TWA Flight 800 - AR15.COM

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - TWA Flight 800 (Page 1 of 8)

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:02:54 AM EDT

For those of you who may not remember:

On the evening of July 17th, 1996, shortly after the sun had set, but while the sky was still light, a Boeing 747-131 jetliner, TWA's flight 800, was taking off from JFK airport on its way to Paris, France. On board were 230 people.

At approximately 11 minutes into the flight, the 747 was flying at an altitude of 13,700 MSL, or 13,700 feet above sea level. Normally higher at 11 minutes, flight 800 had delayed climbing to make room for another jetliner descending into Rhode Island. The plane was over the Atlantic ocean south of Long Island, New York.

Just as flight 800 received clearance to initiate a climb to cruise altitude, the plane exploded without any warning. Thousands of pounds of kerosene, dumped from the center and wing tanks, vaporized and ignited, creating a fireball seen all along the coastline of Long Island. Under the orange glow of the fireball, sections of the 747 tumbled into the ocean. So completely had the plane broken up that weather radar confused the expanding bubble of debris for a cloud.

There has been some dispute about what acutally caused this plane to go down. The official NTSB report was that there was a faulty fuel pump which sparked and ignited the fuel in the fuel tanks. There were also 154 eyewitness (including scientists, army personel, business executives and schoolteachers) interviewed by the FBI who claimed that they saw a missle headed towards the plane before it exploded. There was also a report that a blip was detected on radar just before the plane went down.

So, what actually happened to TWA Flight 800? Was it a mechanical failure, or was it shot down? If it was shot down, then was it shot down by a errant missle test (as on theory claims) or was it shot down by Al Queda?

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:10:27 AM EDT

[#1]

Bush did it.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:11:36 AM EDT

[#2]

I dont believe the missile theory. However, I dont think we will ever truly know.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:12:11 AM EDT

[#3]

Loosen that tinfoil.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:12:58 AM EDT

[#4]

I believe it was shot down.

By who? I don't know.

But fuel tanks don't just explode like that. Even with the tank reading empty on the gauges there is still residual trapped fuel in the tank, which would make the fuel/air ratio too rich for a spark to ignite it.

747s have flown for decades without a fuel tank blowing up. Also, I don't recall hearing of a worldwide inspection of the fleet to check for the condition that allegedly caused the explosion.

My gut says that Boeing should have challenged NTSB findings that said their airplane was unsafe in any way.

That leads to something else that stuck in my mind:

Not too long after this Boeing was buying McDonnel Douglas, which was a HUGE merger. One would think that with a deal on that scale there would be a lot of FTC hearings and such.

The deal went through like the skids were greased. Was that the reward for Boeing not making a stink over the NTSB's findings?

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:13:18 AM EDT

[#5]

It was not a "rogue missile test" by the USN, however there are enough questions about the investigation (particularly the instant conclusion that "it was not terrorism") that put the findings in question. Specifically, the NTSB (and their non-technical chairman), the prosecution of individuals who tried to have independent test labs evaluate residue from the crash remains and the laughable video showing a noseless plane climbing an additional 4000 feet.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:13:34 AM EDT

[#6]

4 pages

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:15:14 AM EDT

[#7]

If terrorists had shot down that plane, they would have been very proud of it and claim it.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:19:20 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
If terrorists had shot down that plane, they would have been very proud of it and claim it.

Actually, Al Queda has never claimed responsability for any of their attacks against the US. They don't call the papers like the IRA.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:19:46 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
If terrorists had shot down that plane, they would have been very proud of it and claim it.

Not necessarily. Ask yourself who benefits from a Boeing plane "exploding" all by itself. Or who benefits from a stock tanking? There are all sorts of things beyond Jihadists bringing a plane down.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:20:07 AM EDT

[#10]

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think there is something fishy going on with Flight 587. A plane crash only 2 months after 9/11?

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:20:29 AM EDT

[#11]

I hear that plane was actually made by Glock, not boeing.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:21:16 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think there is something fishy going on with Flight 587. A plane crash only 2 months after 9/11?

That was the one that basically fell apart over Brooklyn right? American Airlines I think it was.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:22:15 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think there is something fishy going on with Flight 587. A plane crash only 2 months after 9/11?

That was the one that basically fell apart over Brooklyn right? American Airlines I think it was.

that one was made by century arms

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:23:46 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think there is something fishy going on with Flight 587. A plane crash only 2 months after 9/11?

That was the one that basically fell apart over Brooklyn right? American Airlines I think it was.

that one was made by century arms

Is Toad building airplanes now?

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:24:06 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think there is something fishy going on with Flight 587. A plane crash only 2 months after 9/11?

That was the one that basically fell apart over Brooklyn right? American Airlines I think it was.

that one was made by century arms

On a Hesse fuselage.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:25:29 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Is Toad building airplanes now?

yeah its the speshul planes/coharie areospase (sic) division of bobcat weapons

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:25:44 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think there is something fishy going on with Flight 587. A plane crash only 2 months after 9/11?

That was the one that basically fell apart over Brooklyn right? American Airlines I think it was.

I think that one was actually less suspect than 800 (don't recall the specifics, but think it was a major screwup in the cockpit that they couldn't save)

Found the link

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:25:47 AM EDT

[#18]

I believe the plane was shot down. Too many credible and competent witnesses saw the missile, too much was done by the .gov after the incident that smacks of coverup, and it has been proven that an electrical spark could not have detonated the fuel cell in the jet. Something to do with air/fuel ratios.

Dave

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:27:47 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If terrorists had shot down that plane, they would have been very proud of it and claim it.

Actually, Al Queda has never claimed responsability for any of their attacks against the US. They don't call the papers like the IRA.

If you ask ANYONE in Saudi, Israel caused 9-11.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:28:28 AM EDT

[#20]

MISSLE!

If you buy off on that fuel pump crap, you're probably dumb enough to buy an OLYMPIC ARMS rifle too.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:28:29 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think there is something fishy going on with Flight 587. A plane crash only 2 months after 9/11?

That was the one that basically fell apart over Brooklyn right? American Airlines I think it was.

The reason for this crash was very clear. The Airbus entered some bad wake turbulence following a heavy aircraft. The Co-Pilot was correcting the aircraft with large amounts of rudder, which overstressed the vertical stab and broke the tail off. Since this has happened, american has changed the manual on how to correct with the rudder, and Scarebus has placarded limitation on the rudder usage.

Basically, the Airbus is a fucking POS.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:30:58 AM EDT

[#22]

There was a book written by Nelson Demille, called Night Fall. It's about this very plane crash. It's a book I couldn't put down. Very well written...asks alot of questions, but you never really get any answers. Still good though.

I'm of the opinion it was shot down. By US. (Us as in the USA.)

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:31:58 AM EDT

[#23]

While I have James Sanders first book, his collaboration here in this one does an excellent job of filling in the details missing in his original offering....

First Strike : TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America
by Jack Cashill, James Sanders

It can be had at Amazon for less than $20.

Mike

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:32:07 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I believe it was shot down.

By who? I don't know.

But fuel tanks don't just explode like that. Even with the tank reading empty on the gauges there is still residual trapped fuel in the tank, which would make the fuel/air ratio too rich for a spark to ignite it.

747s have flown for decades without a fuel tank blowing up. Also, I don't recall hearing of a worldwide inspection of the fleet to check for the condition that allegedly caused the explosion.

My gut says that Boeing should have challenged NTSB findings that said their airplane was unsafe in any way.

That leads to something else that stuck in my mind:

Not too long after this Boeing was buying McDonnel Douglas, which was a HUGE merger. One would think that with a deal on that scale there would be a lot of FTC hearings and such.

The deal went through like the skids were greased. Was that the reward for Boeing not making a stink over the NTSB's findings?

In 1993 a KC-135 burned to the ground after one if its center wing pumps ignited the fuel vapors in the tank.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:32:10 AM EDT

[#25]

The air/fuel mixture in the tank had to be between the LEL & UEL (lower & upper explosive limits) and sufficient energy had to be delivered from an arcing/intermittent connection within the fuel cavity to light it up. Not saying it couldn't happen, but unlikely, and coupled with the numerous eyewitness reports (and purported ignoring of those reports by the investigative team) it taints the findings.

As for the missile theory, it was at the outer envelope of the Stinger, and within the range of the Mistral, the latter of which is interesting as the authorities found an abandoned Mistral in Maryland two years earlier...

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:33:30 AM EDT

[#26]

I doubt it was shot down by terrorists. If they could shoot down airliners in flight, they would have done it more than once.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:33:34 AM EDT

[#27]

unfortunately eyewitnesses are absolutely useless after about 5 minutes.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:34:05 AM EDT

[#28]

Nothing keeps us more entertained than a good conspiracy theory...

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:34:12 AM EDT

[#29]

Lastly, a stinger is a very small heat seeking missle. I would believe a stinger hit if one of the engines popped off from the impact. Not the center fuel tank. IR missles dont work like that, esp the baby stinger.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:36:33 AM EDT

[#30]

i guess that you all never saw the "Seconds fom Disaster" on the History cannel about this?

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:41:19 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I believe it was shot down.

By who? I don't know.

But fuel tanks don't just explode like that. Even with the tank reading empty on the gauges there is still residual trapped fuel in the tank, which would make the fuel/air ratio too rich for a spark to ignite it.

747s have flown for decades without a fuel tank blowing up. Also, I don't recall hearing of a worldwide inspection of the fleet to check for the condition that allegedly caused the explosion.

My gut says that Boeing should have challenged NTSB findings that said their airplane was unsafe in any way.

That leads to something else that stuck in my mind:

Not too long after this Boeing was buying McDonnel Douglas, which was a HUGE merger. One would think that with a deal on that scale there would be a lot of FTC hearings and such.

The deal went through like the skids were greased. Was that the reward for Boeing not making a stink over the NTSB's findings?

Years later they did the inspections but it was not as if they really believed it was the cause. The list of people that saw what appeared to be a missile track included some military pilots that should know WTF it looks like. Nelson DeMille wrote a book on this called "Nightfall" that somewhat fictionalizes this but hits on all the eyewitness accounts that were put aside. In "Nightfall" a video tape exists that shows the missile track.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:43:56 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Lastly, a stinger is a very small heat seeking missle. I would believe a stinger hit if one of the engines popped off from the impact. Not the center fuel tank. IR missles dont work like that, esp the baby stinger.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:44:47 AM EDT

[#33]

Here is a link for the book Night Fall

It is a pretty interesting read. Ironically, I read this book on my flights back from Cairo.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:45:47 AM EDT

[#34]

I am pretty sure it was gravity that brought it down.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:46:46 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
unfortunately eyewitnesses are absolutely useless after about 5 minutes.

+ gazillion.

I work with witnesses every day. Eyewitness testimnony is, imho, the most easily manipulated, least credible evidence that routinely sees the inside of a courtroom.
\
Also, and EVERYONE I ask this question of ignores it, WHY would all those people be looking at an uninteresting aricraft, so far away as to be a collection of formation lights, at EXACTLY the same time, but BEFORE anything happenned.

They we not doing so. I don't care what they say, it's not credible.

They all looked AT SOMETHING, meaning AFTER something had started to happen.

Also, that's an interesting cross section of Amerca, "teachers, scientists, and military personnell." But why do you give them so much credit? How many had EVER seen a missile launch/strike before they made their "positive id?"

Second, if they all saw a shooting and claimed the guy had a "machine gun," you would ALL be screaming about asshats and the fact that they didn't know a clip from a mag. But you're fine with them declaring they know what the terminal end of an AAM looks like?

Lastly, something about eyewitnesses in general, they want to help and be important to the invetigation. Do you know ho w many people claimed they saw Oswald shooting at local ranges after he (and he alone) shot Kennedy? Basically, everyone they showed a photo to.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:47:45 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Lastly, a stinger is a very small heat seeking missle. I would believe a stinger hit if one of the engines popped off from the impact. Not the center fuel tank. IR missles dont work like that, esp the baby stinger.

twa800.com/sanders/thermal.gif

And you think thst is as hot as the exhaust coming directly out of the engines? All 4 of them?

Anyway, my father is an airline pilot and a fighter pilot, and said that wasnt a missle. I am inclined to believe him.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:52:30 AM EDT

[#37]

I was caused by a broken wire in the fuel tank area!!!

Wire broke when a missile severed it!!!

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:52:44 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
I believe it was shot down.

By who? I don't know.

But fuel tanks don't just explode like that. Even with the tank reading empty on the gauges there is still residual trapped fuel in the tank, which would make the fuel/air ratio too rich for a spark to ignite it.

747s have flown for decades without a fuel tank blowing up. Also, I don't recall hearing of a worldwide inspection of the fleet to check for the condition that allegedly caused the explosion.

Boeing has been warning of a fuel pump/fuel tank explosion since the late '70s. They have released several advisories to the airlines to inspect the fuel pumps and fuel wiring to insure that they wouldn't short out.
Military aircraft pump nitrogen into their fuel tanks, have been doing it for years. The military seems to think that fuel pumps can cause an explosion (they've been doing it for years before TWA 800)
My father works as an engineer for Honeywell, his team has just finished designing a system to pump nitrogen into the fuel tanks of Boeing aircraft, this project was largely funded by Boeing and is expected to start being a standard piece of equipment starting sometime next year.

So yes, fuel tanks can explode like that, Boeing has been warning that they could, the military had taken steps to prevent it, and the cilivian airliners are taking steps to prevent it.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:53:38 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

HEY!!! HOW DID YOU DO THAT TO MY AVATAR???

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:56:19 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
I believe the plane was shot down. Too many credible and competent witnesses saw the missile, too much was done by the .gov after the incident that smacks of coverup, and it has been proven that an electrical spark could not have detonated the fuel cell in the jet. Something to do with air/fuel ratios.

Dave

Too high for a shoulder launched missle, and any infared missle would have gone for the engines, not the fuselage. I've seen a DHL cargo plane get hit by a missle, the missle damaged one of the engines, the plane turned around and landed.
Too many people would know the truth if a missle hit TWA 800. How many people would have to know the truth? Couldn't happen. We're talking hundreds of investigators who would know the truth, yet all of them would have to keep quiet. Wouldn't happen.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:57:08 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lastly, a stinger is a very small heat seeking missle. I would believe a stinger hit if one of the engines popped off from the impact. Not the center fuel tank. IR missles dont work like that, esp the baby stinger.

twa800.com/sanders/thermal.gif

And you think thst is as hot as the exhaust coming directly out of the engines? All 4 of them?

Anyway, my father is an airline pilot and a fighter pilot, and said that wasnt a missle. I am inclined to believe him.

Not a missile guidance system designer, that said, if a missile "saw" a hot target at a distance, it would likely aim for the center of it (error detection correction being based on the strength of the signal) as it nears the target, can it react quickly enough to pick one of the constellation of hot targets within the envelope? At speed? I would guess there is some sort of thermal imaging array within the seeking head, and the control system is calibrated to aim for the center (using the cooler edges of the profile as guiding limits. Sorry for the somewhat obtuse description, would be much easier to draw...)

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:58:53 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
It was not a "rogue missile test" by the USN, however there are enough questions about the investigation (particularly the instant conclusion that "it was not terrorism") that put the findings in question. Specifically, the NTSB (and their non-technical chairman), the prosecution of individuals who tried to have independent test labs evaluate residue from the crash remains and the laughable video showing a noseless plane climbing an additional 4000 feet.

Right. And the 400 sailors on the shooting vessel have all managed to keep quiet about it for almost 10 years.

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:59:06 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
The air/fuel mixture in the tank had to be between the LEL & UEL (lower & upper explosive limits) and sufficient energy had to be delivered from an arcing/intermittent connection within the fuel cavity to light it up. Not saying it couldn't happen, but unlikely, and coupled with the numerous eyewitness reports (and purported ignoring of those reports by the investigative team) it taints the findings.

As for the missile theory, it was at the outer envelope of the Stinger, and within the range of the Mistral, the latter of which is interesting as the authorities found an abandoned Mistral in Maryland two years earlier...

Both of those missles are infared, and quite small.

1. the missles would hit the engines, not the fuselage
2. they could damage the plane to the point that it would crash, but a small shoulder launched missle is not going to cause a 747 to blow up in mid-air

Posted: 12/29/2005 8:59:18 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe the plane was shot down. Too many credible and competent witnesses saw the missile, too much was done by the .gov after the incident that smacks of coverup, and it has been proven that an electrical spark could not have detonated the fuel cell in the jet. Something to do with air/fuel ratios.

Dave

Too high for a shoulder launched missle, and any infared missle would have gone for the engines, not the fuselage. I've seen a DHL cargo plane get hit by a missle, the missle damaged one of the engines, the plane turned around and landed.
Too many people would know the truth if a missle hit TWA 800. How many people would have to know the truth? Couldn't happen. We're talking hundreds of investigators who would know the truth, yet all of them would have to keep quiet. Wouldn't happen.

But the essential element of EVERY conspiracy theory is that everyone but the believers are too stupid to see the truth.

You and I fit into that category, I see.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:01:24 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Lastly, a stinger is a very small heat seeking missle. I would believe a stinger hit if one of the engines popped off from the impact. Not the center fuel tank. IR missles dont work like that, esp the baby stinger.

twa800.com/sanders/thermal.gif

It would ignore that heat vent, and go after the engines. The engines are a lot hotter than that vent would be. Also, the missle would probably start to follow the plane, and would not be in a position to see that vent past the huge infared glare of the vent.

Also would like to check the accuracy of that photo. It could very well have been doctored to help sell a conspiracy book.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:01:38 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe the plane was shot down. Too many credible and competent witnesses saw the missile, too much was done by the .gov after the incident that smacks of coverup, and it has been proven that an electrical spark could not have detonated the fuel cell in the jet. Something to do with air/fuel ratios.

Dave

Too high for a shoulder launched missle, and any infared missle would have gone for the engines, not the fuselage. I've seen a DHL cargo plane get hit by a missle, the missle damaged one of the engines, the plane turned around and landed.
Too many people would know the truth if a missle hit TWA 800. How many people would have to know the truth? Couldn't happen. We're talking hundreds of investigators who would know the truth, yet all of them would have to keep quiet. Wouldn't happen.

The DHL plane was at a much lower altitude, closer range = higher resolution, so not surprised that it picked one of the engines - at extreme range, it is aiming for a constellation of 5 targets (the 4 engines + the vents underneath and would have to make a last minute decision to pick a specific engine... not sure a (non-human guided) missile from the mid 90's is smart enough to do that... so it aims for the middle (which is also "hot") and kapow.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:03:36 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It was not a "rogue missile test" by the USN, however there are enough questions about the investigation (particularly the instant conclusion that "it was not terrorism") that put the findings in question. Specifically, the NTSB (and their non-technical chairman), the prosecution of individuals who tried to have independent test labs evaluate residue from the crash remains and the laughable video showing a noseless plane climbing an additional 4000 feet.

Right. And the 400 sailors on the shooting vessel have all managed to keep quiet about it for almost 10 years.

What does the first line say?

It was not a "rogue missile test" by the USN

Anyone who thinks the Navy was in on this is (IMHO) nuts. If there was foul play (which I do believe is possibl, based on the nonsense pulled during the investigation) there was someone else behind it.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:04:49 AM EDT

[#48]

It was a .50 Cal super long range high explosive sniper round.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:05:32 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

In 1993 a KC-135 burned to the ground after one if its center wing pumps ignited the fuel vapors in the tank.

Wasn't that the one where the electrician had somebody lean on the circuit breaker to keep it from opening while he shot the wires?

Defeating the protective system is dumb, and that's what caused the fire. The pump had been popping the breaker and the breaker was doing its job of preventing sustained current going to the defective unit.

That's a recipe for disaster, and I'd say it caused much more than a spark at the pump.

Posted: 12/29/2005 9:06:41 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lastly, a stinger is a very small heat seeking missle. I would believe a stinger hit if one of the engines popped off from the impact. Not the center fuel tank. IR missles dont work like that, esp the baby stinger.

twa800.com/sanders/thermal.gif

And you think thst is as hot as the exhaust coming directly out of the engines? All 4 of them?

Anyway, my father is an airline pilot and a fighter pilot, and said that wasnt a missle. I am inclined to believe him.

Not a missile guidance system designer, that said, if a missile "saw" a hot target at a distance, it would likely aim for the center of it (error detection correction being based on the strength of the signal) as it nears the target, can it react quickly enough to pick one of the constellation of hot targets within the envelope? At speed? I would guess there is some sort of thermal imaging array within the seeking head, and the control system is calibrated to aim for the center (using the cooler edges of the profile as guiding limits. Sorry for the somewhat obtuse description, would be much easier to draw...)

My dad was on the AIM-9 Sidewinder design team. He helped design the seeker guidance head on the missle. I just asked him, he said it goes directly for a heat source, no error correction, nothing. In his words, the Sidewinder sees a hot engine and goes for the hot engine. It focuses on only one heat source. He also says that the Sidewinder would have gone for an engine, and not some little vent on the underbelly of the aircraft.
Can't say about the Stinger or Mistral, but I suspect they are designed the same way.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - TWA Flight 800 (Page 1 of 8)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us