Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TWA Flight 800 "Cover Up" ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    The interesting thing about a missile strike is that I imagine it would have been heat seeking? If so that would take off a wing or a proximity blast would show penetration wouldn't it?

    At any rate, any kind of missile is going to leave some kind of fingerprint in terms of fragments that would have been located.
    Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Graham2001 View Post
      To all those claiming a missle, please explain where it came from and also cite the medical evidence confirming this.
      For the record, I'm not claiming anything, I thought this was solved. After watching the video then reading more online there seems to be evidence that does not fit the offical explanation so it may be worth reconsidering with a fresh set of eyes as well as less invested investigators.

      The pathologist and the doctor that conducted the autopsys were both in the documentary and state the injuries were consistent with a high pressure explosion. The severe trauma and burns were not consistent to people sitting near the center fuel tank but spread randomly across the plane, consistent with a high-pressure explosion.

      They also state that they were never asked for analysis on their findings and the evidence was unprofessionally handled by the FBI during the transition between the autopsy and pathologist that resulted in loss of data that would have been needed to determine speed and force behind the explosion.

      Comment


      • #63
        Perhaps but when you think about the air flow that would have spread the fuel and caused those burns, you don't have a nice laminar flow or even stream. What you do have is a fluid meeting up with the whirling turbidity of a not so smooth breakup. There would be some higher pressure areas and lower in the cabin when considering the forward velocity of the initial speed and then the degradation during the dive. With a wing or part of a wing gone it would also be slewing sideways.
        Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
          The interesting thing about a missile strike is that I imagine it would have been heat seeking?
          No. Heat seekers are usually short ranged devices - if the explosion happened after being cleared for 15K feet that would be outside the usual shoulder launched MANPADS heat seeker. Air to Air such as a sidewinder are also short ranged - the only military A/c in the vicinity were a C130, a chopper and an Orion. None of which carry A/A missiles.

          Besides, why would a heat seeker ignore 4 large hot engine exhausts and home in on the centre of the biggest radar return (I.e. centre of the airframe)?

          IF (and I don't believe it to be) it was a missile, it was either a passive or active radar guided missile.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
            I have never ever heard of a gas tank explosion on an airliner it's just all BS to me. If gas tanks exploded we would have more airliners crash!!
            Education time:

            previous fuel explosions in the CWTs of commercial airliners such as Avianca Flight 203 and Philippine Airlines Flight 143 confirmed that a CWT explosion could break apart the fuel tank and lead to the destruction of an airplane.[86]

            found (somewhat ironically): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

            You can thank me later.

            Comment


            • #66
              That was my point SYDCBRWOD, that a heat seeker would have taken off a wing or some of they would explode if just near the target. The idea that it was ship launched is also pretty slim. There is no way that a US Navy cruiser is going to be in the waters off Long Island on July 17 and go unnoticed. That area is filled with small pleasure (25') and fishing boats and almost everyone along that stretch of coast owns one. There would have been chatter along the radio channels about something like that.
              Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

              Comment


              • #67
                You cannot win against the government, they will make sure that before they take some thing or someone out they practice, practice and practice and if everything looks good that execute their plan and then they will feed people BS by using fake media and fake reports. Just saying I just don't look at one picture but everything, if everything sounds and looks good it probably is bad/fake. The reports of TWA 800 and TU154 101 PolAF are fake and smell government related. Our US government is smart, intelligent, and good and I like them but if they want some thing or someone removed they will do it without thinking twice about it.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Med cart will be here soon, I hear the bad bearing on the left rear from here.

                  One thing you will always get if you put two individuals from government agencies in the same room is mutual animosity and a fight for control. Each believes in their own mission and they are both painfully aware that funding from "The Hill" is an essential and fought over commodity.

                  Aside from the usual animosity there is also a "paranoia" on any "joint" endeavor that "the other guy" is going to screw something up. And guess what? It's not rare that the other guy does, I'll also note that it is not uncommon for some of the larger and more savvy agencies recruit an expert to shadow the investigators and keep them on track when the investigation is outside of the normal operations. That keeps everyone on track and requires mutual trust. That probably doesn't happen in Poland but it does here. Just don't expect to see your name on the screen credits when the movie is over.

                  It doesn't even sound like through forensic autopsy's were done in the rush to ID the victims.
                  Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                    .......

                    Thanks for the collection of posts that reveiws how there's a serious lack of missle evidence here.

                    ...and the Wiki link that on rare occasions a kerosene tank "spontaneously" explodes.

                    Although it's impossible for a noseless 747 to climb.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Who said a kero tank will spontaneously explode and what Wiki links. The only Wiki reference I used was regarding the autopsy results.

                      The comments on boats, well I had one and the waters all along the east coast are jammed with recreational traffic or did Wiki quote me there?

                      Regarding combustion what kind of fool would come up with that scenario? Now that said, I have been present during refueling ops when some idiots tossed lighted matches into the JP-4 pans to prove how hard it is to ignite but again the tanks are vapor and a match passing quickly through the vapor layer into the liquid may be extinguished.

                      Oh, just go out and show how wrong I am, take a metal pan and fill it with kero.
                      Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        I'm also not going to claim anything.

                        BUT!

                        Please, explain to me (maybe I'm ignorant) how a CG shift on a 747 that has not been structurally or aerodynamically compromised can relate to a 747 that had its nose blown off, with a huge hole right in front, measuring its whole fuselage circumference, leaving it completely open.
                        I think this is the key to the discussion regarding the climb animation - not CG, not AoA and stalls, but what happens when you take a plane, with its nose carefully designed to cut through the air, and you just cut it and leave it looking like something designed for scooping stuff (and air is stuff).
                        I'm not sure I remember this correctly (and it was mentioned here) but the Lockerbie 747 ended up losing its nose too. Did it climb dramatically?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
                          ...nose carefully designed to cut through the air...something designed for scooping stuff (and air is stuff)...
                          So, your basic streamlining is something blunt on the front and tapered in the back.

                          Look at a jet plane, look at wheel pants on a Cessna, look at any airfoil, look at fish...blunt in the front tapered in the back.

                          Yeah, the 747 nose is more round and aerodynamic than your scoop description, but it's still basically blunt in the front and tapered in the back and air flows around it...just because you take the nose off doesn't turn it into giant speed-brake/parachute- it's still a blunt-fronted tube.

                          ...and yes, I belive that Pan Am 103 initiated a high-G climb and folded its wings much like TWA 800...
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Someone is failing to forget that it was traveling quite fast (was it in cruise or climb?) and that until drag takes over (or asymmetric aerodynamics if a wing was coming off), it would probably continue to climb until all of the numbers came together.

                            3WE, fish don't go swimming around mouth open, of course they do open wide when about to ingest prey which also produces a sucking or low pressure area that draws in the food, and yeah, I spent a few years farming trout.

                            You better take another look at the "wheel pants" on a Cessna, they sure as heck ain't "blunt in front" though they do taper in the back. Put a hint in where sarcasm is intended because it's hard to tell.
                            Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                              You cannot win against the government, they will make sure that before they take some thing or someone out they practice, practice and practice and if everything looks good that execute their plan and then they will feed people BS by using fake media and fake reports. Just saying I just don't look at one picture but everything, if everything sounds and looks good it probably is bad/fake. The reports of TWA 800 and TU154 101 PolAF are fake and smell government related. Our US government is smart, intelligent, and good and I like them but if they want some thing or someone removed they will do it without thinking twice about it.
                              I fail to see what the Polish Tu-154 crash has annything related to TWA 800....
                              “The only time you have too much fuel is when you’re on fire.”

                              Erwin

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                                You better take another look at the "wheel pants" on a Cessna, they sure as heck ain't "blunt in front" though they do taper in the back. Put a hint in where sarcasm is intended because it's hard to tell.
                                Look Guamanian- you and I agree more than we disagree.

                                Cessna wheel pants are blunter on the front than they are in the back. Raindrops are blunter on the front than the back. The intake of a jet engine is blunter on the front and pointy in the back.

                                ...and just because the nose fell off a 747 and most definately makes it draggier does not mean that any and all forward speed is instantly killed.

                                Just as you said- the sucker was flying along at a good clip and radar and visible evidence indicates that it might have climbed.

                                While some engineers say the climb is impossible, my expertise in fundamental aerodynamics (based upon quite a few years reading at obscure aviation fora) says that a climb is possible.

                                (the parenthesis part was kind of sarcastic).
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X