TWA Flight 800 25 Years Ago Today

#5
#5
I had to look it up to make sure I was thinking of the right one. It was estimated to have been caused by an internal fuel system explosion not of nefarious origin. No definitive answer was ever found I am aware of and I think the NTSB investigation is closed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAD
#6
#6
Wireless1 said:
The report said a faulty pump in the fuel tank ignited fumes in that tank…..ever try to ignite jet fuel?
Click to expand...
Liquid gas or jet fuel isn’t very flammable however highly atomized gas or even kerosene is highly explosive. That is after all what a fuel air explosive AKA Daisy Cutter is basically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#7
#7
NorthDallas40 said:
Liquid gas or jet fuel isn’t very flammable however highly atomized gas or even kerosene is highly explosive. That is after all what a fuel air explosive AKA Daisy Cutter is basically.
Click to expand...
Understood and agree, the area I have difficulty is that what caused the atomization. Nothing in the tank to cause mechanical atomization, so it’d have to be thermal, but the belly gets cooler at altitude so what heated the belly tank up to cause the atomization. AIR the report does not address this. Pictures I’ve seen of the reconstruction appear it was inside/out rupture but I still don’t see how the jet fuel reached LEL.
 
#9
#9
Wireless1 said:
Understood and agree, the area I have difficulty is that what caused the atomization. Nothing in the tank to cause mechanical atomization, so it’d have to be thermal, but the belly gets cooler at altitude so what heated the belly tank up to cause the atomization. AIR the report does not address this. Pictures I’ve seen of the reconstruction appear it was inside/out rupture but I still don’t see how the jet fuel reached LEL.
Click to expand...

Yep
 
#10
#10
Wireless1 said:
Understood and agree, the area I have difficulty is that what caused the atomization. Nothing in the tank to cause mechanical atomization, so it’d have to be thermal, but the belly gets cooler at altitude so what heated the belly tank up to cause the atomization. AIR the report does not address this. Pictures I’ve seen of the reconstruction appear it was inside/out rupture but I still don’t see how the jet fuel reached LEL.
Click to expand...
I do remember the “missile video” theory too. I’m not claiming that is what happened that is all the report listed as most probable.
 
#11
#11
All -----> 236 people perished in a horrible fiery plane disaster at night. If that's the plane I'm thinking of where the nose of the plane broke lose and the plane just fell forward after climbing up another 200 feet into the ocean. I can't imagine being there & seeing what's coming my way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#13
#13
This involved Puerto Ricans and bypassing the planes fuel shutoff system when fueling up
 
#14
#14
NurseGoodVol said:
The NTSB official said all they needed was a spark in the tank. I don’t buy it.
Whole website dedicated to it.
TWA Flight 800
Click to expand...
I do. If memory serves correctly, the airplane's center tank was 'empty' and it had been sitting around all day in the heat. The one thing I have NEVER liked about airliners is that the fuel pumps are submerged in fuel to keep them cool. Electricity and fuel fumes never seemed like a good idea to me, but I'm just a dumb pilot and not a designer.

I will say this about the missile theory. (I haven't looked at the website yet). The ONLY way I would buy it is it an entire ship or submarine was lost with all hands. Other than that, I guarantee you that someone onboard would have talked to their girlfriend long ago and that secret would have been out. I was in the Navy. I have seen that kind of OpSec time and time again. It is really really really hard to keep a secret in the service, and if a whole ship knew they fired a missile and an airlineer got in the way... well... the dumbest seaman can do that math.
 
#15
#15
SpaceCoastVol said:
I do. If memory serves correctly, the airplane's center tank was 'empty' and it had been sitting around all day in the heat. The one thing I have NEVER liked about airliners is that the fuel pumps are submerged in fuel to keep them cool. Electricity and fuel fumes never seemed like a good idea to me, but I'm just a dumb pilot and not a designer.

I will say this about the missile theory. (I haven't looked at the website yet). The ONLY way I would buy it is it an entire ship or submarine was lost with all hands. Other than that, I guarantee you that someone onboard would have talked to their girlfriend long ago and that secret would have been out. I was in the Navy. I have seen that kind of OpSec time and time again. It is really really really hard to keep a secret in the service, and if a whole ship knew they fired a missile and an airlineer got in the way... well... the dumbest seaman can do that math.
Click to expand...
I don't buy into the missile theory, but I always assumed they were referring to some kind of shoulder mounted deal that could be launched from a small boat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and Wireless1
#16
#16
SpaceCoastVol said:
I do. If memory serves correctly, the airplane's center tank was 'empty' and it had been sitting around all day in the heat. The one thing I have NEVER liked about airliners is that the fuel pumps are submerged in fuel to keep them cool. Electricity and fuel fumes never seemed like a good idea to me, but I'm just a dumb pilot and not a designer.

I will say this about the missile theory. (I haven't looked at the website yet). The ONLY way I would buy it is it an entire ship or submarine was lost with all hands. Other than that, I guarantee you that someone onboard would have talked to their girlfriend long ago and that secret would have been out. I was in the Navy. I have seen that kind of OpSec time and time again. It is really really really hard to keep a secret in the service, and if a whole ship knew they fired a missile and an airlineer got in the way... well... the dumbest seaman can do that math.
Click to expand...
I also read that about the tank sitting empty for 4 hours, apparently it’s bad for conductivity and vapor.
Apparently there were 11 witnesses who said they saw what looked like a missile or rocket head towards the plane. That website discloses 15 years of research and 6 of the NTSB guys that were on the team for that plane recovery disclose the FBIs involvement and exactly how many ways the FBI and CIA interfered. I found it interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#17
#17
clarksvol00 said:
I don't buy into the missile theory, but I always assumed they were referring to some kind of shoulder mounted deal that could be launched from a small boat.
Click to expand...
So why cover it up? Because Islamic terrorism and they didn’t want to deal with it or admit it
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top