TWA Flight 800

[RichardSATX]

The report is explicit in stating that the cause of the ignition isn't clear. But, there's no serious doubt that the explosion originated in the center fuel tank and there is absolutely no evidence of a missile hitting the aircraft.

-- Roger

As you will note, I said nothing about a missile. People were talking about proof in discussing the report, of which the report only shows where the explosion took place in relation to the aircraft with some theories thrown in on the cause. I understand that there is no proof of a missile strike. But on the other hand, there is no proof in the report supporting their theory on the wiring. I'm more inclined to support the NTSB version, but "proof" was being thrown around a bit much concerning said report IMO. I've been involved in crash investigations and we were always clear on something we knew, and something we thought. This report is no different.

 

[jadebox]

As you will note, I said nothing about a missile. People were talking about proof in discussing the report, of which the report only shows where the explosion took place in relation to the aircraft with some theories thrown in on the cause. I understand that there is no proof of a missile strike. But on the other hand, there is no proof in the report supporting their theory on the wiring. I'm more inclined to support the NTSB version, but "proof" was being thrown around a bit much concerning said report IMO. I've been involved in crash investigations and we were always clear on something we knew, and something we thought. This report is no different.

Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that you were espousing the missile theory. It's just some of the missile-theory people suggest that the NTSB report's lack of a definitive explanation for the ignition source somehow bolsters their claims.

BTW, I don't think that I referred to the report as "proof" (or even as evidence in itself.) It's is a good resource, though.

-- Roger

 

[RichardSATX]

Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that you were espousing the missile theory. It's just some of the missile-theory people suggest that the NTSB report's lack of a definitive explanation for the ignition source somehow bolsters their claims.

BTW, I don't think that I referred to the report as "proof" (or even as evidence in itself.) It's is a good resource, though.

-- Roger

Thanks dude. I also was not pointing the proof comment at you. The report is an outstanding resource for this event. They did a great job with what they had. Having to deal with something like this is something I do not miss, but the report was interesting.

 

[powderburner]

IF (and that's a BIG if) the entire fuselage forward of the wing was separated as a result of the CWT explosion, I do not think the remaining aircraft would have "climbed" several thousand feet.

You and AlexK have the fundamentals correct but the magnitude of the out-of-balance condition of the remaining aircraft would undoubtedly have resulted in an immediate and severe pitch-up-into-tumble, followed within literally seconds by violent end-over-end motion and probably simultaneous breakup of the tails and fuselage. Also likely that one or both sides of the outer wing would have failed and folded due to extreme excessive g-loads.

If the nose did separate completely as shown in the CIA graphics (a rather amateur representation of the breakup, IMHO; the CIA are not aircraft experts) then the remaining aircraft may have risen a few hundred feed in the ensuing tumble, but a climb of multiple thousands of feet would have taken a significant amount of time. The broken aircraft would not have had that much time.

I think a very plausible (and seemingly overlooked) scenario would be that after the CWT explosion, major structural damage would have certainly occurred but the forward fuselage might have remained attached---temporarily. The damaged fuselage would probably have buckled and collapsed, and the forward fuselage might have remained "attached" for a few seconds. (The CWT explosion in the lower fuselage might not have severed the longitudinal structural members running through the upper half of the fuselage.) Any systems routing or flight controls running through the lower center of the aircraft would have been damaged or disabled, along with much or all of the hydraulic routing (which provides motive power to actually move the flight control surfaces). The resulting "dead" aircraft could possibly have pitched, climbed briefly, perhaps even several thousand feet, before beginning an uncontrolled tumble followed by breakup.

My two cents.

Gas tank explodes, separating nose of plane, which falls away. Without "nose weight" the largely intact remainder of the plane pitches sharply upwards, climbing as described, before eventually disintegrating and probably causing another fireball (most of the gas was in the wings, that went up with the rest of the plane).

 

[RichardSATX]

Wow, just wow...... What happened will never be known by the public...