TWA Flight 800 Findings
06-20-2013, 11:01 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 343
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
The KC-135 flew from 1956 to 1971 before they had problems with the fuel pumps, wiring, and vapors blowing up airplanes in mid-flight. Probably one of the things that helped the TWA investigation. An expensive trajectory analysis was done as well, that will also help to tell you if it was hit by a missile or came apart internally.
In the end though, like you said, it comes down to what people want to believe and feel, not necessarily what the facts and evidence point to. Sometimes we really don't want to believe or deal with what the facts point to...
In the end though, like you said, it comes down to what people want to believe and feel, not necessarily what the facts and evidence point to. Sometimes we really don't want to believe or deal with what the facts point to...
06-20-2013, 12:04 PM
#22
New boss = Old boss
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: Ca B737
Posts: 2,762
I believe it was a missile. I've spoken to several people with first hand accounts of the incident. Why is it so hard to believe the Navy could have made a mistake? The notion that you can't keep people quiet is ridiculous. All you have to do is shout down a few loudmouths and the rest keep quiet. Besides, how many sailors are in a position to know exactly what is being shot at and the when's and where's of live fire exercises? Anyway, people are not keeping quiet. That's what this movie documents. There are hundreds of witnesses including a P3 crew that saw a missile.
I have talked to people who have told me the following:
A NY center controller who, after the plane went down, reviewed the tapes of the raw radar scans when the plane went down. She says she can make out a radar return streaking toward TWA 800. At the time those returns were explained away as spurious electronic noise.
A former Federal covert agent that told me about how a fisherman brought up an expended rocket motor, turned to in and was told thank you. He never heard anything more about it. Neither have you.
Other evidence not fully explained is the seat fabric that had solid rocket fuel residue on it.
Remember that it is not so far fetched that a Navy ship could bring down a civilian airliner. They've done it before. Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Other things to consider. The fuel air mixture in a fuel tank is far too rich to support combustion. It's only after the tank breaks apart and the fuel is atomized that there is a fireball.
The point is that the investigation and explanation is full of holes. Maybe now that enough time has past, we can get to the bottom of this national tragedy.
I have talked to people who have told me the following:
A NY center controller who, after the plane went down, reviewed the tapes of the raw radar scans when the plane went down. She says she can make out a radar return streaking toward TWA 800. At the time those returns were explained away as spurious electronic noise.
A former Federal covert agent that told me about how a fisherman brought up an expended rocket motor, turned to in and was told thank you. He never heard anything more about it. Neither have you.
Other evidence not fully explained is the seat fabric that had solid rocket fuel residue on it.
Remember that it is not so far fetched that a Navy ship could bring down a civilian airliner. They've done it before. Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Other things to consider. The fuel air mixture in a fuel tank is far too rich to support combustion. It's only after the tank breaks apart and the fuel is atomized that there is a fireball.
The point is that the investigation and explanation is full of holes. Maybe now that enough time has past, we can get to the bottom of this national tragedy.
06-20-2013, 02:42 PM
#23
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,232
Originally Posted by mike734
I believe it was a missile. I've spoken to several people with first hand accounts of the incident. Why is it so hard to believe the Navy could have made a mistake? The notion that you can't keep people quiet is ridiculous. All you have to do is shout down a few loudmouths and the rest keep quiet. Besides, how many sailors are in a position to know exactly what is being shot at and the when's and where's of live fire exercises? Anyway, people are not keeping quiet. That's what this movie documents. There are hundreds of witnesses including a P3 crew that saw a missile.
- Anybody who's served on a ship can tell you that EVERYONE on the ship knows when a missile is fired. It's a very rare event and everybody would talk about it, especially the next day when they saw the news about TWA 800. Don't believe me? Ask any Navy guy, I assume you fly with some.
- What P-3 crew? Maybe I know them.
Originally Posted by mike734
A NY center controller who, after the plane went down, reviewed the tapes of the raw radar scans when the plane went down. She says she can make out a radar return streaking toward TWA 800. At the time those returns were explained away as spurious electronic noise.
Originally Posted by mike734
A former Federal covert agent that told me about how a fisherman brought up an expended rocket motor, turned to in and was told thank you. He never heard anything more about it. Neither have you.
Originally Posted by mike734
Other evidence not fully explained is the seat fabric that had solid rocket fuel residue on it.
Originally Posted by mike734
Remember that it is not so far fetched that a Navy ship could bring down a civilian airliner. They've done it before. Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Originally Posted by mike734
Other things to consider. The fuel air mixture in a fuel tank is far too rich to support combustion. It's only after the tank breaks apart and the fuel is atomized that there is a fireball.
They found the center tank, it clearly exploded from the inside
If you really believe all that you should consider shredding your medical and seeking professional help. I expect this kind of thinking from the loser IT guy who works in a cubicle, surfs conspiracy sites all day, and smokes weed all night. But not a from a 737 CA.
06-20-2013, 02:54 PM
#24
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,232
Originally Posted by EasternATC
No fact points to an ignition source for the explosion. That remains a mystery.
The most likely source was chafed wiring on a fuel sensor IIRC. I think they found similar chaffing in other aircraft.
06-20-2013, 03:50 PM
#25
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Boeing similarities
IIRC, three KC-135s have blown up from fuel-tank ignition. (Four if you include the most recent tragedy in Kyrgyzstan). Two were on the ground undergoing maintenance; one was on descent for landing (it had off-loaded most of its fuel, so the tanks were all nearly empty).
The KC-135 explosions all happened long before TWA 800. At the time of the last tanker explosion (the in-flight one), I was flying over Iraq on nearly a daily basis. (About 1993). The end result was the tankers were required to land with a hideous amount of fuel (I think it was 20,000 lbs), and it severely restricted their off-load ability. It meant only one refueling per mission instead of two, and shorter sorties for me.
After TWA 800, I worked for EIA. We had to land with a significant amount of fuel in the center tank (I think it was 10-12000 lbs) unless it was an emergency, or if it had scavenge pumps. The belief was all the incidents had been caused by overheated fuel pumps; left running with no cooling fuel.
I'm with Rick. Unless a terrorist got an incredibly lucky shot (from a boat) with a MANPAD, the "errant Navy missile" theory is best suited for the script of a Lifetime or Bravo-channel movie of the week.
The KC-135 explosions all happened long before TWA 800. At the time of the last tanker explosion (the in-flight one), I was flying over Iraq on nearly a daily basis. (About 1993). The end result was the tankers were required to land with a hideous amount of fuel (I think it was 20,000 lbs), and it severely restricted their off-load ability. It meant only one refueling per mission instead of two, and shorter sorties for me.
After TWA 800, I worked for EIA. We had to land with a significant amount of fuel in the center tank (I think it was 10-12000 lbs) unless it was an emergency, or if it had scavenge pumps. The belief was all the incidents had been caused by overheated fuel pumps; left running with no cooling fuel.
I'm with Rick. Unless a terrorist got an incredibly lucky shot (from a boat) with a MANPAD, the "errant Navy missile" theory is best suited for the script of a Lifetime or Bravo-channel movie of the week.
06-20-2013, 03:54 PM
#26
Bracing for Fallacies
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
IIRC, three KC-135s have blown up from fuel-tank ignition. (Four if you include the most recent tragedy). Two were on the ground undergoing maintenance; one was on descent for landing (it had off-loaded most of its fuel, so the tanks were all nearly empty).
The KC-135 explosions all happened long before TWA 800. At the time of the last tanker explosion (the in-flight one), I was flying over Iraq on nearly a daily basis. (About 1993). The end result was the tankers were required to land with a hideous amount of fuel (I think it was 20,000 lbs), and it severely restricted their off-load ability. It meant only one refueling per mission instead of two, and shorter sorties for me.
After TWA 800, I worked for EIA. We had to land with a significant amount of fuel in the center tank (I think it was 10-12000 lbs) unless it was an emergency, or if it had scavenge pumps. The belief was all the incidents had been caused by overheated fuel pumps; left running with no cooling fuel.
I'm with Rick. Unless a terrorist got an incredibly lucky shot (from a boat) with a MANPAD, the "errant Navy missile" theory is best suited for the script of a Lifetime or Bravo-channel movie of the week.
The KC-135 explosions all happened long before TWA 800. At the time of the last tanker explosion (the in-flight one), I was flying over Iraq on nearly a daily basis. (About 1993). The end result was the tankers were required to land with a hideous amount of fuel (I think it was 20,000 lbs), and it severely restricted their off-load ability. It meant only one refueling per mission instead of two, and shorter sorties for me.
After TWA 800, I worked for EIA. We had to land with a significant amount of fuel in the center tank (I think it was 10-12000 lbs) unless it was an emergency, or if it had scavenge pumps. The belief was all the incidents had been caused by overheated fuel pumps; left running with no cooling fuel.
I'm with Rick. Unless a terrorist got an incredibly lucky shot (from a boat) with a MANPAD, the "errant Navy missile" theory is best suited for the script of a Lifetime or Bravo-channel movie of the week.
06-20-2013, 03:58 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B744 FO
Posts: 375
The last KC-135 explosion, in cruise over the Kazakh-Kyrghiz border, was just a few weeks ago.
oops - block30....I guess we were writing posts about the same time...
oops - block30....I guess we were writing posts about the same time...
Last edited by 727gm; 06-20-2013 at 04:18 PM.
06-20-2013, 04:27 PM
#28
New boss = Old boss
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: Ca B737
Posts: 2,762
Rickair7777 why would you spend one second rebutting my post? What is your interest in the incident? Are you opposed to re-examining the evidence? What's more likely, accidentally shooting down an airliner or the government trying to cover up shooting down an airliner?
I'm just relaying some of the things I've heard over the years that make me doubt the overheated fuel story. You are the kind of voice that seeks to silence those who raise legitimate questions. How about you shut up for a while and stop opposing rational inquiry. Maybe we will all learn something.
Couple things though before I go. Comparing the exploding KC-135s to TWA 800 is like comparing airline safety to military safety. (Hmmm, that's a good point).
How do you know what's beyond my level of education? What an arrogant and ignorant thing to say.
Conspiracy theory's aside. These things wouldn't get traction if reasonable questions received reasonable answers. Hopefully if this incident is investigated again shills like Kallstrom will not be able to shout people down.
I'm just relaying some of the things I've heard over the years that make me doubt the overheated fuel story. You are the kind of voice that seeks to silence those who raise legitimate questions. How about you shut up for a while and stop opposing rational inquiry. Maybe we will all learn something.
Couple things though before I go. Comparing the exploding KC-135s to TWA 800 is like comparing airline safety to military safety. (Hmmm, that's a good point).
How do you know what's beyond my level of education? What an arrogant and ignorant thing to say.
Conspiracy theory's aside. These things wouldn't get traction if reasonable questions received reasonable answers. Hopefully if this incident is investigated again shills like Kallstrom will not be able to shout people down.
06-20-2013, 05:04 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: What day is it?
Posts: 963
It's all true...it was covered up.
And in a related news, the producer of the documentary will soon be announcing that he has uncovered badzillions of dollars in secret Nigerian bank accounts held by each of our third grandfathers second cousins third uncles twice removed...may the grace of holiness be upon them and you as you accept the reverence and prayers for wealth of the people who await you merely and humbly sending them your bank account information and a pittance of $5000.00 so that they may efficiently and with most professional promptness wire your badzillions to your bank account from their solicitors office in the internet cafe in Lagos.
On a legitimate; and spookier note, the S/O who flew the plane into JFK was a close friend. He had just finished a pattern and was headed home.
And in a related news, the producer of the documentary will soon be announcing that he has uncovered badzillions of dollars in secret Nigerian bank accounts held by each of our third grandfathers second cousins third uncles twice removed...may the grace of holiness be upon them and you as you accept the reverence and prayers for wealth of the people who await you merely and humbly sending them your bank account information and a pittance of $5000.00 so that they may efficiently and with most professional promptness wire your badzillions to your bank account from their solicitors office in the internet cafe in Lagos.
On a legitimate; and spookier note, the S/O who flew the plane into JFK was a close friend. He had just finished a pattern and was headed home.
06-20-2013, 05:08 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,979
Originally Posted by mike734
I believe it was a missile. I've spoken to several people with first hand accounts of the incident. Why is it so hard to believe the Navy could have made a mistake? The notion that you can't keep people quiet is ridiculous.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
