Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/30/2005 6:08:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 10:11:21 AM EDT by Merrell]
As a companion to the bi-annual TWA 800 thread, a brief poll, segmented by clearance/professional restriction for your entertainment...

Questions 3 through 5 clarification: "clearance" refers to a clearance relevant to the matter (directly involved or in a related field)
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:13:42 AM EDT
I don't have any inside information, but I don't believe that the government has told us everything regarding this incident.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:20:52 AM EDT
Five options, eh?
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:22:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Five options, eh?



he must have a "clearance" and have the ability to decipher it.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:22:53 AM EDT
There is far more to the story than we have been told. Had that been a wiring problem, every 747 in US airspace should have been grounded until the wiring was inspected.

Besides, the fuel tank would have been blown upward as well as down. Either the #2 or #3 engine was burned, (I forget which) and there was evidence of some external explosion as the holes in the fuselage went in one side and out the other.

Ops
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:26:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Five options, eh?



I figure any of us schmucks arguing it in the other thread either don't have a clearance or are in violation of it (if connected with any of the investigation, recovery etc) - thought it would be more useful than a simple yes/no (particularly option #5)

Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:27:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Five options, eh?



I figure any of us schmucks arguing it in the other thread either don't have a clearance or are in violation of it (if connected with any of the investigation, recovery etc) - thought it would be more useful than a simple yes/no (particularly option #5)




you missed the point
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:28:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Five options, eh?



I figure any of us schmucks arguing it in the other thread either don't have a clearance or are in violation of it (if connected with any of the investigation, recovery etc) - thought it would be more useful than a simple yes/no (particularly option #5)




you missed the point



I usually do...
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:28:56 AM EDT
five option polls dont work right
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:30:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
five option polls dont work right



well that sucks.

Are the bar lengths still correct?
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:31:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
five option polls dont work right


well that sucks.

Are the bar lengths still correct?


No. Nothing works correctly.

Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:35:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
five option polls dont work right


well that sucks.

Are the bar lengths still correct?


No. Nothing works correctly.




Currently it shows:


[ 2 ] I am a layman and I believe the official NTSB findings [ 11.11% ]
[ 10 ] I am a layman and I believe there are enough questions to continue an inquiry [ 55.56% ]
[ 3 ] I have a clearance/professional restrictions and I believe the official NTSB findings [ 16.67% ]
[ 0 ] I have a clearance/prof. interest and I believe there are enough questions to continue an inquiry [ 0% ]
[ 0 ] I have a clearance and am not permitted to voice an opinion on this matter [ 0% ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Votes :: 18



judging by the bar lengths choice #5 has 3 votes (same length as #3) which would add up to the 18 total... I spent a lot of time coming up with those questions, ( a minute, maybe a minute and a half) and would hate to waste all that time and restart the whole shebang.

Maybe we could start an investigation...

Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:56:51 AM EDT

I'm totally a layman, but I largely believe the official line because

(1) All of the conspiracies suggested as alternative theories are ludicous, and would require FAR too many people "in" on the conpsiracy

(2) Also, I knew an executive at TWA at the time, and while that doesn't put me personally on the "inside" it did give me some limited access to the perceptions of upper management while the events were unfolding - both immediately after the accident, and during the investigation.


Link Posted: 12/30/2005 9:13:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
I'm totally a layman, but I largely believe the official line because

(1) All of the conspiracies suggested as alternative theories are ludicous, and would require FAR too many people "in" on the conpsiracy

(2) Also, I knew an executive at TWA at the time, and while that doesn't put me personally on the "inside" it did give me some limited access to the perceptions of upper management while the events were unfolding - both immediately after the accident, and during the investigation.



Not sure I would categorize the alternative theories as "ludicrous" (with the exception of the Navy being behind it, which I think is completely without merit) - in fact, all the explanations seem almost equally unlikely (a curious position indeed), and the reticence of certain agencies to provide full disclosure (and the ongoing FOIA battles lend credence to the theory that they are not forthcoming) serves only to add fuel to the fire.

Compared with other disasters (Challenger being a notable example, where we were fortunate to have a Feynman on the panel, and scientific types running the show, instead of career bureaucrats and ex-lobbyists/fundraisers) the attitude changed from "let's find out what happened" to "don't question us, we're the experts" - not necessarily conducive to getting to the root cause of things...
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 9:17:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 9:59:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
If it wasn't for conspiracy theories, a lot of people would get bored. Some folks need them.



+1

Everything is a conspiracy… part of the modern victim mindset. It pretty pathetic.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 10:04:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
If it wasn't for conspiracy theories, a lot of people would get bored. Some folks need them.



+1

Everything is a conspiracy… part of the modern victim mindset. It pretty pathetic.


+1
I have a clearance, but does that really have a bearing on the matter? No, because a clearance by itself means nothing without access to information concerning the actual incident. So, for this and many other reasons, this poll is worthless.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 10:09:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 10:11:28 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 10:09:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
If it wasn't for conspiracy theories, a lot of people would get bored. Some folks need them.



+1

Everything is a conspiracy… part of the modern victim mindset. It pretty pathetic.


+1
I have a clearance, but does that really have a bearing on the matter? No, because a clearance by itself means nothing without access to information concerning the actual incident. So, for this and many other reasons, this poll is worthless.



Not enough room available in the poll to write "relevant clearance" - note that in Q#4 "professional" had to be abbreviated to fit. It should be obvious, (re: "restrictions" following clearance/professional), but will add a note since it confused you.



Link Posted: 12/30/2005 10:38:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
If it wasn't for conspiracy theories, a lot of people would get bored. Some folks need them.



+1

Everything is a conspiracy… part of the modern victim mindset. It pretty pathetic.


+1
I have a clearance, but does that really have a bearing on the matter? No, because a clearance by itself means nothing without access to information concerning the actual incident. So, for this and many other reasons, this poll is worthless.



Not enough room available in the poll to write "relevant clearance" - note that in Q#4 "professional" had to be abbreviated to fit. It should be obvious, (re: "restrictions" following clearance/professional), but will add a note since it confused you.





You also don't have any room for people who do have a professional interest, ie crash investigators who weren't involved, and don't have access to the information.

BTW, I wasn't confused, just showing that this poll like your conspiracy theory is half-baked.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 10:52:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
If it wasn't for conspiracy theories, a lot of people would get bored. Some folks need them.



+1

Everything is a conspiracy… part of the modern victim mindset. It pretty pathetic.


+1
I have a clearance, but does that really have a bearing on the matter? No, because a clearance by itself means nothing without access to information concerning the actual incident. So, for this and many other reasons, this poll is worthless.



Not enough room available in the poll to write "relevant clearance" - note that in Q#4 "professional" had to be abbreviated to fit. It should be obvious, (re: "restrictions" following clearance/professional), but will add a note since it confused you.





You also don't have any room for people who do have a professional interest, ie crash investigators who weren't involved, and don't have access to the information.

BTW, I wasn't confused, just showing that this poll like your conspiracy theory is half-baked.



The limit on poll choices is 5 questions, one does the best with what one has.

I have no "conspiracy theory" save for the parties involved being less than 100% open with all their findings. Where that leads is unknown. It does (or should) give one pause to ask who benefits from anything less than full disclosure. Maybe it's national security. Maybe it's something else altogether. Maybe it's just bureaucracies being themselves. It has left enough gaps to keep a discussion going nearly 10 years past the event.

One of the good things about this board is there is a pretty diverse background of folks who can sort through some of the noise, and ideally yield a satisfying answer. Theories should sink or swim based on factual evaluation & merits, and in their absence, the demeanor of the parties involved. There is a large body of evidence out there, some of it conflicting, some incomplete, and an objective look at the lot might offer insight. I don't consider your analysis "half-baked" or "bunk", you have relevant experience in the field, as do others. We can debate it on merits without tossing brickbats. Let's carry on then, shall we?
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 10:58:39 AM EDT
I'm a professional Airframe And Powerplant Mechanic with most of my experience in heavy Boeing jets, and the physics are just not there for a fuel tank explosion caused by a spark off of a fuel pump.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 11:19:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 11:38:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 12:03:36 PM EDT by nightstalker]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I don't have any inside information, but I don't believe that the government has told us everything regarding this incident.



I think you can be assured that the "masses" are spared a lot of disturbing information. We are not worthy.

BTW these are excellent choices in this poll.

This sounds like the NTSB is kind of handy in a pinch.

The NTSB is independent of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and is neither a law enforcement nor a regulatory agency. The Board does not establish legal fault or liability, nor do we levy fines or take adverse action against any company, individual or license. NTSB investigation reports are not admissible as evidence in courtroom proceedings and we do not get involved in matters of litigation.

www.ntsb.gov/speeches/former/hall/jhc950316.htm
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 12:52:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 12:56:15 PM EDT by DeltaAir423]

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By DeltaAir423:
I'm a professional Airframe And Powerplant Mechanic with most of my experience in heavy Boeing jets, and the physics are just not there for a fuel tank explosion caused by a spark off of a fuel pump.



<NTSB mode ON> Please ignore this man, he just works on them...<NTSB mode OFF>

I do not believe it was a fuel tank explosion either. 747's have flown God knows how many gazillion miles and only this one blew up from this 'plausible' tank explosion? Pfft!

I've seen the footage of the test they ran to 'prove' their theory... if you get the perfect fuel air mix and the perfect spark at the perfect time, you 'could' get an explosion at odds of how many million to one?

If the 'tank explosion' really was plausible they would have immidiately grounded every 747 for checks, they didn't.

ANdy



Granted the FAA didn't ground all the 747's, however there was a manatory AD for a wiring mod on the fuel pump wiring on all 737/747/757/767/777 airframes, of course on the AD it was stated that this was NOT in relation to TWA 800. I will never believe it was just a fuel tank explosion to the day I die, and I feel that we may never know the truth.


ETA I wish I still had the pic of me playing cards and having a cig inside a L-1011 tank while we were under positive pressure waiting for some sealant to set up. BTW before any one freaks out the tank had been open for over 20 days, and there were no traceable evidence of fuel or any other flamable solevent when we had entered the tank.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 6:17:19 AM EDT
After a day of voting, we have:

[ 16 ] I am a layman and I believe the official NTSB findings [ 16.33% ]
[ 56 ] I am a layman and I believe there are enough questions to continue an inquiry [ 57.14% ]
[ 10 ] I have a clearance/professional restrictions and I believe the official NTSB findings [ 10.2% ]
[ 4 ] I have a clearance/prof. interest and I believe there are enough questions to continue an inquiry [ 4.08% ]
[ 4 ] I have a clearance and am not permitted to voice an opinion on this matter [ 4.08% ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Votes :: 98

Since the numbers don't total to 98 but the bars do (the poll malfunction is with choice #5, all others are correct) we can back-calculate the actual results:

16 16.33%
56 57.14%
10 10.20%
4 4.08%
12 12.24%
98 (total) 100% total

so far:

16 layman believe the NTSB findings
56 layman believe there are enough questions to continue an investigation
10 persons with clearance (relevant hopefully) or professional restrictions believe the NTSB findings
4 persons with clearance (relevant hopefully) or professional restrictions believe there are enough questions to continue an investigation
12 persons are abiding by their (presumably relevant) clearance and not weighing in on the subject.

I will post a different poll so we can compare how good a job the .gov did convincing the public of the cause of the disaster.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 6:28:16 AM EDT
Top Top