New Insights into TWA 800?

steingar

steingar

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
29,248
Location
Land of Savages
Display Name
Display name:
steingar
The Boeing 747 exploded and crashed into the ocean on its way to Paris, killing all 230 people aboard. The NTSB concluded that aged wiring caused a short which ignited fuel vapors. The NTSB has been petitioned to reopen its investigation, and a new documentary paints a more sinister tale, according to this story.
 
It will be interesting to see if they really have come up with anything new.
 
Same guy who found Emelia Earhart's airplane?

Or maybe financing the latest excavation for Jimmy Hoffa?

Or really knows who shot JFK?

Or is a descendant of John Wilkes Booth who knows who really shot Lincoln?

Or maybe has uncovered the set where they filmed the moon landings in the Desert outside Las Vegas?

Cheers
 
They're claiming they have NTSB board members who were silenced until retirement. We'll see.
 
I know someone who thinks that Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie Scotland inflight breakup) was structural failure. TWA 800 has always been filled with speculation about that "external" missile or whatever. Who know what really happened but maybe some interesting new facts will arise.
 
The biggest issue that I have with the terrorist missile theory is that no one took credit.
 
Keeping anything in DC secret that the "public" has in interest in is next to impossible. The chance that there are "new facts" not previously disclosed that will change anything is close to zero. :rolleyes:

Cheers
 
But there is one question that does seem to go unanswered.. why weren't the 747 grounded after they made the initial finding and why is there no AD to cover the wiring harness..

Or, I am just not doing that good a research on this?
 
Ventucky Red said:
But there is one question that does seem to go unanswered.. why weren't the 747 grounded after they made the initial finding
Click to expand...
No reason to ground them. Changes were made in the operating procedures so the fuel/air ratio in the center wing tank ullage space would not be in the explosive range.

and why is there no AD to cover the wiring harness..
Click to expand...
Because there was no real proof that any particular harness failed in any particular way. It was clear that something inside the tank sparked the explosion, but beyond that it was just guesswork as to what that something was. The one thing that was certain beyond reasonable doubt based on the physical evidence and our knowledge of fuel tank ullage explosions (studied very carefully in the combat aircraft survivability world long before that accident) was that there was no penetration of the tank from the outside prior to the explosion.
 
Don't we have more useful things for the NTSB to do, like investigate all of the planes that are still crashing?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Don't we have more useful things for the NTSB to do, like investigate all of the planes that are still crashing?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the rules require the NTSB to respond to any petition for reinvestigation. They are not, however, required to reinvestigate, so the answer can be "no" although they must explain why they said "no".
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Don't we have more useful things for the NTSB to do, like investigate all of the planes that are still crashing?
Click to expand...

Maybe they should investigate all the planes NOT flying. GA, as a segment, has crashed and I'd like answers.
 
I don't have a dog in this fight. But I have noted some interesting points.
First: The lead investigator says he went into it thinking they would find that the plane had been shot down. After all, he had the police/FBI reports of witnesses who say they saw a missile. As each piece came up from the ocean and there were no characteristic deformations from an external explosion or of shrapnel and he had to revise his thinking.

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.

I feel this boy has spent way too much time on the grassy knoll and overheated his brain.
Now look at whose ox was being gored in the investigation. It is/was in the best interests of both Boeing and of the FBI to find this was a terrorist attack.
That gets Boeing off the hook for a defective design.
That gives the FBI a starring role in a new and MAJOR crime.
A win-win for both.
They couldn't pull it off. The findings simply did not support any conclusion other than the hot fuel vapor inside of a confined space, ignited.
My grandfather always said if you want to find the facts, follow the money. The money (huge), aka facts, did not get a win for either Boeing or the FBI.
Case closed, according to gramps.
 
According to the Red Board, that other source of impeccable aviation knowledge, the retired NTSB person(s) are from the highway safety part of the NTSB. Maybe they have some revelation on how a tracked vehicle mounted SAM could have traversed NYC undetected, set up a site and fired from a concealed location next to the JFK access road. :rolleyes2:

Cheers
 
Missile from a F-14, practice targeting and the pilot pulled the trigger, at least that was the rumor on LI. I remember the first computer animations the news were running had a little made by CIA tag in the corner, quickly changed to NTSB, 17 years ago that stuff wasn't new, but not every kid could do it at home in 5 minutes.
 
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...

I'm not feeling good about the seemingly conflicting conclusions.
 
Get all of the conspiracy theories of TWA Flight 800 in all of their glory in Night Fall by Nelson DeMille. It's one of his better books, and a fine read.

You can get it for the price of postage and handling from Internet used book stores. Well, $0.01 + P/H.
 
Ron Levy said:
Unfortunately, the rules require the NTSB to respond to any petition for reinvestigation. They are not, however, required to reinvestigate, so the answer can be "no" although they must explain why they said "no".
Click to expand...
Speaking of reinvestigations, on another board a comment was made by someone who had been through the NTSB training facility that TWA 800 gets reinvestigated every couple of weeks when a new class comes through.

While the wreckage is not exactly open to the average Joe Public, it sure is not being hidden by the Boogie Man.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Speaking of reinvestigations, on another board a comment was made by someone who had been through the NTSB training facility that TWA 800 gets reinvestigated every couple of weeks when a new class comes through.

While the wreckage is not exactly open to the average Joe Public, it sure is not being hidden by the Boogie Man.
Click to expand...

It's of low credibility spoon-feeding babes the party line. Ensures that the story is told the way you want it as history marches forward.

I have no opinion either way about TWA 800, just saying...
 
Jaybird180 said:
It's of low credibility spoon-feeding babes the party line. Ensures that the story is told the way you want it as history marches forward.
Click to expand...
It isn't about spoon feeding as it is that a critical-thinking person can see it for themselves.

The point is, it isn't just NTSB trainees that go there. Lots of experienced aviation professionals who work outside of the Federal government go through there and are able to see it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
While the wreckage is not exactly open to the average Joe Public, it sure is not being hidden by the Boogie Man.
Click to expand...

They show the wreckage to the public. When I attended a FAAST seminar this Spring at the NTSB training facility, we were shown the TWA 800 wreckage (and a couple of other wrecks).

It is an impressive and sobering sight.
 
Yup. Kerosene/jetfuel vapors going kaboom is a bit far fetched.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Yup. Kerosene/jetfuel vapors going kaboom is a bit far fetched.
Click to expand...
You've obviously never seen it atomized. Actually, in the case of TWA 800, atomized is probably not correct, however, depending on the level in the tank and the motion, you could conceivably get enough vapor to ignite.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, it makes me wonder how some of these conspiracy theorists might explain a grain elevator explosion. The vapor pressure of grain is zero. Throw a lit match into a pile of grain and it doesn't do much. Beat the crap out of it and get it airborne, and you have an entirely different situation.

Oh, I guess it must the Federal government staging the occasional dust explosion just to fool us.....
 
MAKG1 said:
Hmm, it makes me wonder how some of these conspiracy theorists might explain a grain elevator explosion. The vapor pressure of grain is zero. Throw a lit match into a pile of grain and it doesn't do much. Beat the crap out of it and get it airborne, and you have an entirely different situation.

Oh, I guess it must the Federal government staging the occasional dust explosion just to fool us.....
Click to expand...
I'm telling ya it was a failed chemtrail flight. Been telling folks for years that stuff just ain't stable!
 
How many aircraft have been lost in flight due to jetfuel vapor ignition? How often do diesel vehicles have it happen? I heard it was really a kid lighting his farts in the lav, flame got suked into the honey tank and set off all the other fart gas. The ntsb was just too embarressed and worried about copy cat fart lighting to tell the truth.
 
ClimbnSink said:
How many aircraft have been lost in flight due to jetfuel vapor ignition? How often do diesel vehicles have it happen? I heard it was really a kid lighting his farts in the lav, flame got suked into the honey tank and set off all the other fart gas. The ntsb was just too embarressed and worried about copy cat fart lighting to tell the truth.
Click to expand...
Nah, AQ would have taken credit for that...it sounds like something right up their alley.
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmmmm...

Explain the Pearl Harbor memorial for us all....:dunno::rolleyes:

Edit... Greg beat me to it...:mad:
Click to expand...

70 years and a few generations makes a big difference to some.

Just look at the uproar in maritime salvage circles over the Titanic vs every sunken sailing ship that has been exploited for its cargo.

Time changes opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top