New Insights into TWA 800?

Dr. O said:
Second: This film maker who claims that if the fuel vapors had exploded the velocity of the explosion would be less than the speed of sound, i.e. a LOW explosive. He claims the pressure front was in the 4000 feet per second range (his opinion - shrug) I could go into a long discussion of the change in velocity when a vapor is in free air as opposed to being confined when ignited. But I won't.
Click to expand...
No need -- the combat aircraft survivability world has tests and analyses up the ying-yang to show how supersonic pressure waves are generated in a fuel tank ullage explosion -- even internally sparked.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Ron - I have a question about your post #15.

One one hand, the investigation definitively determined an electrical problem, then on the other hand post 15 says they aren't sure...
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the investigation report said "probably," or maybe even "most probable," not "definitively." They don't like that last word, and to my knowledge they never found a particular wire they were able to conclusively say was the spark source.

I'm not feeling good about the seemingly conflicting conclusions.
Click to expand...
No conflict, just semantics.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I'm telling ya it was a failed chemtrail flight. Been telling folks for years that stuff just ain't stable!
Click to expand...

jet_fuel.png
 
Bobanna said:
I saw the reconstruction at Calverton. Funny thing was that the wings and engines were absent. Sure looks like a head-fake to me. Also, as a doctorate chemist, I'm not aware of the center tank environment being anywhere near the lower explosive limit...kerosene has much more in common with cooking oil than it does with gasoline. To complete the dog-and-pony show, I recall that they pumped a mock-up full of propane or acetylene mixed with oxygen and detonated it. Analyze critically.
Click to expand...
Then I guess you were not at the FAA conference in Washington DC on transport aircraft ullage explosion to see the presentations about the fuel/air mix and temperature profile in that tank. I was, and it was, to the best anyone can figure, in the explosive range, just as it was in the 737 in Manila. In fact, I gave a presentation on the predictions of four different ullage explosion models given the temperature/altitude profile and fuel level in the tank -- all showed as being lethally explosive. Same stuff was presented at the Transport Aircraft Vulnerability conference in St Louis. I was there, too, although the briefing I gave there was on the effects of MANPAD warheads on transport aircraft with wing-mounted engines -- effects which where not seen in the wreckage of TW800.
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
Yup. Kerosene/jetfuel vapors going kaboom is a bit far fetched.
Click to expand...
Then why did it keep happening in the ground accidents where there was no question as to what happened? After TW800, folks took it more seriously and changed their operating procedures to avoid an explosive mix, and it hasn't happened again.
 
And while we're at it, how about a citation and/or link to the experiments, verifiable and refutable data, and conclusions from the conspiracy theorists?
 
That is the crux of it, jetfuel just doesn't blow up much.
Bobanna said:
To explain and expand on my skepticism regarding the putative cause of the CFT explosion, bear in mind that JetA is recognized as a flammable liquid and vapor. I am unable to find any citation evidencing any "explosive" property of the vapor in a confined space (unlike gasoline). It seems to me that a convincing demonstration would involve a closed container partially filled with JetA and subjected to the heating (consistent with ground and flight time), cooling (consistent with the climb to altitude) and whatever mechanical stimulation needed to "atomize" the fuel. Now, allowing for whatever fuel tank ventilation in the subject aircraft (and I don't have knowledge of this) and simulating that venting and adjusting the partial pressure of oxygen to simulate the altitude of the subject aircraft, a spark (of any strength, at least initially) could be introduced and the system observed for detonation. Or not. My laboratory experience leads me to think that such an apparatus could be easily constructed and the experiment conducted over the course of a weekend with the assistance of my under-graduate students. To my knowledge, no such experiment has been conducted or reported. If the CFT conditions did lead to a blast, then simple experiments should be done to sustain that possibility. Any information to disabuse me of my position is sought and welcomed. Have a great weekend, everybody.
Click to expand...
 
My dad says that diesel will burn just fine if you put a blow torch to it, but he, too, says it will not "blow up."
 
tinerj said:
My dad says that diesel will burn just fine if you put a blow torch to it, but he, too, says it will not "blow up."
Click to expand...

Ask him if sawdust will "blow up" and see what he says.

No one is talking about dropping a match in a tank of Diesel. Jet-A is a bit lighter than Diesel (it's kerosene), but that's close enough for this discussion. Gasoline will not blow up either if you drop a match into it. Fuels in general do not burn while in their liquid state. Unless they are self-oxidizing, but none of the fuels discussed in this thread qualify. It might be a problem with nitromethane or ammonium perchlorate (both of which have caused significant detonations in industrial fires).

Gasoline doesn't blow up in a properly running engine either.

Everything changes when you atomize fuels.

Sometimes it amazes me how much people think they know about combustion, that's wrong.
 
Bobanna said:
Exactly, Greg. I'm still looking for any evidence that it blows-up at all (under conditions in which aircraft operate...NB: diesel cycle requires very high compression leading to super-heated air/fuel mixture and "explosion"). God bless
Click to expand...


Here's a few.


Details of the military cases

Use of less flammable fuel might have prevented some of the military accidents, specialists say, but each is instructive on some of the mechanical-failure scenarios being studied:

-- On Dec. 10, 1993, a Wisconsin Air National Guard KC-135 blew up on the ground at Gen. Billy Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee. Six maintenance personnel died.

An investigative board found "clear and convincing evidence" that an explosion in the plane's center fuel tank was triggered by sparking in a wire within the housing of a fuel pump. The electrical arc managed to enlarge a tiny vent hole in the housing, sending molten copper from the wire into the tank. Fuel vapors quickly ignited.

-- On Sept. 17, 1987, a KC-10 exploded at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. Again, the cause was attributed to a fuel vapor explosion in the center fuel tank. One mechanic died.

Investigators found that fuel had leaked, and vapors probably had been ignited by arcing from a battery near the pump area for the tank.

Shortly after the incident, the Air Force ordered checks of all KC-10s and found a dozen similar leaks.

-- On July 24, 1989, at Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, an Air Force B-52 bomber went up in flames, killing one person, after a refueling team mistakenly left a vent plug in the plane's center fuel tank. The plug caused too much vapor pressure to build. The tank ruptured, spilling 2,600 gallons of fuel onto the tarmac. Air Force investigators were unable to determine the ignition source.

-- On Oct. 4, 1990, an Air Force KC-135 tanker exploded during approach to Loring Air Force Base in Maine. That incident involved a rear aerial-refueling storage tank rather than the central fuel tank. Witnesses said they saw two explosions on the plane and then saw the tail section separate from the aircraft. Investigators blamed the accident, which killed all four crew members, on a fuel pump that overheated to at least 1,400 degrees.

-- In another rear-tank incident, on Sept. 20, 1989, a KC-135 assigned to the Alaska Air National Guard exploded on the ground at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. Two people died. The accident was attributed to a malfunction of a refueling pump, which set off vapors in a rear tank.
 
Bobanna said:
Richard: I don't know what downed TWA 800, and I am seeking a convincing explanation based on sound science and engineering...
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me, but there are people advancing explanations on both sides in the various threads on this subject. Expecting verifiable exidence from one side and not the other introduces a bias into the process.
 
Last edited:
X3 Skier said:
Here's a few.


Details of the military cases

Use of less flammable fuel might have prevented some of the military accidents, specialists say, but each is instructive on some of the mechanical-failure scenarios being studied:

-- On Dec. 10, 1993, a Wisconsin Air National Guard KC-135 blew up on the ground at Gen. Billy Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee. Six maintenance personnel died.

An investigative board found "clear and convincing evidence" that an explosion in the plane's center fuel tank was triggered by sparking in a wire within the housing of a fuel pump. The electrical arc managed to enlarge a tiny vent hole in the housing, sending molten copper from the wire into the tank. Fuel vapors quickly ignited.

-- On Sept. 17, 1987, a KC-10 exploded at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. Again, the cause was attributed to a fuel vapor explosion in the center fuel tank. One mechanic died.

Investigators found that fuel had leaked, and vapors probably had been ignited by arcing from a battery near the pump area for the tank.

Shortly after the incident, the Air Force ordered checks of all KC-10s and found a dozen similar leaks.

-- On July 24, 1989, at Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, an Air Force B-52 bomber went up in flames, killing one person, after a refueling team mistakenly left a vent plug in the plane's center fuel tank. The plug caused too much vapor pressure to build. The tank ruptured, spilling 2,600 gallons of fuel onto the tarmac. Air Force investigators were unable to determine the ignition source.

-- On Oct. 4, 1990, an Air Force KC-135 tanker exploded during approach to Loring Air Force Base in Maine. That incident involved a rear aerial-refueling storage tank rather than the central fuel tank. Witnesses said they saw two explosions on the plane and then saw the tail section separate from the aircraft. Investigators blamed the accident, which killed all four crew members, on a fuel pump that overheated to at least 1,400 degrees.

-- In another rear-tank incident, on Sept. 20, 1989, a KC-135 assigned to the Alaska Air National Guard exploded on the ground at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. Two people died. The accident was attributed to a malfunction of a refueling pump, which set off vapors in a rear tank.
Click to expand...

You gotta hand it to those Air Force boys, they can find very creative ways to destroy aircraft.
 
Good grief. Willful ignorance is not skepticism, it's just plain lazy. Sitting back and saying "I'm remaining undecided until someone else does the legwork to go find me the data that's already out there but I'm too lazy to go look for myself" is as scientifically rigorous as saying, "I've never seen Santa Claus' dead body, so for all I know he's still alive out there somewhere, and until someone proves otherwise my theory is just as valid as yours."

If you want some data with citations and reputable laboratory data, go study the NTSB report, available here, and then go dig up the reports in the footnotes: http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf

From p. 129:
Review of the data obtained from the emulation flight test revealed that the CWT vapor samples had fuel/air mass ratios(247) of 0.034, 0.046, and 0.054 on the ground during taxi and as the airplane climbed through about 10,000 and 14,000 feet msl (see table 7). According to scientific literature(248) and tests conducted by experts at the California Institute of Technology (CIT), the lower flammability limit (LFL) of Jet A fuel is at a fuel/air mass ratio of 0.032 to 0.038.(249)

(245) For additional information regarding the vapor sampling mechanism and the handling and testing of the vapor samples collected, see the Flight Test Group Chairmanís Factual Report, dated November 19, 1997. Also, see the DRI report, ìSampling and Analysis of Vapors from the Center Wing Tank of a Test Boeing 747-100 Aircraft,î dated November 1997.
(246) Two sampling bottles were used for each vapor sample acquisition. One bottle was used to purge the sampling line and manifold, and the other, subsequently, was used to collect a valid vapor sample.
(247) The fuel/air mass ratio is a measure of the mass of fuel in a mixture divided by the mass of the air in that mixture. In the context of this flight test sample, it is a measure of the mass of the fuel in the ullage divided by the mass of the air in the ullage.
(248) Nestor, L. 1967. Investigation of Turbine Fuel Flammability within aircraft Fuel Tanks. Final Report DS-67-7. Naval Air Propulsion Test Center, Naval Base, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Also, Shepherd, J. E.; Nuyt, C. D.; and Lee, J. J. 2000. Flashpoint and Chemical Composition of Aviation Kerosene (Jet A). Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories, CIT. Explosion Dynamics Report FM99-4.
(249) From May 29 to 31, 1998, Boeing performed additional ground tests, with technical support from the Safety Board, to investigate the 747-100 CWT thermal and vapor environment. These tests were conducted at Pinal Air Park in Marana, Arizona, using a 747-100 series airplane leased from Evergreen Airlines and were similar in scope to the JFK flight tests conducted by the Safety Board. Testing was performed in a hot ambient environment (outside air temperatures above 95° F), with all three of the airplaneís air conditioning packs operating. The tests were conducted in the following conditions: (1) a nearly empty fuel load in the CWT (50 gallons, similar to TWA 800), with uninsulated air conditioning packs; (2) 50 gallons of fuel in the CWT, with thermally insulated air conditioning packs; and (3) 12,000 pounds of fuel in the CWT, with uninsulated air conditioning packs. Temperature and vapor measurements of the CWT indicated that a flammable condition existed during ground operations during each of the three tests. For additional information, see Summary Data Report: B-747-100 Center Wing Tank Ground Testing at Marana, Arizona, dated January 20, 2000.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that CalTech is just the FAA's whipping boy, and ready to spout off whatever the FAA wants them to say about kerosene flammability. Besides, what do they know about fuel and combustion, anyway? Do they even have laboratories there?

Do you have any data besides waving a match around some kerosene in your backyard to say that CalTech's analysis is flawed? Have you even examined their analysis? (Hint: The information to find the CalTech report is included in this post, and if one can be bothered enough, it can be retrieved using two mouse clicks and four keys on the keyboard.)

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Bobanna said:
Thank you for posting these stories, but it is all anecdotal, at best. The reports paraphrased by lay reporters and repeated as evidence is weak.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

If you wish to find out more about these Class A Mishaps, please use the resources of the USAF Safety Center at Kirkland AFB. I did when in charge of the development of On Board Inert Gas Generation System (OBIGGS) for the C-17 and F-22 over 20 years ago.

Cheers
 
Bobanna, may I suggest you contact Boeing, Airbus, et al, fuel truck manufacturers, Airport managers and the DoD to recommend they remove all fuel system grounding systems to save cost and weight and save servicing time since you have the strong belief and evidence a spark during refueling using Jet A is not at all a worry re explosions in the partially filled tanks.

I would be interested in their responses.

Cheers
 
Bobanna said:
My skepticism resides in the fact that the missing link in this theory is positive evidence that JetA can be exploded in a fuel tank. I am not insisting on anybody's ability to "prove a negative", but confirmation that this flammable liquid can be rendered dangerously explosive within a fuel tank.
Click to expand...
You keep saying you want evidence or proof that Jet-A can be exploded in a fuel tank and people here have cited cases where that has happened.

You seem to be only satisfied if someone will do a test your way.

Let me solve your problem right now. You will NEVER be satisfied, because sometimes you can't always replicate a scenario and have it go the same way every time. Sometimes the investigating body has to go with the best answer based on all of the available data and rule out the possible causes that they can (like a missile hit).

Guess what...the NTSB, the FAA and Boeing were not able to get the 737 rudder reversal to duplicate every time they did the test. Boeing was not satisfied with that one, but that was the best possible cause they could come up with. Was that a conspiracy?

Sometimes you can't get 100% resolution and unfortunately that is what gives the folks wearing the tinfoil hats something to rally behind. If that makes 'em happy great. I don't lose sleep over it.....but then again, I work for the government so I may be just stirring the point while my buds at NSA scan brain waves.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You keep saying you want evidence or proof that Jet-A can be exploded in a fuel tank and people here have cited cases where that has happened.

You seem to be only satisfied if someone will do a test your way.

Let me solve your problem right now. You will NEVER be satisfied, because sometimes you can't always replicate a scenario and have it go the same way every time. Sometimes the investigating body has to go with the best answer based on all of the available data and rule out the possible causes that they can (like a missile hit).

Guess what...the NTSB, the FAA and Boeing were not able to get the 737 rudder reversal to duplicate every time they did the test. Boeing was not satisfied with that one, but that was the best possible cause they could come up with. Was that a conspiracy?

Sometimes you can't get 100% resolution and unfortunately that is what gives the folks wearing the tinfoil hats something to rally behind. If that makes 'em happy great. I don't lose sleep over it.....but then again, I work for the government so I may be just stirring the point while my buds at NSA scan brain waves.
Click to expand...

Let me play devils advocate for a second.................

Suppose the military was conducting excercises in the area, which I think they actually said they were... And by some fluke a huge mistake was made and a missle was accidently armed and sent skyward... Does anyone even think for a New York second they would fess up and take blame.. There is not a snowballs chance in hell they would ..:no::nonod:....
 
N801BH said:
Let me play devils advocate for a second.................

Suppose the military was conducting excercises in the area, which I think they actually said they were... And by some fluke a huge mistake was made and a missle was accidently armed and sent skyward... Does anyone even think for a New York second they would fess up and take blame.. There is not a snowballs chance in hell they would ..:no::nonod:....
Click to expand...
Ben,

I'm in the Navy. Been leading sailors for 14 years. If that had happened, there is no way in hell you could keep every single sailor quiet all these years. No way. Someone would have talked and no one who wants to prove that theory has been able to find a sailor to come forward.

Only way you could keep it under wraps would be if the Navy deliberately (pre-planned) shot it down and you had a select few individuals involved in the plan sworn to secrecy before the mission even started and that certainly wouldn't have involved a standard fleet asset. But why on earth would we do that? It isn't like we used TWA 800 as an excuse to go invade someone like we did after the USS MAINE explosion.
 
Bobanna said:
FTwr: Thank you for your service. You sound like an officer ( I'm only guessing, bur Cmdr?, maybe Captain). I'm impressed by your sense of duty and integrity within your command, but despite your admirable sense of honor, it doesn't prove that it didn't happen, does it? I'm not interested in spending much time on that path right now, mainly because the evidence is scant. Again, I thank you for your service and perspective as a military leader. Blessings
Click to expand...
LCDR...and while you don't know me from Adam, can assure you I have no misguided sense of loyalty to the government or my service.

Problem with your posts is that you seem to want 100% irrefutable proof that the fuel tank explosion is the cause. As I pointed out, we may never be able to achieve that as has been the case in many aviation accidents.

But at the same time, you seem to use that lack of irrefutable evidence as proof that there was a sinister reason for the crash....even when there is evidence (both radar and forensic) that that specifically wasn't the case.

If you want to say that you question the official probable cause, that is fine....but don't try to make an argument that if that you don't believe the fuel and was the cause...therefore a missile strike must be the cause.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Bobanna said:
My experimentation and experience with fuels encompasses more than "waving a match around some (jetA). If you do this, it will not explode. Apply a flame to the vapor over a can half-filled with kerosene and nothing happens (the vapors actually suffocate the match), but try this with gasoline and a conflagration is nearly certain (NEVER put an ignition source close to a container filled with gasoline vapors).

Yes, I have data.

Like nearly all negative results, it is not publishable. If I, or anyone, had data showing conditions where jetA could be exploded in a closed container, it would be huge news.
Click to expand...

I will try one more time.

In my brief career as an adjunct instructor in Mechanical Engineering as well as in Engineering graduate school, I had no difficulty finding valid published negative data in refereed journals in engineering. Have you submitted your information to the AIAA, ASME, or other professional societies?

As far as explosive conditions in fuel tanks, I refer you to several sources in the field of survivabity and vulnerability at Surviac where I have published in the distant past as well the standard textbook.

http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/

Ball, Robert E., The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis and Design, Second Edition, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2003 (The AIAA Textbook)

In the design of OBIGGS, the key sizing parameter is the amount of N2 required to prevent an explosive mixture.

Finally, I note that pumps and other electrical devices used in fuel systems are called explosion proof for a reason, that being a spark can result in an explosion, even though it is Jet A in the tank which you remain unconvinced is possible.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. If you believe TWA 800 was brought down by other than an explosion cause as determined by the NTSB, be my guest. However continually denying a fuel tank full of an explosive mixture of air and Jet A vapor cannot explode because your data doesn't verify it while rejecting other data that led to explosion proofing of components and the atmosphere in fuel tanks as well as other measures is somewhat a waste of time.

Cheers and good luck in publishing your data as many others have done in the past and I look forward to the paper.
 
N801BH said:
Let me play devils advocate for a second.................

Suppose the military was conducting excercises in the area, which I think they actually said they were... And by some fluke a huge mistake was made and a missle was accidently armed and sent skyward... Does anyone even think for a New York second they would fess up and take blame.. There is not a snowballs chance in hell they would ..:no::nonod:....
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

If you are, you'd be even dumber than those that have no f'n clue with respect to explosive atmospheres.
 
Bobanna said:
If a link in the chain of events demands that JetA be exploded, I am not out-of-bounds asking for proof that it can be exploded. Absent that proof, the chain is broken.

I have not suggested nor concluded anything sinister about this crash. Instead, I am critical of the fuel tank/jetA explosion theory as it stands. I have been unable to locate any information demonstrating so-called explosive properties of civilian jet fuel. Without that by itself the chain is broken.
Click to expand...

The following range from simple warnings to technical detailed experiments as I have no idea what level you may desire.

Try this

http://www.tsocorp.com/stellent/groups/corpcomm/documents/tsocorp_documents/msdsjetfuel.pdf

Or this

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_04/textonly/s01txt.html

Or this

http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ar98-26.pdf#page48

Or this

http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/public/flammability.html

Or this

http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/meweb/koert files/Abs_ESSCI'01_r3.pdf

Or this

AIAA Journal > Volume 38, Issue 10 > Ignition Mechanisms of Jet-A Fuel Vapor in a Confined Environment


Please contact the sources and their references directly for further information as I have no need to do so.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
It was shot down by a death ray from the alien mother ship.
 
Last edited:
X3 Skier said:
For revealing this, the Black Helicopters are on the way to your location. :yes:

Cheers
Click to expand...

Do not, repeat, do not, tell anyone why you know the helicopters are black.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Ben,

I'm in the Navy. Been leading sailors for 14 years. If that had happened, there is no way in hell you could keep every single sailor quiet all these years. No way. Someone would have talked and no one who wants to prove that theory has been able to find a sailor to come forward.

Only way you could keep it under wraps would be if the Navy deliberately (pre-planned) shot it down and you had a select few individuals involved in the plan sworn to secrecy before the mission even started and that certainly wouldn't have involved a standard fleet asset. But why on earth would we do that? It isn't like we used TWA 800 as an excuse to go invade someone like we did after the USS MAINE explosion.
Click to expand...

The government and the military complex works in strange and mysterious ways.... Keep in mind,,,, without wars or conflicts around the globe.. The Pentegon lays off federal workers.. Ain't NO way that is happenin... Altho I see your point on all the topics you floated....
 
Last edited:
Bobanna said:
Geezer: Incredible work! Thank you for the time and attention it took to assemble these references. Although I won't review each citation at the moment, in general I found discussions mostly about flammability (as opposed to an airframe-splitting explosion). But there are certainly names and locations of experts who I will contact. I thank you again for your knowledge in this area, and your guidance to illuminate and resolve this issue. Have a blessed weekend. Bob
Click to expand...

Wouldn't take much over pressure to split the airframe, even a burning event would be more than sufficient.
 
Bobanna said:
Would it? So why does the putative conclusion not state a CFT explosion or "burning event?" And a "burning event" isn't consistent with the truncated mayday call from the flight crew, or the data recovered on the FDRs.
Click to expand...

Yes it would, wouldn't take much pressure, applied over the entire surface of the tank to fail the airframe in such a way as to cause a in flight break up.

Nothing more or less to be read into my statement
 
let's not feed the trolls.

bye - bye
 
Kapton wiring insulation. It can burn at up to 5000 degrees Celsius. More than hot enough to burn a hole in a fuel cell or airframe and ignite the vapors causing an explosion.
 
X3 Skier said:
Of course this will not change anyone's opinion that there is a vast conspiracy to cover up something, whatever that something might be from alien death rays to the impossibility of an explosive mixture in a almost empty tank of Jet-A but it is factual.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2013/06/22/latest-twa-800-conspiracy-theory-how-likely-is-it/

Cheers
Click to expand...

Surely Benghazi, or the AP scandel or the IRS scandel had not raised your suspicions??? Naw.... No cover ups there..:no::no::nonod::confused:
 
N801BH said:
Surely Benghazi, or the AP scandel or the IRS scandel had not raised your suspicions??? Naw.... No cover ups there..:no::no::nonod::confused:
Click to expand...

No, I am too busy trying to find out how FDR ordered the attack on Pearl Harbor with camoflaged P-40's to galvanize the Congress into declaring war on the Axis. :goofy:

Cheers
 
N801BH said:
Let me play devils advocate for a second.................

Suppose the military was conducting excercises in the area, which I think they actually said they were... And by some fluke a huge mistake was made and a missle was accidently armed and sent skyward... Does anyone even think for a New York second they would fess up and take blame.. There is not a snowballs chance in hell they would ..:no::nonod:....
Click to expand...

1.) Exercises with live warheads are only conducted in long established and well marked areas which are fully protected by airspace restrictions and NOTAMS. No air or surface traffic would be allowed anywhere within range of a live fire exercise.

2.) There is no way a live round could be loaded by mistake as all training and inert missiles and projectiles are painted blue. No aircraft would be authorized to launch on an exercise with a live round, in fact no one can even draw a single live 9mm round from a military magazine without the proper paperwork .

3.) No live SAM sites are anywhere near the accident site.

You would have better credibility claiming a mid-air with a UFO.
 
Bobanna, try this conclusion from Cal Tech.

" The fuel vapor in the ullage of the TWA 800 CWT was flammable at the time of the explosion and the estimated peak pressures are sufficiently high that structural failure is a credible consequence of flame propagation within the tank ullage. How- ever, the magnitude of the peak pressure and the pressure-time history within the CWT cannot be predicted with any certainty given the present data."

http://www.twa800.com/ntsb/8-15-00/docket/Ex_20D.pdf

75 pages including the results of Caltech experimiments with Jet A vapor to determine explosive conditions not to mention pages of references.

BTW, a 10 second Google search uncovered this document since I didn't want to go through my piles of paper. :yes:

In the true spirit of scientific enquiry that you espouse, I have yet to see your data, published or not that shows Jet-A cannot explode in a closed container so I am reluctantly forced to rely other institutions' results as well as personal knowledge.

I feel further discussion of the potential of explosive mixtures of Jet-A and air is fruitless so I will move on to the investigation of the whereabouts of Elvis.

Cheers
 
Bobanna said:
I couldn't do it in my experiments (and that data is no longer available to me by agreements that restrict them; unfortunately, they were all negative results, but possibly not correctly controlled either).
Click to expand...

In other words, you had evidence that may or may not be correct that the conclusions were wrong but in any event cannot share them for some undisclosed reason. :rolleyes::rolleyes2:

Please advise us all when you repeat the experiments in a controlled manner since they are so vital to the safety of the worlds airline and defense operation. I suggest you apply to the metaphysical society of your choice or perhaps the National Enquirer for funding. They are well endowed to investigate unusual and paranormal phenomenon apparently associated with your undisclosed and unverifiable results.

Good luck in your pursuits.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top