N.Y. Times continues to avoid TWA 800 connection (Richard Clarke & Jamie Gorelick)

World Net Daily ^ | 8/18/05 | Jack Cashill

[_Jim]

Hmmm ... I'm looking for a particular precedent event - I don't think many people are aware that this sort of thing has happened before.

(Like a good attorney, I'm not asking questions I don't know the answer to.)

[razorback-bert]

No, I am not aware of another Fuel Quantity Indicating System ignition event.

[_Jim]

Where did one of us lose the rabbit on this; I thought I had posed a question about 'a precedent'; a jet aircraft fuel tank explosion (in post # 113).

[Tymesup]

"Did Boeing agree with the findings? "

IIRC, Boeing got a large contract shortly thereafter.

[Luke21]

They write this stuff like it's from the congressional record when it's their people, but they scream out sensational and simplified headlines, cliches, code words, and repetitions when it's one of ours.

It's pretty hillarious watching these people, and we still usually know what's going on because their lies and cover ups don't work anymore.

[mordo]

Cant speak for or against TWA flight 800.

But center tank explosions have been on documented on other Boeing aircraft.

The Boeing 737 for instance while a much smaller aircraft has a similar wing-tank center-tank structure and these airplanes had documented and photographed center tank explosions that occurred on the ground. So its not completely out of the realm.

There are in fact FAA AD notes for the 747 on this issue.

[mordo]

FAA AD NOTES

[Wil H]

Got any sort of link to that?

If you go to www.twa800.com they have extensive documentation on the whole cover up.

As I recall the testing was done near Bristol, at Cavernham I believe.

[Wil H]

There are in fact FAA AD notes for the 747 on this issue.

Duh! the AD was issued as a result of the "findings" that blamed the center fuel tank theory of TWA 800, so it can hardly be considered corroborating evidence can it?

[mordo]

Well Duh! You are right! But not absolutely
IF there are no prior AD's or service bulletins on this.
If there are, I'll try to get them for you ;)

[Balding_Eagle]

OK guys, I've got to eat crow on this one. I hate it when that happens.

You both were right, I was wrong. The tanks do operate at ambient pressure.

[RedwM]

I believe the NY Air NG. accidentally shot down Flight 800.

[Wil H]

I couldn't find any prior to the crash.

Given that the 747 had been in service 26 years at that time with no previous problem of that nature and given that they could legitimately re-create the alleged problem under test conditions and given that it hasn't happened since, I'd say it was a total fabrication, as was the NTSB's ridiculous video claiming the plame climbed an additional 3000 feet AFTER the explosion.

[moehoward]

It's ok, I had to do it yesterday on a different thread. It's nice to see I'm not the only when that offers a ping to admit I was mistaken.

[mordo]

Given that the 747 had been in service 26 years at that time with no previous problem of that nature and given that they could legitimately re-create the alleged problem under test conditions and given that it hasn't happened since, I'd say it was a total fabrication, as was the NTSB's ridiculous video claiming the plame climbed an additional 3000 feet AFTER the explosion.

Well you can say all these things for sure, but your logic does not make them fact for sure.
I can cite many catastrophic incidents that were not really known design flaws till they appeared as a catastrophe. The Comet, Aloha, Lauda Air, UAL flt-811. There are more.
Then you ridicule the video. But if you took an airframe that big with that kind of wing area at that airspeed trimmed for level flight then suddenly remove all the mass forward of the wing, the airframe will pitch up, and its forward momentum will then cause a climb till it runs out of airspeed.

But I can tell when I'm not wanted, so long Mordo out.

[Wil H]

the "design flaw" in this case appears to be a) a one off case and b) unprovable or recreatable

there have been no otherr instances of thiis supposed flaw in hundreds of thousand of hours of 747 flights.

As to the video, the plane was not trimmed out in level flight it was in climb out

there is no way that 747 with it's nose pitched up, fully laden, is going to gain an additional 3000 feet after breaking off it's nose. The tail would drop,the plane would stall and falll out of the sky in short order, it certainly would not have the momenyum or power to make the additional altitude.

[mordo]

the plane was not trimmed out in level flight it was in climb out

okay okay.. I should have been more specific, acft trimmed for climbout,, which in fact would have some nose up trim dialed in during climb out. Your scenario says it cant happen not enough momentum or power. But all engines were operating and the acft had what 300knots plus or minus of airspeed and that is nothing?

Well we have a conflict here and it is not with me.

You people need to have at least a basic layperson understanding of these things.., well on the other hand I see now that assertion is proved wrong.

Mordo Out Really

[Wil H]

As a pilot, I do have a "basic understanding" and I don't buy the NTSB's story.

[mordo]

As a pilot, I do have a "basic understanding" and I don't buy the NTSB's story.

Okay fair enough. Make your case (other than just saying the NTSB story and the rest is all hooey)

I say that you wont be able to make an beyond doubt case against the NTSB scenario, or proof for the terrorists scenarios of bombing & shoot-downs and/or govt. scenario shoot-downs.