New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

That's not right, that's not even wrong!

But I heard that like 90 witnesses said there was something shooting up towards the plane. Some described it as fireworks. Others as a rocket if I remember correctly. None of the witnesses as far as I know actually said it was a missile though.

Could those have been false witnesses? Because the official report could be correct about that there were no missiles in the area and no other flying objects like that. I think the official report about that is correct!

[Anders Lindman]

Conspiracy theorists say that the FBI disregarded the witnesses. In some sense that's true because even the FBI kind of said that they didn't pay much attention to the witness reports.

Did the FBI know many of them were fake witness reports? So, instead of the FBI covering up a missile attack, they did the correct thing and rejected many false witness reports.

[Dcdrac]

anders maybe you could actually try and find some reality for a change

[matt.tansy]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Conspiracy theorists say that the FBI disregarded the witnesses. In some sense that's true because even the FBI kind of said that they didn't pay much attention to the witness reports.

The FBI got involved in the investigation solely because so many witnesses said they saw something flying up. The FBI is never called into an aircraft investigation unless foul play is suspected.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

But I heard that like 90 witnesses said there was something shooting up towards the plane.

That's to be expected.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Some described it as fireworks. Others as a rocket if I remember correctly. None of the witnesses as far as I know actually said it was a missile though.

By a strict definition, fireworks and rockets are missiles.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Could those have been false witnesses? Because the official report could be correct about that there were no missiles in the area and no other flying objects like that. I think the official report about that is correct!

All you have are unreliable claims from witnesses. And it's a long way from mistaken witnesses to a conspiracy and a coverup.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

All you have are unreliable claims from witnesses. And it's a long way from mistaken witnesses to a conspiracy and a coverup.

But it's a huge number of witnesses! Relatively speaking. Someone said that when people guess something, like how many balls there are in a jar, then each person's estimation can vary greatly and is generally wrong. BUT when taking the average of all the estimations the answer becomes very correct!

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

The FBI got involved in the investigation solely because so many witnesses said they saw something flying up. The FBI is never called into an aircraft investigation unless foul play is suspected.

Yes, you are right about that. I heard that in some videos. That's actually pretty interesting! Because it strengthens my conspiracy theory that many of them were false witnesses!

[Dcdrac]

videos strengthen nothing anders......they just prove all you do is watch kook videos on youtube and take them as gospel which just indicates how gullible you are

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

The experts said that the fuel-air mix in the tank caused a large explosion. I can believe that. At the same time a shape charge placed on the outside of the tank could punch a small hole which would be a vastly different damage than claims of a missile.

Many witnesses CLAIM they saw something shoot up from the surface towards the plane before the explosion. That in itself is curious, because what if the official report is correct, as it may very well be about there was no missile or anything like that. Then a possibility is that those are false witnesses! And that in itself makes it a kind of conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

But I heard that like 90 witnesses said there was something shooting up towards the plane. Some described it as fireworks. Others as a rocket if I remember correctly. None of the witnesses as far as I know actually said it was a missile though.

Could those have been false witnesses? Because the official report could be correct about that there were no missiles in the area and no other flying objects like that. I think the official report about that is correct!

I just wanted to illustrate how vacuous your posts are.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I just wanted to illustrate how vacuous your posts are.

Lol. But the situation with the TWA 800 event is so fuzzy! At least for me.

[ComfySlippers]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Lol. But the situation with the TWA 800 event is so fuzzy! At least for me.

That says more about you than the event.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Lol. But the situation with the TWA 800 event is so fuzzy! At least for me.

Did you read all the reports? No

Did you know wires are routed through the CWT? I am a pilot, and I was surprised. If you have 5,000 pounds of fuel in the tank, you can keep the temperature down, and not have a high risk of a spark igniting vapor. Like an engine, ignition depends on temperature and pressure. Not advised, but under proper conditions you can put a cigarette out in gasoline.

The CWT was at a temperature, and a pressure that a spark could ignite the vapors, overpressure the tank, damage the aircraft in flight, and begin a breakup.

Why was the center wing tank (CWT) hot?
http://www.twa800.com/sanders/thermal.gif
Air conditioning packs are below the CWT - without fuel as a heat-sink, the vapor in the tank was hot enough for ignition.

There are wires routed through the CWT.

If the NTSB could find evidence of a missile, meter, or bomb, they could hand off to the FBI. There is no reason the NTSB would cover-up the event, it makes their job easier - in this case the talk of bombs, and missiles made their job harder, as the FBI seem to jump to early conclusions, something they NTSB waits until all the work is done.

The NTSB might suspect a cause, but they still run a complete investigation by the "book", all the area they investigate are covered; like weather, pilots habits, pilots history including food etc, mental state, etc, not to mention the entire aircraft history, parts, etc. To the FBI the NTSB would look like a waste of time, as the FBI would follow lead, the NTSB gathers the entire history. I have done aircraft investigations, not criminal investigations.

The NTSB would be looking for signs of a bomb, they could stop their investigation, save time, assist the FBI on flight stuff; they could stop. It would be something the NTSB would be helpful with, but you would have to wait until the entire plane parts were found and put together.

The NTSB found no evidence for your bomb; zero. It would have enabled them to give the junk to the FBI. Talk about handing off a headache, the NTSB could not find any evidence.

Think about a pilot's point of view. Why did the pilot not know of the high temperatures possible in the CWT due to extended ground operation of the AC? It would be easy for a pilot to demand 5,000 or 10,000 pounds of fuel in the CWT for a heat-sink, avoiding the risk of ignition... Guess what was recommended?


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997...ml/97-8495.htm

Quote:

The second recommendation would require modifications in
operational procedures to reduce the potential for explosive fuel-air
mixtures in the fuel tanks of transport category aircraft. In the Model
747, consideration should be given to refueling the center wing fuel
tank (CWT) before flight, whenever possible, from cooler ground fuel
tanks; proper monitoring and management of the CWT fuel temperature;
and maintaining an appropriate minimum fuel quantity in the CWT. (A-96-
175)

If you were to study this accident, this event, it would take a semester or year to comprehend the magnitude of what the NTSB did. You make up stuff without thinking about it.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletter...96_174_177.pdf

How many reports are there on 800? When will you read them all? Fuzzy?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/opinio...800/index.html

The CTs are fuzzy.

December 13, 1996, notice was given to keep fuel in the CWT. When was the 800 accident put to rest? final report on August 23, 2000.

The NTSB goal; help make flying safer, they knew early on the CWT blew up, and issued safety directives to help make the CWT safer.

If you want to make up lies about it, or theories, go ahead; your bomb is less likely then the wires and spark theory, so waste your time on the less likely. The NTSB reported on the possible accident stuff; the FBI failed to find a bad guy, or evidence of a bad guy. better read the reports for comprehension instead of cherry-picking, and quote-mining to feed your paranoia.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Did you know wires are routed through the CWT?

What I have heard is that there were only wires going to a measurement device for how much fuel is left in the tank. That's not much different than in the gas tank of a car.

And the wires carried only very low voltage and currents. And the wires were covered by a massive layer of nylon filled with isolating material.

And the "high volt" cables elsewhere in the plane had max 115 volt.

I don't see how a spark could have formed by that even with unbelievable coincidences.

[Dcdrac]

so in other words anders you do not know how wires are routed through the CWT, and again your appeal to your own ignorance about how things actually work is no argument for disputingthe REALITY of what happened.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

What I have heard is that there were only wires going to a measurement device for how much fuel is left in the tank. That's not much different than in the gas tank of a car.

And the wires carried only very low voltage and currents. And the wires were covered by a massive layer of nylon filled with isolating material.

And the "high volt" cables elsewhere in the plane had max 115 volt.

I don't see how a spark could have formed by that even with unbelievable coincidences.

I have to agree with the post directly above me Anders. Beachnut gave an awesome, thorough explanation of what happened so that even a layman (like me) can understand. You are comparing a plane to a car, you can't do that and I believe that is fundamentally where your issue stems.

You don't drive around in your regular car with an empty, overheated fuel tank.

I would be forced to assume that if there was a missle or a bomb used they would find remnants of the devices.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

What I have heard is that there were only wires going to a measurement device for how much fuel is left in the tank. That's not much different than in the gas tank of a car.

And the wires carried only very low voltage and currents. And the wires were covered by a massive layer of nylon filled with isolating material.

And the "high volt" cables elsewhere in the plane had max 115 volt.

I don't see how a spark could have formed by that even with unbelievable coincidences.

Not that I am a pilot who has flown Boeing Jet since 1976, but anyone can google this..., or read the darn report in the first place for comprehension, etc.

Quote:

The fuel flow components are connected by wires that are routed from the engines to the main fuselage through raceways along the forward wing spars. The wires are then routed forward through the fuselage, in raceways beneath the cabin floor, to the computer in the E/E, then along the fuselage frame at STA 360, and upward to the flight engineer.s
station. The wires routed from the fuel flow and VSO computers to the cockpit are tied into larger bundles that include wires from other systems (including cabin lighting wires, which carry voltage as high as 350-volts a.c.).86 Figure 17 shows the routing of fuel flow wires through the 747-100.

What is the max voltage on the plane?

It gets worse, not that you need an engineer too, like me, but you could google this too, or read the darn report. Hello???

Quote:

Three hundred fifty volts is the root mean square voltage (average amplitude) of the 400-Hz electric waves in the cabin lighting circuit’s wires. The peak voltage of a 350-volt a.c. circuit is slightly more than 450 volts.

Possible to have a peak voltage in the tank of 450 volts. Guess what hertz that is at? Read the report, get some help with the math, engineering, etc. if needed.

I posted source with many examples of fuel tank explosions and many deaths - you might want to read the stuff instead of failing to understand reality.

Terrorism is usually behind other causes of death, accidents. Air travel is very safe, the terrorist acts might be winning in the air... anyone have a study?

Air travel is extremely safe, even with hundreds of deaths caused by fuel tank explosions. I posted a source with other fuel tank explosions. No big deal, but the risk is there. After seeing some of the tanks, I would change the design if it was my aircraft - and I flew... and you ride, or fly them too.

You missed the fact a short or malfunction could introduce a spark, and as seen on 800, there were anomalies recorded on the flight data recorder and seen by the crew prior to the CWT explosion of fuel vapor. (did you read the many reports? NO)

I don't care if it was a bomb, missile or meteor. The wires in the tank, the heated tank, etc, are still a risk which needs to be fixed, or managed.

I can manage the risk of the CWT explosive fuel air problem by loading fuel into the CWT that is cool if the wires are still present.

Have you seen inside a tank on a 747 from 1996? Did you see the wires in the fuel tank? I don't care what you think about how they are shielded, etc, there can be age problems, and shorts in bundles which could introduce the spark - and action was taken to inspect and change things.

You can make up fantasy, and for 800 you will be short on facts, and evidence. You keep posting cherry-picked claptrap as your support for your zero evidence conspiracy theories. If you were a trained accident investigator, your cherry-picking might make sense, but you keep leaving out the rest of the story. Were you the Plymouth Wheel covers 911 truth guy, too? The person who can't identify engine parts when they are engine parts?

You can't see how a chain of events cause an accident, so you prefer fantasy. I understand why you can't join reality.

Did you make up the 115 volt stuff, or mislead by a plug for a razor in the bathroom? Did you guess? Where did you get it? Have you read any report for more than your cherry-picking claptrap?

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Possible to have a peak voltage in the tank of 450 volts.

I have heard that 115 volt was the maximum in a 747. Maybe they meant for the cables that possibly could interact with the cables going to the fuel tank. Or do you claim that the 450 volt cables were in contact with the cables going to the fuel tank?

[Dcdrac]

anders you have only heard something you do not KNOW it, now where are you getting this rubbish?

[ComfySlippers]

I always enjoy reading real experts share their knowledge. Real pilots, real engineers.
It's a fascinating glimpse into an expert's world.
Learning is fantastic brain exercise.
I have respect for those experts when they try to educate people on here even when they are dealing with people like Anders, who is nothing but a YouTube Pilot and will never listen.

[Mudcat]

Beachnut, the way I'm reading it appears that the explosion was the result of a combination of faulty design and inadequate safety procedures, is that about right?

[Dcdrac]

yes thank you Beachnut I have read your posts with great interest and learnt a lot.

[HotRodDeluxe]

Beachnut is my hero.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I have heard ....

You start so many threads this way. STOP. Nobody gives a damn what you "heard". Excise the phrase "I have hread..." from your vocabulary.

Instead, use the phrase, "This source indicates ..." where the word "source" is a link that backs up your claim.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Beachnut, the way I'm reading it appears that the explosion was the result of a combination of faulty design and inadequate safety procedures, is that about right?

The quick fix would be having cool fuel in the CWT at takeoff at a level Boeing recommends; not sure what the amount was; maybe 5,000 to 15,000 pounds, more for the kids and wife. This would make the ignition by a spark impossible, "".

http://search.nasa.gov/search/search...nclude=twa+800

The first study covers the wires, and what can happen. They cover a lot of extra stuff.

It would be better if wires which end up in the fuel bays, were not routed with other wires, and or better insulated, etc. Think the recommendations cover steps to help stop, or make the risk less.

http://www.twa800.com/ntsb/8-15-00/docket/Ex_20N.pdf
More stuff. I have not found all the reports and studies on 800; think the first link has 2 or 3 more studies.

I have found conspiracy sites which twist the studies and lie about 800 studies - like 911, people make up stuff with partial knowledge.

There is a risk for fuel tank problems, ... The NTSB figure out the possible risk early, on the investigation as they pieced the aircraft together, and studied what the plane did.

[Dcdrac]

the only use for me in this thread is learning from the pros, like Beachnut and others, same as for the Vaccine thread, learnt a lot from that too from the people who know what they are talking about along with Jay Utah, Abaddon et al in the Birther thread, JFK thread, and Apollo threads, Nick terry and others in the Holocaust thread as well.

Thank you one and all.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by SezMe

You start so many threads this way. STOP. Nobody gives a damn what you "heard". Excise the phrase "I have hread..." from your vocabulary.

Instead, use the phrase, "This source indicates ..." where the word "source" is a link that backs up your claim.

I don't save all the links to videos, articles and things like that.

[SezMe]

Then don't use them.

[aggle-rithm]

I also don't save links to things that I make up. That way I don't have to make up the links as well.

[Dcdrac]

and mall the articles you point to you have clearly not understood and the videos are junk kook ones.

[Anders Lindman]

From: The Final Report: Investigation of TWA Flight 800 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9aAQSKyzPU

The CIA simulation video showed that the plane was cut in two and the rear part flew upwards. As I wrote earlier that isn't what the above picture shows.

Here is the CIA simulation (the cut in two from 36:30) and listen to the witnesses: Conspiracy?: TWA Flight 800 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44uu4zWQEEs

They say something like: That's not what a saw! And they talk about a missile like object.

Those are false witnesses! And the picture above shows only the later part of the drop from the sky. So the CIA simulation may very well be correct!

[Mudcat]

Anders I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning here.

According to what I understand of what you're saying the government hatched a plot to bring down an American aircraft in American airspace, killing a bunch of Americans in the process either using a rocket or a bomb. Instead of pinning the blame on some patsies they decide to cover the whole thing up using a very visible, expensive, and long investigation... For what?

I'm sorry Anders, but the hypothesis fails.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Anders I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning here.

According to what I understand of what you're saying the government hatched a plot to bring down an American aircraft in American airspace, killing a bunch of Americans in the process either using a rocket or a bomb. Instead of pinning the blame on some patsies they decide to cover the whole thing up using a very visible, expensive, and long investigation... For what?

I'm sorry Anders, but the hypothesis fails.

My hypothesis is that those witnesses in the video are lying through their teeth! They didn't see any object moving towards the plane. The CIA simulation video is fairly accurate. The purpose of those false witnesses is to create a smokescreen, a conspiracy theory bait, to hide the real conspiracy behind it.

The real conspiracy is that it was a shape charge on the outside of the fuel tank that caused the fuel-air mixture to explode. And the plane was empty of people. So it was a remote/autopilot controlled plane deliberately blown up at a certain position out in the ocean and near New York City of course since the 9/11 attacks would happen there later.

The purpose of the staged event was to force the government to do a coverup for the nonexistent victims.

[Dcdrac]

or if we use rationality and leave silly fantasies behind and accept the facts in the report.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

My hypothesis is that those witnesses in the video are lying through their teeth! They didn't see any object moving towards the plane. The CIA simulation video is fairly accurate. The purpose of those false witnesses is to create a smokescreen, a conspiracy theory bait, to hide the real conspiracy behind it.

The real conspiracy is that it was a shape charge on the outside of the fuel tank that caused the fuel-air mixture to explode. And the plane was empty of people. So it was a remote/autopilot controlled plane deliberately blown up at a certain position out in the ocean and near New York City of course since the 9/11 attacks would happen there later.

The purpose of the staged event was to force the government to do a coverup for the nonexistent victims.

I don't always agree with Orcham's Razor, but when I do it's right.

In this case your hypothesis is several magnitudes more complicated than the commonly accepted version of events. Your hypothesis, it has too many moving parts to work therefore it doesn't work.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

I don't always agree with Orcham's Razor, but when I do it's right.

In this case your hypothesis is several magnitudes more complicated than the commonly accepted version of events. Your hypothesis, it has too many moving parts to work therefore it doesn't work.

The FAA person I posted about earlier said that it was either a bomb or a collision with another aircraft. Nothing about a spark. The spark hypothesis came much later and is still today unconfirmed.

I'm watching a bit of this video at the moment to see if they discuss anything about a shape charge. They said that they had looked at many possible options: TWA Flight 800 Crash Final NTSB Report Day 1 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuRCvfr1vOA

[ComfySlippers]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

My hypothesis is

... Childish nonsense

Quote:

And the plane was empty of people. So it was a remote/autopilot controlled plane deliberately blown up at a certain position out in the ocean and near New York City of course since the 9/11 attacks would happen there later.

The purpose of the staged event was to force the government to do a coverup for the nonexistent victims.

One day, when you grow up, you will hopefully regret this sick obsession of yours with claiming that people who died didn't exist.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

... Childish nonsense



One day, when you grow up, you will hopefully regret this sick obsession of yours with claiming that people who died didn't exist.

I'm just politically incorrect. It's kind of like tabu to say anything but condolences in relation to such victims. If my hypothesis is false, then I hope the families of the victims understand that I'm questioning the official version, and that it's not my intent to disrespect real victims.

[Anders Lindman]

I haven't heard them discussing a shape charge yet but the comments from about 1 hour and 39 minutes are suspicious: TWA Flight 800 Crash Final NTSB Report Day 1 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuRCvfr1vOA

The expert said that an explosive device would cause damage over a large area. Really? Can't a shape charge punch a tiny hole while leaving the surrounding area basically intact?

ETA: Also check out the smirking guy in the background.

[Anders Lindman]

I haven't listened to all of the almost 6 hours report but the only thing that comes near discussing a shape charge is what I posted earlier about how an expert said that an explosive device would cause a large area of damage, and from about 4 hours and 18 minutes, they mention "small explosive charge" when listing possible causes.

TWA Flight 800 Crash Final NTSB Report Day 1 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuRCvfr1vOA

That's it!!! That's the ONLY information they had about it! A 6 hour long and final report about exclusively the TWA 800 event. If YOU had been the owner of that plane and if the insurance didn't cover causes by sparks, would YOU be satisfied by that report?! I don't think so.

[Mudcat]

Have you considered the possibility that the reason that shaped charges aren't mentioned is because that there wasn't any shaped charges?