TWA-800...again.

[Evan]

On the evening of July 17, 1996 there was an ex United States Airforce F4 pilot that flew many combat missions in Viet Nam

One too many I'm guessing.

[BoeingBobby]

You flew the SAM 28000 or SAM 29000?

Why do you have to be such an arrogant little shit all the time. A: I am not a Military pilot so I could not have flown the VC-25. However all they are are 747-200's with lots of extra electronics, they ability to air to air refuel and dual generators on each engine for all of the electronic crap. My company happens to do all of the training for the Air Force one pilots as well as the E-4 pilots.

[BoeingBobby]

One too many I'm guessing.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[BoeingBobby]

"were" no signs...

...Ok, now that we've fixed the grammar.

I was there so my grammar is correct.

However, the counter argument to your comment: It is fairly well established that the tank did "blow up"...and the whole reconstructed plane paints a pretty clear picture of the "whole area being blown out".

Have you seen the reconstructed plane? Because I have and I am telling you that there is no signs of an internal explosion from the center wing fuel tank.



...but please, what tells you that that area wasn't the source of an 'explosion'- You say "no evidence of combustion" but the bent metal of the tank and plane sure suggests that something blew it out.

Again there WERE (you happy now) no signs of outwardly bent metal from the center wing tank.

[3WE]

Again there WERE (you happy now) no signs of outwardly bent metal from the center wing tank.

OK...it's been a long time since I looked at the pictures (yes, just pictures)- but maybe I can imagine what you said...I do recall the tank being somewhat "square"...and thinking, "wow, shouldn't it be more blown out than what it is".

...that being said, just as an ass-hat-outsider, it sure looks like the rest of the plane blew out right there...(and kind of all around the tank)...and I would still challenge you on the absolute "NO" signs of outward bending at all whatsoever...I just sort of assumed it came apart at the seams and had stiff walls- and with the plane breaking up like it did (and the tank indeed being bent and dented), none of it is bent outward?

You saying it's "all bent inward"? (almost all?)

Not sure I agree with you, but then again, I will leave it to Evan to kick, scream and yell at how you are totally dead wrong and in conflict with the gospel of the NTSB.

[AVION1]

If you call cut-and-pasting them 'playing with them'...

That picture you posted is a JATO-launched BQM-74 Chukar targeting drone. The navy uses these for target practice exercises. You are implying that the USN was conducting target practice in the litoral areas just south of Long Island along a heavily-trafficked commercial airway. Do you realize how non-sensical that is?

Not to mention the fact that witnesses only reported one streak that evening. Does the navy conduct single-drone target practice exercises without ever firing a missile at the drone? No. they don't.

Ok, put that aside. Of the hundreds of witness reports of seeing a streak of light in the sky, only 18 reported that it originated on the ground.


223 witnesses testified that it was high up in the sky, not ascending vertically.

Now... The BQM-74 uses JATO rockets initially, creating a large streak of flame near the ground, then ejects these as the internal turbine takes over. At that point it produces no streak of light. Yet most witnesses reported the streak of light high up in the sky...

...the sort of streak you might expect from a burning aircraft as it continues to briefly fly in an upward trajectory before breaking up moments later...

So tell me Avion, how do you explain that discrepency? Or just ask yourself that.

What discrepancies?
Are you playing with my words again?
Those drones use a rocket for initial launch and then they have a turbo fan engine. They are subsonic. They fly around 500 MPH, that is the TAS speed. Impacting then on a Boeing 747 would be catastrophic.

[AVION1]

WTF is that supposed to mean?

I think he is a FoxNews reporter.

[Evan]

What discrepancies?
Are you playing with my words again?
Those drones use a rocket for initial launch and then they have a turbo fan engine. They are subsonic. They fly around 500 MPH, that is the TAS speed. Impacting then on a Boeing 747 would be catastrophic.

So (as you have ignored my point about USN targeting exercises in that location being non-sensical) why the streak of light high up in the sky? Turbines don't leave streaks of light in their wake. Answer me that.

[Leftseat86]

Just going to leave this here...

Though the FQIS itself was designed to prevent danger by minimizing voltages and currents, the innermost tube of Flight 800's FQIS compensator showed damage similar to that of the compensator tube identified as the ignition source for the surge tank fire that destroyed a 747 near Madrid in 1976. This was not considered proof of a source of ignition. Evidence of arcing was found in a wire bundle that included FQIS wiring connecting to the center wing tank. Arcing signs were also seen on two wires sharing a cable raceway with FQIS wiring at station 955.

The captain's cockpit voice recorder channel showed two "dropouts" of background power harmonics in the second before the recording ended (with the separation of the nose). This might well be the signature of an arc on cockpit wiring adjacent to the FQIS wiring. The captain commented on the "crazy" readings of the number 4 engine fuel flow gauge about 2 1/2 minutes before the CVR recording ended. Finally, the Center Wing Tank fuel quantity gauge was recovered and indicated 640 pounds instead of the 300 pounds that had been loaded into that tank. Experiments showed that applying power to a wire leading to the fuel quantity gauge can cause the digital display to change by several hundred pounds before the circuit breaker trips. Thus the gauge anomaly could have been caused by a short to the FQIS wiring. The NTSB concluded that the most likely source of sufficient voltage to cause ignition was a short from damaged wiring, or within electrical components of the FQIS. As not all components and wiring were recovered, it was not possible to pinpoint the source of the necessary voltage.

[3WE]

God, 3WE the way you put words in my mouth...

I don't see the findings as as 'totally irrefutable' and I've already said that here....

...said Evan as he continues on his vicious tie-raid (with near zero acknowledgement until I parrot him with giant font) to disprove every person (not just 3BS) who offers up doubts and alternatives to the official report.

[3WE]

Just going to leave this here...

Thank you...a lot of hints and guesses, but no real proof of "the actual spark plug."

...and if they could have just said, "we believe that the eyewitness reports of missiles were probably the plane ascending," instead of the overly-strong foo foo'd up video from the government, the doubters might be more reserved.

[Leftseat86]

Also the fact that, among conspiracy theorists, no one can seem to agree on which one exactly happened, is telling enough in itself. Which is usually how these things go with conspiracies...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theories

[Leftseat86]

I'd almost prefer the theory that it was just an accidental shoot down based on a Navy exercise gone wrong, than BoeingBobby's assertion that the intended target was an El-Al 747 scheduled to depart a whole fifteen minutes later, meaning it had not even left the ground yet before TWA 800's 12 minutes in the air came to an end. That would be a f*ck up of monumental proportions for those involved. I would assume government agencies involved in something like that, and capable of keeping the whole thing covered up till this day, would be slightly more competent than to shoot down the wrong airliner almost 30 minutes early...

Or was this small boat supposedly manned by terrorists who simply set their watches wrong? That's a lot of work and preparation to screw up on such a basic level.

[Evan]

Thank you...a lot of hints and guesses, but no real proof of "the actual spark plug."

...and if they could have just said, "we believe that the eyewitness reports of missiles were probably the plane ascending," instead of the overly-strong foo foo'd up video from the government, the doubters might be more reserved.

Did you get that 3WE? Did the meaning sink in?

You see the reason I used a rare bold font was not to 'tie raid', but to emphasize the need for you to READ THE REPORT. You obviously haven't, though you may have flipped through it. What LeftSeat has posted is clearly described in the report. And no, the report does not make absolute conclusions of the cause of the crash. It is very equivocal on certain aspects that cannot be proved or disproved.

Now, can you get it through your thick head that in Boeing Bobby's zillion hours of flying 747's times the number of other 747's (many magnitudes more zillion hours) and the fact that Boeing Bobby's 747's are flown by more people than him (factor 2X) times the number of takeoffs times a fraction of times the AC is running for extended times, times a fraction of when the tank is empty, and times lightning strikes and other frayed wires and other aircraft types...

IF you had read the report, you would know that four planets had to line up here for this to happen...

Planet 1) The fuel tank must be conducting significant heat from the AC packs, which had been on for an extended time prior to takeoff.

Planet 2) The FQIS wiring must have flaws that can lead to arcing.

Planet 3) The fuel quantity in the CWT must be enough to create overpressure from fuel vapor, yet low enough to expose the FQIS wire arcing to the air.

Planet 4) There must be a voltage anomaly. Boeing had considered Planet 2 and designed the system with low voltage levels insufficient to cause ignition. Yet the evidence (pointed out again by LeftSeat) suggests a transient anomaly of higher voltage occurred.

Now, I tend to believe that Planets 1-3 have aligned many times before and after TWA-800. It's the addition of Planet 4 that makes this event so rare.

Had you read the report, you would understand.

[3WE]

Did you get that 3WE?

I got this:

...it was not possible to pinpoint the source of the necessary voltage.

It's a good theory...

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another


2: abstract thought : speculation


3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art


4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena


6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

...and I had a little fun with bold font.