missile that the theory of the moment is dealing with. Why are people ignoring what is by far the most plausible alternate explanation - a bomb on board? This was 1996. Pre-TSA. Security was far more lax. Slipping a bomb into the carry-on or loading it into checked baggage would have been a comparative piece of cake. But I guess that makes too much sense. Far better to believe a Stinger in the hands of a Muslim on a boat then a bomb loaded into a suitcase by a Muslim in Long Island.
The missile was no theory, we all saw the video of the missile hitting the plane. Nobody ever attempted to say that it was impossible; instead there were numerous SAM experts saying that it was very credible.
As for the jet fuel, it does not vaporize very well below 500 degrees F. If it did, the engines would be prone to vapor lock internally.
Then explain this to me. How could a man-portable SAM like a Stinger or a SAM7 or a Mistral, which all have infra-red homing guidance systems, bypass the four hottest targets available - the engines - and instead fly over the wing and hit it broadside in the fuselage?
I've always kicked myself for still believing that there was a massive cover-up -- after all, wouldn't someone have come forward? Well, now they are.
You offer more strawmen.
We don’t know how the missile was configured, and it hit ahead of the wing, not above it. That is not an unlikely occurance.
They were coming foreward in the beginning too, and being silenced.
I believe the proper term would be 'poking holes in your story'.
We don’t know how the missile was configured...
Man-portable missiles all have IR tracking sytems. What you would have us believe is that someone took one and swapped out the tracking sytem?
...and it hit ahead of the wing, not above it. That is not an unlikely occurance.
But it still hit the fuselage broadside, by passing the engines. Considering it was fired from below the aircraft you would still have us believe it bypassed the engines completely and hit the fuslage at a horizontal angle, which would mean it got to the same height as the airplane, made a 90 degree turn, and impacted. And you honestly find that more plausible than a bomb on board?
The source of the .2 inch pellets dug out of cadavers retrieved at the site indicates things slammed into their bodies inside that plane that could not have been generated by anything used to make the plane. Whether the source of those pellets was a bomb in the hold or a missile or missiles fired at the plane is the question to be answered. The pellets are known to be used in anti-aircraft missiles.
“Don’t know how many remember this...but Pierre Salinger, JFK’s old press secretary held a news conference from the relative safety of France...and called out the US government on this story...he died shortly thereafter.”
Ah, don’t they all?!? Those silly tattletales!!
No the proper term in your case is picking your nose.
The missile was in all liklihood headed toward the heat of the engines, coming toward the plane from ahead, not behind like an air to air shot would be more likely to do.
Where is the internet link to the .2 inch pellets dug out of cadavers?
Got ONE picture of these pellets? This is an internet myth.
Whether it was a bomb, a missile or bad wiring, the plane was 95% reconstructed and the Center Wing tank is the epicenter of the explosion... and there was no evidence of a bomb or missile on anything other than fuel that exploded INSIDE the center wing tank.
The Wing box is the strongest part of the plane, and it was blown to hell, from the INSIDE.
Ah, so you’re confined to only the talking points you’re given. You could spend some time studying the actual reports which have been revealed through FOIA paperwork. But then you would feel uncomfortable pushing only what you’re fed from ‘those’ who want to control the information the public looks at.
Keep on posting BS as fact, that’s how we know you.
The rocket fuel is the significant evidence; the rest was concocted by another warren type committee.
Read his handle, he’s a UN gun :o)
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.