Replies

Gosh _Jim, can't you let your buddies at the FBI and NTSB handle their own cover-ups? Or is the BATF the only agency involved in closed-case spin control? But, since I know you can't look it up, JP-4 is a military fuel which is much more volatile than Jet A, and so the Iranian Jet, which was hit by lightning may have exploded due to a wing tank, but TWA800 had only Jet A on board. In fact, the Manila explosion is the only other plane claimed to have been lost due to a fuel tank explosion with Jet A fuel. Commander Donaldson revealed the following:

"Fact: In Congressional testimony and in statements repeatedly made in the media, the NTSB leadership characterized the only example of a fuel tank fire involving a Jet-A fueled airliner, a Philippines Air 737 in 1990, as a center fuel tank explosion. Video and still photography, taken after the fire was out, show the center wing tank did not explode."

"...The undercarriage, wheels and center wing box (tank), were structurally sound enough to carry the load of engines and fuel weight in the wings with the aircraft under tractor tow. The gross fire damage to the cabin appears more indicative of a cabin fire, exacerbated by ignition of emergency oxygen canisters, interior plastics, etc. The Philippine crash investigators could not prove a source of ignition for that fire. Had the Center Wing Tank actually exploded in the manner the NTSB leadership suggests the aircraft would have dropped on the ramp and the tons of fuel in the wing would have immediately been involved."

Another thing I wonder his Jim's explanation for the orange RDX chemical found on seat cushions in the wreckage. I wonder if he can comprehend how difficult it is to manufacture that US grade military explosive? I heard the head investigator fess up about the RDX chemical to Trafficant in an early hearing. True, Trafficant later said it wasn't a coverup. But I think they convinced Trafficant that it's best not to give terrorists credit for any kills. It's a powerful argument. Freegards....

But, since I know you can't look it up, JP-4 is a military fuel which is much more volatile than Jet A, and so the Iranian Jet, which was hit by lightning may have exploded due to a wing tank, but TWA800 had only Jet A on board.

Similar engines/engine designs in similar applications (climate/aircraft use) require/can use similar specified, approved types of fuel ... unless you have experience working for an engine manufacturer like GE, Rolls Royce or Pratt and Whitney I'm not going to pay you much mind on this particular subject ...