Posted on 06/22/2006 7:35:47 AM PDT by drypowder
At 9am,I woke up to pres. Clinton,using his croaky voice,telling the nation that TWA's actions were unconscionable. He stated that TWA was not yet notifying the families of the passengers and staff. He further said that he was setting up a government disaster notification team to ensure that things were handled correctly.
I recall that my first thoughts included wondering who "they" were trying to establish was either on or off that flight since I knew that the list had been taken away from TWA pretty early on. I had many other thoughts, the mildest and kindest was that the president at the very least had poor communications with his key staff.
How did it explain fuel pump wires outside the fuel tank causing and explosion INSIDE the tank?
This, in fact, is one of the things that would weigh towards an accidental shoot-down by a naval vessel conducting exercises off the south shore of Long Island that evening.
Typical clinton reaction - accuse someone else of doing that which you in fact are doing. And as you point out, do it in that croaky voice that never fooled me once, but somehow fooled millions upon millions of supposedly intelligent people.
"How did it explain fuel pump wires outside the fuel tank causing and explosion INSIDE the tank?"
I don't recall, except that the theory revolved around a spark INSIDE the tank igniting vapors. The interesting thing was that some of the conditions for the explosion were enabled by unique trauma that this plane had undergone in its past (documented in its maintenance logs).
Sorry but I do not remember the details of the documentary well enough to defend it. The NTSB investigation on which the show was based DID seem rather thorough and did address many of the issues others have raised.
There is another thread on FR right now discussed Flight 800 and at least one of the participants seems to have a much better recollection of this presentation than I do.
I believe there are enough questions about this for the Clinton explanations to be suspect. Clinton had never defended any attacks on Americans and wasn't about to do so. This incident had to be a "Clinton spin special" so he could avoid action and blame.
Please read this: TWA 800's 'Deep Throat' - (FBI, liberal media conspired in TWA 800 cover-up; Clinton wanted closure)
Yes, I do not disagree with you. See my posts above about Kallstrom's,(the FBI guy in charge), astonishingly rapid about face over the course of the investigation.
The documentary was very convincing, (again it was allegedly based on the NTSB investigation-yes, I know....subject to Clinton thuggery as well), but I am an EyeGuy, without any expertise in the fields of explosives, aeronautical engineering, aircraft maintenance, or electrical schematics.
It would be VERY instructive to have experts in these fields opine on each of the documentary's painstakingly assembled points.
I can't attest to the validity of the information on this site so as always, take it with a grain of salt. lots on the interviews, etc here.. http://www.twa800.com
I don't have any of that either. But I saw the home video before it was yanked and I saw the witnesses on TV right after the incident. If Clinton were given a choice between the truth and a lie, I believe he'd choose the lie. We saw 8 years of him in action. And his cowardice when Americans and America was attacked.
"But I saw the home video before it was yanked and I saw the witnesses on TV right after the incident."
I may not remember the video, but I definitely recall (like many here) the plethora of witnesses.
The guy that most impressed me was an experienced pilot (not some Cessna jockey...I seem to remember him being a commercial cargo type pilot, who actually may have been flying a different sort of plane at the time), he was very detailed, descriptive and adamant about what he saw.
Next thing you know he disappeared from the face of the Earth, at least as far as being available for providing his eyewitness account for widespread dissemination to us unwashed rabble.
I just posted this on another thread. I can't say as I'm surprised.
I missed this when it was first posted in April.
William Donaldson, re-interviewed a key witness, Mike Wire, whose testimony was used to create the government's explanation.
Donaldson said Wire's testimony was used extensively by the CIA in developing its theory.
But Wire says the agency completely distorted his statement and never interviewed him.
Google Map Used to Bolster Missile Claim: Researcher verifies testimony of key FBI witness (TWA 800)
"Jet Fuel is simply KEROSINE. Go to the corner gas station, buy a gallon, pour it into a bucket, and toss in a match and watch what DOESN'T happen"
Your post was brought onto another thread by another individual. The response:
"Heat Kerosene until it vaporizes. Stand in it and light a match. Let me watch."
The documentary mentioned above posited spark ignition of vapor in the empty fuel tank as the explosive etiology.
I stand by my original statement. I also suggest you try it for yourself and see.
Take a gallon of kerosine and pour it over a pile of wood. Give it a good long time to vaporize, if you like- and then toss a match in it. I've done this dozens of times.
Don't try this with gasoline unless you are good and far away. (20 yards AT LEAST for a gallon of gas) You will be stunned at the difference, If not knocked on your ass by the explosion.
If explosive heated kerosine vapors were a problem in center fuel tanks then why was there NO EFFORT to refit any airplane after this incident.
I have never tried heating it in an empty container, (I guess I'll have to try it to be fair) but have you ever seen how cold your luggage is when you get it off the plane?
"If explosive heated kerosine vapors were a problem in center fuel tanks then why was there NO EFFORT to refit any airplane after this incident."
My understanding was that these vapors are normally present, but that this particular plane experienced some unique traumas in its past history that led to the rogue spark inside the tank. There was also some damage to a bulkhead which was also implicit in the cause for the explosion.
I won't argue with you about kerosene, as I don't know anything about it. If you want to discuss it, the gentleman on the other thread seems to know much more about that particular fuel, and recalls better than I why they deemed this vapor as explosively dangerous.
I am no expert, by far, but I do recall, some months after the accident, that there was some talk about examining the 'wiring inside the fuel tanks that measured/regulated fuel depth or content.'
As a total novice, I just remember hearing that. No way to have any idea if there was any possibility of accuracy there.
If there had been an attack, which surely there was, the American people would have ejected Clinton the the 1996 election. He had already winked at the 1992 bombing of the World Trade Towers, subsequently Somalia, and other terrorist attaacks and treated them as law enforcement issues. Even Clinton and his advisors met a few hours later and discusssed the terrorist taking down of flight 800, according to Stephanopolous, who was in attendance. No, this was a hoax perpetrated on the gullible American populous. Clintons favorite tool to convince people of his viewpoint,....the LIE. It always served him to his ends.
From here: Associated Retired Aviation Professionals
The NTSB's theory is that some unknown spark ignited the Jet A fuel vapors inside Flight 800's center fuel tank. This theory depends on 2 things: a) sufficient fuel vapors at the proper fuel/air mixture; and b) a sufficient spark to ignite the fuel vapors. Neither condition has been found to have been present in subsequent tests. In Boeing's recent filing with the NTSB they have stated that they have not found any source of spark in Flight 800. The NTSB would have you believe that Jet A fuel vapors are a virtual bomb waiting to go off, yet every day hundreds of 747's are sitting on hot runways in places like Saudi Arabia, India, etc. with empty center tanks and none have ever exploded. Every day aircraft with empty fuel tanks are hit by lightning, a spark thousands of times greater than necessary to ignite this vapor, yet these aircraft do not explode. Why, because the fuel vapor is not explosive.
1) Did you post this on the other Flight 800 thread? There is at least one guy over there insistent that these vapors are indeed highly explosive.
2) Has the ARAP issued a rebuttal to the scenarios detailed in the documentary. It seemed to this layman to be quite thorough and detailed.
2)I don't know if they have or not.
That's because millions of planes, cars, trucks, tractors, heavy equipment, etc, have electric pumps, sensors and related circuitry in their fuel tanks also. These tanks contain all sorts of fuel blends, from #2 diesel to winter gasoline to gas-o-hol blends. The wiring harnesses to these tanks often contain other circuits such as tail lights etc, and are much more poorly maintained and inspected compared to a 747.
Your uncle never saw a Boeing, a Ford, or a Chevy blow up while going down the interstate.....and neither have I.
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.
