Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/8/2004 7:12:46 AM EST
Remember that flight that left Long Island and went down after take off into the Atlantic (late 90's)
What was the ruling on that? I don't recall any official answer. Witnesses claimed they saw a flash before it went down (ie: missile)
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:14:00 AM EST
Faulty wiring
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:16:46 AM EST
That's what I thought. Could not recall if there was any foulplay. Thanks
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:18:55 AM EST
a missle hit the plane from either terrorists or our own military
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:21:03 AM EST
There was a guy on Foxnews this morning talking about the TWA explosion. He has written a book and claims to have proof that the Clinton administration covered up the investigation.

He said that Ramsey Youseff was responsible for having a bomb planted on the plane. He claims that Jamie Gorlick was at the heart of the cover up.

I will try to find the name of the book.

The guy sounded very convincing.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:21:14 AM EST
The official story was a spark with the center fuel tank. Not a new Boeing issue, there have been two 737's that the same thing has happened to.

Note that I am not saying that was the actual cause of this accident, just that it's at least plausible.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:22:13 AM EST
The tin foil crowd says it was a shoulder fired missle. But these are the same folks who say we didn't go to the moon too.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:24:44 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:25:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:29:17 AM EST
LOL- If you know anything about civil aviation, then you know that the FAA mandates a lot of things for nothing. That wouldn't be a problem for then in the least.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:34:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By BillofRights:
LOL- If you know anything about civil aviation, then you know that the FAA mandates a lot of things for nothing. That wouldn't be a problem for then in the least.



Sounds like CYA at its governmental finest.


Woody
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:37:35 AM EST
Stray Firebee Target drone from the Navy exercise up the coast hit the plane……

ANdy
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:39:09 AM EST
Max range on a shoulder fired missile is about 5 miles, So I find it very hard to believe that someone shot it down while in flight.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:40:45 AM EST
Foil hat pundits
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:44:52 AM EST
It was never downed. The .gov guys kept in the air until 9-11 and then the jetisoned the wings and flew it into the Pentagon.


GWB was behind this because the TOP Pnetagon officials were way to close on discovering that the moon is mde of cheese.


And not even good cheese at that!


SGtar15
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:46:27 AM EST
The guy on Fox this am said explosive residue was found...There was some discussion of Ramsey Yousef having mentioned which explosive(s) while he was communicating to the Blind Sheik while they were jailed near each other...Seems he described exactly the mix of explosives that was found.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:50:28 AM EST
As I understand it, the center fuel tank was not full. There was a lot of air inside the tank with fuel and fuel vapor. A spark (from an electrostatic discharge or electrical short) was the ignition source. The fuel vapor exploded, downing the plane.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:51:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By MTUSA:
Remember that flight that left Long Island and went down after take off into the Atlantic (late 90's)
What was the ruling on that? I don't recall any official answer. Witnesses claimed they saw a flash before it went down (ie: missile)



Faulty wiring in the center fuel tank. Part of the wiring was exposed to the air (fumes) and sparked at some point, causing the fuel tank to explode.
I think this is the most likely cause. The plane was too high to get hit by a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missle. Even if it was in range, that particular missle would have most likely been infared guided, so it would have struck an engine, not the fuselage. I have seen a Airbus cargo plane get struck by a shoulder fired missle at Baghdad. It didn't blow up in mid air, matter of fact the plane turned around and landed successfully.

Navy cruiser idea is ridicolous too simply for the amount of people that would know the truth, no way they could keep it secert. Hundreds of people worked on the TWA 800 crash, they successfully recovered 90% of the plane out of the water, and they only recovered parts to one aircraft. If it was struck by a drone, they would have found at least one part of it, and if they did, no way could you get hundreds of people to be quiet about it, let alone the thousand+ sailors on the Navy Cruiser. Trust me, somebody would have talked by now.

The faulty wiring has been an issue before. As someone mentoined, it did play a factor in two 737s, Boeing has been warning airlines to check the wiring in the Boeing series since the late '70s (specifically mentoining fuel tank explosion as reason for check) and the Air Force had installed a system in all of their planes to prevent fuel tank explosion before the TWA 800 disaster, so Boeing, Air Force and the industry knew that it was a possibilty.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:57:16 AM EST
Kapton wiring.
It's a motherfucker.


Mech Summer 2002
US Naval Safety Center

Kapton Wiring: The Silent Menace
By Lt. Jim Schmitt

Perhaps the desert sand of the Middle East has awakened the stray electrons that occasionally cause electrical glitches and failures on our four, permanent-detachment, MH-53E helicopters. But electrical gripes have become more regular, and they're the types that puzzle even the most experienced AE. I read the stories in Mech about the E-2's problems [April-June 2001, "The Resurgence of an Old Enemy" and Fall 2001, "Almost Bitten on a BITS Flight"-Ed.], and I want to share a few problems I've noticed with the H-53.

Every few days, the caution lights for the fuel-filter bypass intermittently would flash on one of our helos. After troubleshooting the engine, the AEs finally found the light came on only at night. Even more bizarre, they would go out when the switch for the caution-panel lighting was moved from the dim position (normal) to bright. The culprit finally was found; it was bad Kapton wiring behind the caution panel.

Another aircraft had a flickering master-caution light with no other associated caution lights. It would flicker only a couple times during each flight and nearly was impossible to troubleshoot. When tracing the wires, electricians finally found cracked Kapton wiring.

In the past year, our Bahrain detachment has completed 120 maintenance actions and spent more than 400 hours on problems with faulty Kapton wiring. These MAFs were not specific to a single system, but many of the gripes involved mission-critical systems.

Our det has been fortunate to fly hundreds of mishap-free operational missions since it formed more than two years ago. Most of the broken wires were discovered during daily, turnaround, preflight, and phase inspections. The timely recording of gripes led to the repair of faulty wiring before it could cause a major failure. But every flight is the roll of two dice: One to determine which aircraft will have the next failure, and the other to decide which wire will fail. Despite our maintainers' successes in dealing with Kapton wiring, in time, the failures will increase and, unfortunately, could lead to a catastrophic failure or a mishap.

The most difficult part about flying an aircraft prone to faulty Kapton wiring is the unpredictability of the electrical system. No one knows how a faulty wire will affect any aircraft's electrical system. Because wires crack one at a time, a helo typically will not lose an entire system or component, just parts of it. The wires still carrying current will cause the component to act erratically. Even worse, the failures are intermittent because the crack in the wire opens and closes when an aircraft vibrates and maneuvers. This makes it nearly impossible to troubleshoot and leads to many gripes being signed off as "could not duplicate."

Cracked wires (as opposed to a clean break) are susceptible to arcing and can cause a fire. An in-flight fire especially is bad when flying blue-water ops, which is what the det does most of the time.

Aviation safety and mishap prevention relies on the removal of uncertainty. That is why pilots use checklists and maintainers follow MIMs. Trying to stay safe when dealing with uncertainty requires a lot of skill and a bit of luck. Based on the problems I've seen with Kapton wiring, we have been more lucky than good, and I'm worried our luck eventually will run out.

Lt. Schmitt flies with HM-14.



Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By MTUSA:
Remember that flight that left Long Island and went down after take off into the Atlantic (late 90's)
What was the ruling on that? I don't recall any official answer. Witnesses claimed they saw a flash before it went down (ie: missile)



Faulty wiring in the center fuel tank. Part of the wiring was exposed to the air (fumes) and sparked at some point, causing the fuel tank to explode.
I think this is the most likely cause. The plane was too high to get hit by a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missle. Even if it was in range, that particular missle would have most likely been infared guided, so it would have struck an engine, not the fuselage. I have seen a Airbus cargo plane get struck by a shoulder fired missle at Baghdad. It didn't blow up in mid air, matter of fact the plane turned around and landed successfully.

Navy cruiser idea is ridicolous too simply for the amount of people that would know the truth, no way they could keep it secert. Hundreds of people worked on the TWA 800 crash, they successfully recovered 90% of the plane out of the water, and they only recovered parts to one aircraft. If it was struck by a drone, they would have found at least one part of it, and if they did, no way could you get hundreds of people to be quiet about it, let alone the thousand+ sailors on the Navy Cruiser. Trust me, somebody would have talked by now.

The faulty wiring has been an issue before. As someone mentoined, it did play a factor in two 737s, Boeing has been warning airlines to check the wiring in the Boeing series since the late '70s (specifically mentoining fuel tank explosion as reason for check) and the Air Force had installed a system in all of their planes to prevent fuel tank explosion before the TWA 800 disaster, so Boeing, Air Force and the industry knew that it was a possibilty.


Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:01:34 AM EST
NTSB Chief Jim Hall said it was an accident, and based on his extensive engineering and failure analysis background, (zippo - he got the job as a reward for being a senior staffer & fund raiser for Al Gore) then we have to believe him.

What's Jim Hall up to now?

Why he's working for airplane accident ambulance chasers!

No conflict of interest?

Remember that Hall was in charge of NTSB when USAir 427 went down.

Now look how much his law firm made on just one settlement from that same flight


1999 Settlement: 56-year-old executive killed in Pittsburgh 737 crash leaving a wife and two adult children $4,925,000


Nice to get a job with a firm which has judgments of nearly $500 million dollars (go ahead, add it up!) against airlines...


Oh yes, since 800 WASN'T terrorism (we don't know what it is, but we know it's not terrorism! boy does that sound familiar) then why did the FBI take the lead role? Don't recall hearing about them taking the lead role in 427, which was only a year and a half earlier...

ok, maybe it is tin foil, but both Hall & Kallstrom would have imperiled their careers by not renouncing terrorism as a cause (which would have damaged the industry, economy, and ultimately, the administration - look at the effects on the industry of 911, and follow through effects)

all you'd ever want to know (and maybe more) about 800 can be found here
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:17:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 8:18:51 AM EST by FMD]
I'm not sure what it was, but I doubt it was faulty wiring in the gas tank.

You ever try to light diesel fuel (aka jet fuel) on fire? It ain't easy, and it takes a hell of a lot more than a spark + uncompressed vapors.

Sorry, if not taking the .gov's word for something makes me a tin-foil beanie wearer, because if it does, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

FWIW:

I dont' believe Koresh was making meth in Waco, and I do believe the ATF shot first.

I don't believe McVeigh acted alone, and I sure as hell don't believe a truck filled with ANFO took out 1/3 of the Murrah building.

I didn't believe the Russians when KAL 007 was "shot down" (without wreckage, mind you) either.

Paranoid? Maybe.

Prove me wrong.

-FMD
(edit for grammer - and to don my Nomex coveralls )
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:23:37 AM EST
JP-4 is not anything near diesel fuel. JP-4 will go bang very easy, static charge blew up a tanker truck on the base I was stationed at.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:25:22 AM EST
The book that was discussed this morning on Foxnews is..

"Cover Up" by Peter Lance.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:28:50 AM EST
it was a .50 that or evil black rifle...it HAD to be...

and GW's fault...
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:32:25 AM EST
The ruling is that it is the single most freaky incident of my life. TWA Flight 800 was from Long Island to Paris.

TWA Flight 801 (same plane) was from Paris to Long Island, and included in the passenger manifest would have been roughly 30 young high school German students on their way back from 2 weeks in Germany. I was one of them.

I was not comfortable till I had my feet back on San Diego soil.

--------
My mother was over the Atlantic on 9/11 when RoP members began crashing planes into things.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:33:29 AM EST
I have "'questions" about Flight 800, however, your use of diesel fuel / jet fuel to prove a point is lame.

It's not the jet fuel that was ignited, it was the VAPORS that were ignited.

I can tell you that on a Boeing 707 you don't leave the center tank fuel pumps on for more than 15 minutes after the tank is empty because the pumps will overheat (the fuel is used to cool and lubricate the pumps) and may cause sparking when they fail.

Enclosed space (fuel tank) + oxygen + heat + spark + fuel = KABOOM!!!



Originally Posted By FMD:
You ever try to light diesel fuel (aka jet fuel) on fire? It ain't easy, and it takes a hell of a lot more than a spark + uncompressed vapors.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:33:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By FMD:
I'm not sure what it was, but I doubt it was faulty wiring in the gas tank.

You ever try to light diesel fuel (aka jet fuel) on fire? It ain't easy, and it takes a hell of a lot more than a spark + uncompressed vapors.

Sorry, if not taking the .gov's word for something makes me a tin-foil beanie wearer, because if it does, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

FWIW:

I dont' believe Koresh was making meth in Waco, and I do believe the ATF shot first.

I don't believe McVeigh acted alone, and I sure as hell don't believe a truck filled with ANFO took out 1/3 of the Murrah building.

I didn't believe the Russians when KAL 007 was "shot down" (without wreckage, mind you) either.

Paranoid? Maybe.

Prove me wrong.

-FMD
(edit for grammer - and to don my Nomex coveralls )



So if jet fuel isn't so easy to ignite, why does the Air Force pump nitrogen into all of their fuel tanks? They don't agree with you.

My father works at Honeywell, they are designing a similar system (called the fuel vapor reduction system) that is going to be installed on all passanger planes in the next few years. A Fluid Engineer with over thirty years of experience doesn't agree with you.

Why has Boeing been warning of a center fuel tank explosion since the 1970s if jet fuel isn't so easy to light? Boeing disagrees with you.

Diesel fuel and jet fuel are two different things my friend. Jet fuel is a lot more closer to kerosene (which is very flammable) than diesel.

My ex-girlfriend, a safety engineer at Honeywell that is responsible for the safe storage of all chemicals at Honeywell, says that jet fuel has a much lower flashpoint that diesal fuel. She disagrees with you.

this website disagrees with you
www.npradc.org/news/facts/fuels.cfm


Diesel is listed as a Distillate Fuel Oil
Jet Fuel is listed as a Kerosene-type: commercial and Military Grades JP-5 and JP-8
Naphtha-type: Military Grade JP-4
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:38:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By FMD:


I don't believe McVeigh acted alone, and I sure as hell don't believe a truck filled with ANFO took out 1/3 of the Murrah building.


-FMD
(edit for grammer - and to don my Nomex coveralls )



You obviously have never witnessed the power of 4000+ lbs of HE!!!!

For a comparison, a MK-84 2000 lb GPLD Bomb "only" packs approximately 945 lbs (wt. depends on the filler) of HE filler! It will easily put a 20ft crater in the ground, I have personally witnessed a M60 tank completely disintergrated by one and steel frag flung over my head at a distance of 2 miles!!!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:45:42 AM EST
IF you really want to get the foil going, consider this article musing on Sandy Berger making Flight 800 files disappear which sounds "out there" until you consider that Stephanopoulos called it a bombing on the air and that (drum roll please) JOHN KERRY'S comments about flight 800 raise questions... well, it does tend to make one at least look a little closer at the details...


(as an aside, lel/uel for JP-4 is 1.3 to 8% by volume, gasoline is 1.2 - 7.1%, propane is 2.1 - 9.5% and methane (natural gas) is 5-15% @ STP, these will change with temperature & pressure up to the autoignition point) So yes it can go BOOM. Inerting or lower volatility fuels (like JP7 ;) eliminate or reduce likelihood of going BOOM. Is it possible that the fuel tank just blew up? Seems to be. But then why all the reluctance for independent (outside agency) verification?


Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:47:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 8:48:37 AM EST by SHIVAN]
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:50:30 AM EST
Ya gotta be kidding, right?
You know how many planes there are in the air right now?
How many planes that would be affected by an outside agency verification?
How much it would cost to fix them?

That's why the FAA has not ordered fuel inerting systems to be installed on airliners ASAP.

Boeing and Airbus have deep pockets, but not that deep.




Originally Posted By Merrell:
Is it possible that the fuel tank just blew up? Seems to be. But then why all the reluctance for independent (outside agency) verification?

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:50:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1-75Ranger:
JP-4 is not anything near diesel fuel. JP-4 will go bang very easy, static charge blew up a tanker truck on the base I was stationed at.



Not to nitpick, but you're comparing apples to oranges:

JetA (commercial jet fuel) is 98% Kerosene, and Kero is indeed "close" to (automotive) Diesel fuel.

JP-4 (military jet fuel phased out from 91-96) is 65% Gasoline.

For what it's worth: A static dissipator component is optional with JetA fuel, where it is required with JP-4. In short, the FAA doesn't think a static discharge is a high enough risk to require it's use in JetA.

Fuel Comparison Chart
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:57:50 AM EST
That's Navy.
The Air Force still uses JP4.
The Air Force did change over to JP8 overseas.
I pumped a lot of JP4 into my Navy aircraft after 1996 at USAF bases in the USA.

Originally Posted By FMD:
[JP-4 (military jet fuel phased out from 91-96) is 65% Gasoline.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:58:00 AM EST
that plane was knocked out of the sky, for suuuuuure.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:04:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
That's Navy.
The Air Force still uses JP4.
The Air Force did change over to JP8 overseas.
I pumped a lot of JP4 into my Navy aircraft after 1996 at USAF bases in the USA.

Originally Posted By FMD:
[JP-4 (military jet fuel phased out from 91-96) is 65% Gasoline.



Sorry, I should have specified.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:17:58 AM EST
so we all agree then?
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:21:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 9:35:46 AM EST by W-W]

Originally Posted By Mauser101:
The ruling is that it is the single most freaky incident of my life. TWA Flight 800 was from Long Island to Paris.

TWA Flight 801 (same plane) was from Paris to Long Island, and included in the passenger manifest would have been roughly 30 young high school German students on their way back from 2 weeks in Germany. I was one of them.

I was not comfortable till I had my feet back on San Diego soil.

--------
My mother was over the Atlantic on 9/11 when RoP members began crashing planes into things.



Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:25:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By 1-75Ranger:
JP-4 is not anything near diesel fuel. JP-4 will go bang very easy, static charge blew up a tanker truck on the base I was stationed at.



Not to nitpick, but you're comparing apples to oranges:

JetA (commercial jet fuel) is 98% Kerosene, and Kero is indeed "close" to (automotive) Diesel fuel.

JP-4 (military jet fuel phased out from 91-96) is 65% Gasoline.

For what it's worth: A static dissipator component is optional with JetA fuel, where it is required with JP-4. In short, the FAA doesn't think a static discharge is a high enough risk to require it's use in JetA.

Fuel Comparison Chart



Still we are talking about vapors in an "empty" fuel tank; not about throwing a match into a bucket of fuel.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:26:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 9:29:45 AM EST by FMD]

Originally Posted By guardian855:
Diesel fuel and jet fuel are two different things my friend. Jet fuel is a lot more closer to kerosene (which is very flammable) than diesel.

My ex-girlfriend, a safety engineer at Honeywell that is responsible for the safe storage of all chemicals at Honeywell, says that jet fuel has a much lower flashpoint that diesal fuel. She disagrees with you...



Yes, they are different. I apologize that I didn't use "kerosene" in my first post, however; your GF may want to look at her numbers regarding flash-point. After a quick search:

NASA says JetA's flashpoint is 120 Deg F.

Iowa State University says that diesel's flashpoint is 125-150 Deg F.

I'd say the flash points are close, but then again, I'm no expert.

EODtech:

As far as the explosion at OKC goes; again, I'm not the expert, but you may want to look at this article which references this report:Bomb Damage Analysis by Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, Ret.). See, he is an explosive expert.

Funny how Congress ignored his report, and the judge in Denver wouldn't allow his testimony to be heard in McVeigh's defense*.

-FMD

*NOTE: I'm glad McVeigh's gone, but it would have been interesting to find the "other's unknown" who were supposed to be involved as well.

PS: I suppose I'm done now. I'm (admittedly) no expert, but even cursory investigations of the official lies stories of the incidents I mentioned make you go "hmmmm.".


Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:27:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By 1-75Ranger:
JP-4 is not anything near diesel fuel. JP-4 will go bang very easy, static charge blew up a tanker truck on the base I was stationed at.



Not to nitpick, but you're comparing apples to oranges:

JetA (commercial jet fuel) is 98% Kerosene, and Kero is indeed "close" to (automotive) Diesel fuel.

JP-4 (military jet fuel phased out from 91-96) is 65% Gasoline.

For what it's worth: A static dissipator component is optional with JetA fuel, where it is required with JP-4. In short, the FAA doesn't think a static discharge is a high enough risk to require it's use in JetA.

Fuel Comparison Chart



Still we are talking about vapors in an "empty" fuel tank; not about throwing a match into a bucket of fuel.



There was less than 100 gallons of fuel in the tank that had a 13,000 gallon capacity. I don't think you need the quotes, that tank was pretty much empty except for the vapors.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:29:51 AM EST
What did Kerry know, and when did he know it?
Posted: February 18, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

If there is any one serious person in America whose prior knowledge might have affected events of Sept. 11, that person is presidential aspirant, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

On Sept. 11, 2001, as we have reported earlier, Sen. Kerry appeared on the Larry King Show. Kerry's honest admission to King bears scrutiny:

We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year, I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing [sic] hard work of responding.

If Kerry talked about the fate of TWA Flight 800 before Sept. 11, he does not seem to have done so at the time of its destruction. However, his colleague of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah, did go public with his concerns.

Hatch spoke with CNN on July 19, 1996, two days after the crash. He admitted to having "various conversations" with government officials. "I won't go so far as to say it was terrorism, but there was sabotage here," said Hatch. "We're looking at a criminal act. We're looking at somebody who either put a bomb on it or shot a missile, a surface-to-air missile."

Hatch was likely telling the truth here about the limits of his own knowledge. Indeed, we have yet to identify a single civilian, including those at work deep within the investigation, who knew beyond doubt what transpired on the night of July 17, 1996.

Hatch's recommended follow-up is fully consistent with his beliefs. "The National Transportation Safety Board should now turn the investigation over to the FBI because the crash was not related to an aviation problem," added Hatch. "It's very – almost 100 percent unlikely that this was a mechanical failure [italics mine]."

If there were ever a subject for review by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, this would seem to be it. But curiously, the committee's "Special Report" that covers the period of the crash and its aftermath dedicates not a word to TWA Flight 800.

The report does detail the terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia three weeks earlier and even explores the much more questionable and controversial subject of the CIA-Contra-cocaine story that was then creating a firestorm in the left-wing media and, to a lesser degree, in the mainstream media. But the Committee's report, issued on Feb. 28, 1997, does not raise the subject of TWA Flight 800, even to dismiss it.

"After TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it," said Kerry on Sept. 11. Given the presence of a Democrat in the White House, Kerry would have had better access to serious talk than Hatch. Regardless, not a word of it surfaces in the public record.

Throughout the year of 1997, the CIA worked on the creation of the now-notorious video animation designed to discredit the eyewitnesses. On Nov. 18, 1997, the FBI previewed this video for a national audience. Again, one would think this a likely topic for the Intelligence Committee's next report, the one covering the period Jan. 7, 1997 to Oct. 21, 1998. But again, not a word.

These reports are well detailed. They discuss subjects of serious and obvious national import, including terrorist acts like the destruction of Pan Am 103, but they also delve into the speculative like the CIA-Contra story, Y2K and "the release of the JFK files." But not one public word about TWA Flight 800.

After Kerry's remarks to Larry King on Sept. 11, at least one person called his office for a clarification. After some back-and-forth, she was told that she must have misunderstood.

On Sept. 24,2001, there was no mistaking the meaning of Sen. Kerry's remarks. I personally watched him say the following to Chris Matthews on Hardball.

You know, we've had terrorism for a long time now. We've had the Achille Lauro, the Munich Olympics, the pipe bomb at the Olympics in Atlanta, the TWA 800, the bombing of embassies, and it's not going to disappear overnight.

As we have noted before, on Sept. 20, 2001, one mainstream newspaper broke the story of how the so-called Gore Commission failed conspicuously to address airline safety. The paper claimed that this failure "represents the clearest recent public example of the success that airlines have long had in defeating calls for more oversight."

The paper traced that failure to a series of campaign donations from the airlines to the Democratic National Committee in 1996 in the wake of the crash of TWA Flight 800, donations likely solicited by Al Gore himself. That newspaper just happened to be John Kerry's hometown Boston Globe.

Of course, it is possible that Sen. Kerry merely misspoke about a terrorist attack against TWA 800 on two occasions, and it is possible too that the Globe's entrance into the fray was merely coincidental. But given the brutal realities of Democratic presidential politics it is altogether possible that these revelations were calculated and perhaps even coordinated.

In our book, "First Strike," James Sanders and I make this arguably prophetic comment:

John Kerry seemed to have his sights on Al Gore's Achilles' heel. After the events of Sept. 11, the story of how Al Gore helped subvert the investigation into TWA 800 and undermine airport security may yet prove to be a career-killer. Kerry's "slips" may put Gore out of the race even before he gets in.

Two weeks after advanced copies of "First Strike" started circulating around Washington, Gore withdrew from the presidential race. It would be presumptuous of us to assert that these accumulating revelations caused Gore to withdraw. But if not, what did? Gore's withdrawal shocked Washington.

"We went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing [sic] hard work of responding," said Kerry on Sept. 11. The shameful thing is that, even today, Sen. Kerry and his colleagues continue to play political games with a subject that is not at all amusing – the very survival of our nation.



Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:32:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 9:33:28 AM EST by guardian855]

Originally Posted By FMD:

Yes, they are different. I apologize that I didn't use "kerosene" in my first post, however; your GF may want to look at her numbers regarding flash-point. After a quick search:

NASA says JetA's flashpoint is 120 Deg F.

Iowa State University says that diesel's flashpoint is 125-150 Deg F.

I'd say the flash points are close, but then again, I'm no expert.




Hmm, that's interesting. I will have to check that out with her. I may have been wrong about that.

Although I was reading some websites about the flammability of jet fuel fumes, and the flashpoint can get lower with the lower pressure of high altitudes. Caltech did a study and found the flashpoint of the flumes in the tank might have been as low as 100 to 105 degrees at 10,000 feet. A spark could have easily been hotter than that (just some websites I was checking out right now).
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:54:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By FMD:
I'm not sure what it was, but I doubt it was faulty wiring in the gas tank.



Again, I'm no expert, but it seems fishy, and I trust the "official" line about as much as I trust anything said by a government representative.

That is all.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:04:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By FMD:

Yes, they are different. I apologize that I didn't use "kerosene" in my first post, however; your GF may want to look at her numbers regarding flash-point. After a quick search:

NASA says JetA's flashpoint is 120 Deg F.

Iowa State University says that diesel's flashpoint is 125-150 Deg F.

I'd say the flash points are close, but then again, I'm no expert.




flash point is just the temperature at which vapors from a standing pool are released which may be ignited (provided other conditions, ie lel<% by volume<uel, are met). The spark temperature has nothing to do with ignition (rather the energy delivered by the spark, typically measured in millijoules). You can make eelectrical equipment which positively will not ignite a flammable mixture (it is called intrinsically safe equipment, and there are varying conditions for which it is safe, but back to the topic)

JP4 has a much lower flash point, perhaps one of the reasons for inerting (in military aircraft)

There was discussion on the effects of waiting on the tarmac at JFK, which could have elevated 800's center tank temperature above the flash point (of Jet A). Furthermore, mechanical agitation (sloshing) assists in vaporization (not as much as your fuel injector nozzles, but still further dpressing the temperature at which vapors might become an issue)

What does require some thought (& math) is whether the vapor produced by a hundred-odd gallons sloshing about in an otherwise empty 13,000 gallon tank at a certain temperature & pressure would liberate sufficient vapor to surpass the lower, but not exceed the upper explosive limit, IF those conditions are met and IF a spark of sufficient energy is generated, THEN you can have a kb.

If that is indeed what happened, then the bureaucrats @ the agencies involved did a crummy PR job, instead, they should have openly welcomed all inquiry, rather than dismissing it as "amateur detective work"

Hmm, that's interesting. I will have to check that out with her. I may have been wrong about that.

Although I was reading some websites about the flammability of jet fuel fumes, and the flashpoint can get lower with the lower pressure of high altitudes. Caltech did a study and found the flashpoint of the flumes in the tank might have been as low as 100 to 105 degrees at 10,000 feet. A spark could have easily been hotter than that (just some websites I was checking out right now).



flash point is just the temperature at which vapors from a standing pool are released which may be ignited (provided other conditions, ie lel<% by volume<uel, are met). The spark temperature has nothing to do with ignition (rather the energy delivered by the spark, typically measured in millijoules). You can make eelectrical equipment which positively will not ignite a flammable mixture (it is called intrinsically safe equipment, and there are varying conditions for which it is safe, but back to the topic)

JP4 has a much lower flash point, perhaps one of the reasons for inerting (in military aircraft)

There was discussion on the effects of waiting on the tarmac at JFK, which could have elevated 800's center tank temperature above the flash point (of Jet A). Furthermore, mechanical agitation (sloshing) assists in vaporization (not as much as your fuel injector nozzles, but still further dpressing the temperature at which vapors might become an issue)

What does require some thought (& math) is whether the vapor produced by a hundred-odd gallons sloshing about in an otherwise empty 13,000 gallon tank at a certain temperature & pressure would liberate sufficient vapor to surpass the lower, but not exceed the upper explosive limit, IF those conditions are met and IF a spark of sufficient energy is generated, THEN you can have a kb.

If that is indeed what happened, then the bureaucrats @ the agencies involved did a crummy PR job, instead, they should have openly welcomed all inquiry, rather than dismissing it as "amateur detective work"


one of several Jet A data sheets

same for JP-4

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:13:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
It was never downed. The .gov guys kept in the air until 9-11 and then the jetisoned the wings and flew it into the Pentagon.





Don't tell 'em the truth - they can't handle the truth !!!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:19:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By FMD:
I'm not sure what it was, but I doubt it was faulty wiring in the gas tank.



Again, I'm no expert, but it seems fishy, and I trust the "official" line about as much as I trust anything said by a government representative.

That is all.



So the faulty wiring explanation is "fishy" but a government backed conspiracy that would have had to involve hundreds, if not thousands of people, is not?

You have now run into the number one reason why wild conspiracy theories fail the logic test: Occam's Razor.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:21:51 AM EST
No they didn't.
It landed on one of the secret underwater aircraft carriers and was transported to the secret Nazi base in Antarctica. It stayed there untill 9/11.
Then the night before 9/11 it was transported by UPS to the Pentagon where it was placed inside the building.
I read it on the internet.




Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
It was never downed. The .gov guys kept in the air until 9-11 and then the jetisoned the wings and flew it into the Pentagon.





Don't tell 'em the truth - they can't handle the truth !!!

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:29:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By guardian855:
Diesel fuel and jet fuel are two different things my friend. Jet fuel is a lot more closer to kerosene (which is very flammable) than diesel.

My ex-girlfriend, a safety engineer at Honeywell that is responsible for the safe storage of all chemicals at Honeywell, says that jet fuel has a much lower flashpoint that diesal fuel. She disagrees with you...



Yes, they are different. I apologize that I didn't use "kerosene" in my first post, however; your GF may want to look at her numbers regarding flash-point. After a quick search:

NASA says JetA's flashpoint is 120 Deg F.

Iowa State University says that diesel's flashpoint is 125-150 Deg F.

I'd say the flash points are close, but then again, I'm no expert.

EODtech:

As far as the explosion at OKC goes; again, I'm not the expert, but you may want to look at this article which references this report:Bomb Damage Analysis by Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, Ret.). See, he is an explosive expert.

Funny how Congress ignored his report, and the judge in Denver wouldn't allow his testimony to be heard in McVeigh's defense*.

-FMD

*NOTE: I'm glad McVeigh's gone, but it would have been interesting to find the "other's unknown" who were supposed to be involved as well.

PS: I suppose I'm done now. I'm (admittedly) no expert, but even cursory investigations of the official lies stories of the incidents I mentioned make you go "hmmmm.".





I think I saw that report about 6 years ago, it is very well done. The knocking out of support columns has always made me wonder. To tell you the truth, that attack reminds me of Middle Eastern terrorist organzation except the executers of the plan happened to be white guys. Everything else about the attack is line for line out of the Middle Eastern Car/Truck bomb playbook, heck the Hadji's taught the IRA how to do them.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:34:21 AM EST
Just because 800 MAY have crashed due to something other than a center fuel tank explosion does not mean that it was a "government conspiracy" to destroy the aircraft.

It's quite easy to have studies made that support whatever your argument may be (just look at political campaigns or lawsuits, where experts pro & con will testify with equal vigor & credentials - still, at least one of them is usually wrong)

The NTSB Chairman was political appointee, not a trained scientist or engineer. Don't recall what Kallstrom's credentials were, but don't believe he was either. Yet both of them were actively dismissing anything counter to the "we know it wasn't terrorism" mantra being chanted at every news conference. If that is what the bosses are saying, are YOU going to write a report challenging it?

Not if you want to keep your job.

I've seen people lose their jobs for writing what the boss doesn't want to hear (or have made public) Look at the careers of those who did question authority. Go look at Roger Boisjoly's career.

Too bad Feynman died 8 years before the 800 disaster. There you had someone who not only had the technical knowledge, but did not need the approval of lifelong bureaucrats & politicians to do a failure analysis.

So it (that the official investigation was so run) does not prove nor disprove anything, but it does leave a foul odor.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:37:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
...To tell you the truth, that attack reminds me of Middle Eastern terrorist organzation except the executers of the plan happened to be white guys. Everything else about the attack is line for line out of the Middle Eastern Car/Truck bomb playbook, heck the Hadji's taught the IRA how to do them.



So you wouldn't be suprised to hear that Nichols traveled to the Philipines and met with known Al-Queda operatives before the blast? 'Cause that's exactly what happened.

There were also a bunch of eyewitness reports that place men of Middle-Eastern appearance with McVeigh in the days leading up to the attack.

Of course, eyewitness accounts are unreliable, and the FBI sort of "lost" those files until after McVeigh was sentenced.

Go figure.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:40:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
...To tell you the truth, that attack reminds me of Middle Eastern terrorist organzation except the executers of the plan happened to be white guys. Everything else about the attack is line for line out of the Middle Eastern Car/Truck bomb playbook, heck the Hadji's taught the IRA how to do them.



So you wouldn't be suprised to hear that Nichols traveled to the Philipines and met with known Al-Queda operatives before the blast? 'Cause that's exactly what happened.
.




At the risk of encouraging a thread-jack ...

...can you provide a SOURCE for that? Or did the voices in your head tell you?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top