TWA Flight 800

I have some experience with ignition ( Welcome to Knite, Inc. ). If the conditions are right, very little energy is needed to initiate combustion. Did the center tank have a pressure relief system or was pressure able to build? If there was any pressure and the fumes were warm or hot, just a few mJ of energy would be enough. Also, if a spark is able to develop in a low voltage system, it will generally be of high current, which is a better ignition source than a high voltage, low current spark of equivalent energy.

I hope this info is helpful.

Regards,

Art S.

 

I have to respect yours and the expertise of others in the know. I still have a feeling that things don't ring clear on this incident. I was near a center tank that blew from over pressure and and it was heavily damaged . The video of inspectors walking around in the 747 center tank showed that it was virtually intact but, then, the absence of the tank end ribs may have been the result of an internal explosion. They could have been removed to allow access, also. Where is the right wing structure? Why was one inspector physically removed from the room where the discussion was going because he said that he had found evidence of an external source? There are some unanswered elements here.

 

Wasn't that the NTSB Highway inspector?

 

the center tank was mostly empty. Typically right after take off the engineer would turn on the fuel pumps on the center tank to uses all of the fuel. The AC packs are also are close to the tank, all of this causes heat. A spark (any spark) can set of the fumes in the tank. It has happened before on a B737 on the ground in Thailand and I think in a couple of others.

Bob

 

Max temp on Long Island from that day was upper 80s. Temp would have been lower at altitude after 8:00 PM. These planes and the A/C systems are designed to operate in hotter environments than that.
Weather History for Bay Shore, New York

Still don’t fathom why any type of war game or other exercise would be transpiring near high traffic civilian territory. July = popular boating season in the map below. Navy has safeguards for nukes; same would certainly apply for any type of classified weapon. Note map scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Twa_800_flight_path.png

In contrast, a strike by a rogue terrorist org is more plausible in the 1996 time frame. Desire to harm US or its allies unchanged from 1993 WTC bombing. “Lack of evidence” surrounding a projectile is near the heart of the controversy / cover-up theory. Claims of responsibility to civilian populations are not necessary if only governments / intel departments are the intended audience.

The EL Al theory I mentioned above was something read many years ago; no memory of the reference. It’s no more outlandish a theory than others considering the history of threats against that airline.

 

SFAR88 which I followed at previous job, is a series of protocols to prevent a 'spark condition'. Ensuring fuel pumps, crossflows, valves & etc meet requirements in electrical bonding resistance, electrical insulation resistance, current draw & etc. Also perfecting all terminations while using only the prescribed materials in the CMM's.
If some stuff isn't done to a perfect 'T' on the maintenance side- especially in the fuel system, bad things will happen. Something as simple as the improper shrinktube can be a culprit- ie: using CMM specified 3/32" shrink tubing on a connector terminal vs a non-specified could be enough to not insulate properly and result in the item not operating within specification or the non-specified material can literally break down- and now you have an exposed terminal/connector IN the fuel system.

An empty tank will also still have fumes... all it takes is 1 spark...

 

I don't know all the theories out there of what happened, but I can tell a few facts.

1. That area is a Navy training area (my father even trained there many years ago and they still train there today)
2. I personally spoke to a guy (Law enforcement officer) that was fishing on the shore at the time, he said that he clearly saw an object with flames trailing behind shoot up into the sky (probably some sort of missile), then watched all the fragments come down! He got questioned by the Feds immediately, then he was ordered to not speak to any other authorities that ask about it.

I actually delivered a part of the plane that was found on the beach in my area where I worked (L/E) to the hangar here the plane was being put together. I was able to do a walk through and look at the wreck. It was a very eerie experience that I will never forget. In one hangar the seats were all laid out in their position. In the other hangar, the plane was pieced together. It was very strange to be able to stand right in front of the cockpit with all the smashed gauges and crumpled landing gear right there in front of me on the floor. It was very sad and upsetting, but I'm glad I got to experience it all at the same time.
I know they are blaming frayed wires in the airframe, but knowing the above information makes me have many doubts. I find it difficult to believe that it's not a cover up. The person that saw it and told me the above, told me the info immediately after the crash before there was any info public. I have no reason to doubt him and there were several other stories that I heard at later dates that were exactly the same. One has to wonder...

 

In answer to your question I can say that yes, an inert gas generation system has been designed and has been installed on B777's for quite a few years now.

The system removes the oxygen molecules from the air and leaves (mostly) nitrogen for injection to the empty tank.
( A newer version of Onboard Inert Gas Generating System- OBIGGS)

I cannot say what other models may or may not use them.

 

Bob,

To be clear, I have no knowledge or experience regarding all of the other facts and theories. I simply stated that a large volume of air/fuel vapor mix doesn't take much to set off. I am not saying this was the cause; simply clarifying other comments questioning the flammability, e.g. A previous statement in the thread mentioning the lit match being extinguished in a cup of fuel and comments about little fuel being in the tank - there being 'just vapors'. To clarify further, liquid fuel is quite stable; it is the vapors that are highly volatile and easy to set off. It is fuel in vapor form that is burned in aircraft engines as well as our cars, not fuel in liquid form.

Regards,

Art S.

 

That's why I think the conspiracies still abound. There seem to be way too many people from different areas of view that saw something flying through the air and then the plane explode/crash.

 

Amazing website. Looks like you are on your way to millions or perhaps billions....

 

NTSB just issued a statement: No bomb or missle.


Safety investigators stand by cause of TWA Flight 800 crash

 

Thanks Juan.

You'd be surprised how hard it is to replace the old Kettering or CD systems. People and companies are comfortable with what they know. Even if the data confirms the performance claims, it is difficult to get someone to switch unless they have to. I am confident I will eventually succeed but it may take a while.

Regards,

Art S.

 

9/11: World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef revealed secrets of TWA 800 crash to mafia capo from his jail cell | Mail Online

 

the plot thickens ??

 

If Al Queda had actually blown it up, that would have to rank as a massive FAIL. They managed to blow up an airplane, and never even got any credit for it!

 

Yousef is a credible source??????? You bet.

 

New Documentary tonight on TWA800-

Direct link to watch-
http://www.epixhd.com/twa-flight-800/

Photo by Roger Aronoff

An excellent new documentary, which examines evidence that makes the case that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by missiles, a crime or accident that has been covered up for 17 years, is set to premier Wednesday night. The film is titled, simply, “TWA Flight 800,” and it will air on EPIX, a cable network available on many cable systems, tonight, July 17th, at 8 p.m. ET. Today is the 17th anniversary of that tragic event.

Veteran newsman and columnist Wes Vernon wrote an excellent review of the documentary last month, and said, “I have viewed a pre-screening of the film, and urge you to make it a point to see it and tell your friends about it. It will make your blood boil when you see people in high and respected places uttering lie after lie after lie and threats against eyewitnesses telling them in effect, ‘You didn’t see what you saw.’”

But if you don’t have that network on your cable system, or you want to watch it at a different time on your computer, you can see the trailer or the whole film here through a free trial offer by EPIX.

The documentary was written and directed by Kristina Borjesson, who was an award-winning producer for CBS News. She was assigned to the TWA 800 story, and quickly came to believe that the official story wasn’t true, though she wasn’t allowed, in the end, to report on what she had discovered. Now, Borjesson and her associate in this project, Tom Stalcup, a physicist who has been investigating this case for many years, have brought together a number of people involved at the time in the investigation, including some from within the NTSB and TWA itself, to talk about what was covered up and how it was done. For example, Hank Hughes, an NTSB investigator who headed up the reassembly of the wreckage in a hangar in Calverton, New York, had been telling what he knew since early in the investigation. He told a Senate committee in 1997 that he witnessed evidence being tampered with, and some being destroyed.

TWA 800 is a story that those of you who have followed the work of Accuracy in Media (AIM) for a long time know well. It was a story I worked on when I first arrived at AIM back in 1997. Reed Irvine, AIM’s founder and then-chairman, was approached by two people—Bill Donaldson and Jim Sanders—both of whom made strong but separate cases that the plane was brought down by a missile, or missiles, as opposed to the official story, that it was a spark in the center-wing fuel tank, from an unknown source that caused the tank to explode. Either way, the result was explosions that sent the plane crashing into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Long Island, New York, on July 17th, 1996. All 230 people aboard were killed. Two years ago I wrote a detailed account of AIM’s investigation into the downing of Flight 800, which credited some of the many people who have worked so hard and risked so much to expose the truth about what happened that tragic evening.

Finally, on July 2nd of this year, I got to see the reconstructed wreckage of TWA Flight 800. I attended a press briefing put on by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The purpose was to remind the press that, in their view, this story was settled years ago. But now, with the new documentary, “TWA Flight 800,” coming out, and a petition filed by Stalcup’s group to reopen the investigation, someone saw the need for the NTSB to attempt to get in front of the story with their version of what happened.

The new documentary has gotten a lot of attention, including from CNN, The Today Show and Fox News. Stalcup was on The Today Show and CNN, along with James Kallstrom, who headed up the investigation for the FBI back during the investigation, attempting to rebut Stalcup’s claims. The petition filed by Stalcup and his group must be responded to by the NTSB within 90 days of its filing, but in the meantime, they decided to put on a presentation to remind us of their conclusions. It’s hard to know if these people believe what they are saying is true, or if they know better.

But the evidence remains overwhelming that the plane was brought down by a missile or missiles. Rather than review it again, you can read previous reports that I’ve done, that Jack Cashill has done, that Jim Sanders, Bill Donaldson and Tom Stalcup have done, as well as the whistleblowers that have come forward. Special mention is also due to retired United Airlines pilot Ray Lahr and his attorney, John Clarke, who are the only ones who have received validation in the courts, by disproving the government’s “zoom climb” theory through their Freedom of Information lawsuit. There are a lot of heroes in this story, who don’t care how many CNN or CBS or New York Times stories accept the official version. The evidence is overwhelming.

At the briefing, which took place at the NTSB Academy in Ashburn, Virginia, about 45 minutes outside of D.C., the participants refused to answer any questions that had anything to do with the new documentary or the petition. I asked Joseph Kolly, director of the NTSB Research and Engineering division—who led the briefing—a question about the eyewitnesses. He had referenced the 736 eyewitnesses who saw the explosion, 262 of whom saw something streaking toward the plane. But he didn’t mention the 92 of the 262 who saw something rise from the surface or horizon and streak toward the plane. I asked him how he explained those 92 people, separate from the 262. They have long claimed that what all the eyewitnesses saw was burning fuel coming down after the nose blew off, and the fuselage rose by about 3,000 feet, something that most experts, like Ray Lahr, have been able to disprove. Kolly told me that they didn’t make a distinction between those 92 and the 262. Still, it was a fascinating day, and for me, something like a visit to a shrine and a chance to experience it firsthand.

In 2000, I produced and wrote, along with my co-producer Jack Harris, a documentary for AIM called “TWA 800: The Search for the Truth,” which examined the best evidence for each of the three leading theories. There was the official story, but there was also evidence of it having been an errant missile from a naval exercise gone terribly wrong, and evidence of it having been a terrorist missile. But I clearly agree with Borjesson and Stalcup. TWA 800 was brought down by a missile or missiles, and there was a deliberate and intricate cover-up. You can watch our documentary, which won the top prize for investigative reporting at WorldFest, the largest film festival in the country, here.

 

Will definitely watch.

How long is it?

 

About an hour and half.

It was very interesting.

How does one explain radar returns on debris at the time of the initial explosion that is perpendicular to the flight path and travels at a rate of mach 4.

Then there was all the withholding of evidence from the NTSB investigators by the FBI. I'm speechless. Editing of ROV tape...

Low voltage fuel sender causing a fuel-air explosion. Seriously, there are many things not adding up.

 

You could explain it with a fuel tank explosion also...

Maybe?

 

The official NTSB explanation says the fuel tank explosion scenario was a low-energy explosion that would not exceed the speed of sound. The radar returns show debris in the mach 4 region. Not to mention the moment after the explosion the debris is clearly perpendicular and displaced to TWA800's flight path. That just doesn't add up.

Watch the documentary to get context on this image-
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Here's a personel experience of mine- A couple years ago while working in one of the test cells on a DC brushes run-in cart; myself and a co-worker were bedding in DC motors for fuel booster pumps PN 226114-3 (Bombardier CRJ) in a fixture that contains about 2 gallons of 7024C calibration fluid. The units at that point aren't fully assembled - it's just the main tubular body with the stator, brushes & etc. Anyways, a spark resulted when we applied power (28VDC) and the calibration fluid ignited and we had a momentary surface fire. We took care of that immediately and that was the only time I've seen that. When we tore it down to find why that happened, we found the shrink tubing on the power lead going to the connector wasn't the full length as it should have been. There was maybe 2-3mm of excess wire that should've been covered/sealed. Kaa-blamo - as David Hobbs would say.
These pumps are submerged in fuel in the tanks- just like in some cars and they rely on that same fuel for cooling and therfore every part- including the interior wiring gets exposed to fuel & fumes.

 

Do you think it was a freak training excercise gone wrong? Or if not, was the plane chosen for a specific reason?

 

I have no idea about any of that. Watch the documentary, it gives a lot of information but doesn't speculate on who or why because it tries to remain objective. Its sole objective is to prove the falsehood of the official NTSB report and to reopen the investigation to find the true cause.