TWA Flight 800

[GregGleason]

For those of you are young, you probably don't know this story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

Now it's back. I recall at the time that there were witnesses that saw something.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us/twa-crash-claim

I don't know if the NTSB was able to replicate there theory as to what happened regarding the center fuel tank.

What WAS extremely interesting at the time is that the CIA was brought into this accident, which I had never heard of before or heard of since.

One reason I remember the story is that a Houston man lost his wife and two young daughters.

Greg

 

[Marc_G]

I heard there will be a "documentary" movie about the conspiracy theories. I remember from the time one "witness" saying he was sure he saw a shoulder launched missile take down the plane. OF course, no SLM can go that high...

I put this in the same category as "alien autopsy" videos.

Maybe the plane hit a UFO...

 

[dlazarus6660]

I was satisfied with the final explanation but have always mystified as to the video showing a 'missile' flying toward flight 800.

 

[cwbullet]

A lot fo the final explanation defies physics.

Magic bullet?

 

[jadebox]

A lot of the final explanation defies physics.

No, it doesn't. The conspiracy theories, on the other hand, do defy both physics and common sense. They've had to create missiles that don't exist and add other convoluted and unlikely stuff to get their theories to match the evidence while the NTSB's conclusion fits the facts without all that hand waving.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/opinion/adcock-flight-800/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

-- Roger

 

[jderimig]

No, it doesn't. The conspiracy theories, on the other hand, do defy both physics and common sense. They've had to create missiles that don't exist and add other convoluted and unlikely stuff to get their theories to match the evidence while the NTSB's conclusion fits the facts without all that hand waving.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/opinion/adcock-flight-800/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

-- Roger

Paraphrasing the above post, "Occam's Razor dude....".

 

[AlexK]

This doesn't pass the smell test for me...

1: The plane was at 14,000 feet when it exploded. You aren't hitting a plane that high with any shoulder-launched missile I'm aware of, which means something much bigger that requires a real platform, and more than two guys in a dinghy. Furthermore, a missile that big could easily have shown up on radar.
2: Military missiles use double-base propellant specifically to keep targets from seeing the smoke trail - I'll admit I'm not sure about visible flame at night, but the fact remains that these things in no way resemble a typical APCP motor - more like blackjack without the thick smoke. While it's certainly possible for someone to engineer a seeking missile using a highly-visible propellant, it's far, far, FAR more likely for a terrorist group to simply buy an old Russian missile.
3: A heat-seeker would never have caused the type of damage seen (it would have hit an engine). A radar-guided missile may have, but that's an awfully specific type of damage for a missile impact, and there's precious little evidence that anything even remotely like a missile warhead exploded. Remember, missiles blow up a plane from the outside, and all the physical evidence says it blew up from the inside.
4: What radar evidence of the explosion? Am I simply missing something here? Explosions, in and of themselves, are pretty radar-transparent (or at least not very radar reflecting)
5: This is a LOT of people to keep quiet. All the NTSB investigators, FBI investigators, CIA people, navy crewmembers... that's a lot of people to threaten, cajole, pay off, or Dissapear. And you need a motive for it all. What's to gain from the Government faking a terrorist attack, which they then say was just an accident? For that matter, why would real terrorists blow up a plane and then shut up about it, letting people think it was an accident? As for an intentional downing by some shadowy government conspiracy... WHYYYY? Even if that had happened... the only possible motive of such a 'false flag' attack would be to incite terror (blame it on the country you don't like, and bingo, you get to go to war with them!) yet that never happened. The only possible motive I can see for the Government covering it up like this would be to cover an accident - someone pushing the wrong button on a missile launch system, for example.

And finally... if they really were covering all this up through some massive effort to keep the truth under wraps, then these Director-level 'witnesses' would have been Dissapeared the instant they told a filmmaker about a coverup, the filmmaker would have been Dissapeared, and the film never would have been made. And, of course, there's the fact that the filmmaker didn't release it and THEN go on CNN... he went on CNN first, before anyone's seen it, to stir up the public (and let's face it... we're a little jumpy after NSA), and it'll only come out a month from now. The other big conspiracy leaker recently (Snowden) did it right... he got out of the country FIRST, released the information, waited for it to be published, and THEN let everyone know who he was.

 

[boomtube]

The theory postulated by one investigative reporter, he wrote a book about it, was that the missile was an errant rocket fired off a U.S.N fast attack submarine.
He had four compelling pieces of evidence.
1: An air traffic controller’s video of his radar showing a fast moving object rising off the water and intercepting flight 800. This video has shown up on his website but there is a concerted effort to corrupt it.
2: There were navy exorcises being conducted in the area; why? Nobody knows or is willing to say.
3: Wreckage of a target drone washed up on a nearby beach. He believes this was the missiles intended target.
4: Samples of an orangeish substance was identified as containing among other things Ammonia Per chlorate and Aluminum.
Please don’t shoot the messenger.

 

[jadebox]

2: Military missiles use double-base propellant specifically to keep targets from seeing the smoke trail - I'll admit I'm not sure about visible flame at night, but the fact remains that these things in no way resemble a typical APCP motor - more like blackjack without the thick smoke. While it's certainly possible for someone to engineer a seeking missile using a highly-visible propellant, it's far, far, FAR more likely for a terrorist group to simply buy an old Russian missile.
3: A heat-seeker would never have caused the type of damage seen (it would have hit an engine). A radar-guided missile may have, but that's an awfully specific type of damage for a missile impact, and there's precious little evidence that anything even remotely like a missile warhead exploded. Remember, missiles blow up a plane from the outside, and all the physical evidence says it blew up from the inside.

The explosion originated inside the fuel tank. A missile, as you explain, would not be likely to enter the fuel tank then explode. Most anti-air missiles don't even hit their target before setting off their warhead*. That's why, as I mentioned, the conspiracy buffs have invented a new type of missile to try to explain how the explosion originated in the fuel tank. A simpler explanation, of course, is that a spark in the electric system set off an explosion of the fuel and air in the tank.

*When I worked on the AMRAAM program, 60 Minutes aired a story about how the missile had failed to hit the target during its tests. What they didn't explain is that the tests were designed that way on purpose. In a real mission the missile's warhead would explode when the missile got close to the target, spreading shrapnel to destroy the target. It wasn't designed to actually hit the target. During tests, there was no warhead and they didn't want the missile to hit the target since target drones are expensive to replace. But, after the 60 Minutes report (and some congressional questioning), the software in the missile was tweaked and one pilot fired four missiles simultaneously at four targets. Two of the missiles actually hit the targets and two came close enough that a warhead-equipped missile would have destroyed the targets.

-- Roger

 

[dave carver]

I was watching a news report that night right after it happened. One thing that has stuck with me was an eye witness report from a surfer. He was paddleing out from a Coney Island beach for a last wave of the day and as he was paddleing he watched. He was probibly the closest person to the plane. He said he saw a streak and a small white flash from the airplane then a big yellow flash. He was facing East as he was paddleing, focused on the plane before anything happened. Never heard of him again after that.

 

[jadebox]

The theory postulated by one investigative reporter, he wrote a book about it, was that the missile was an errant rocket fired off a U.S.N fast attack submarine.
He had four compelling pieces of evidence.
1: An air traffic controller’s video of his radar showing a fast moving object rising off the water and intercepting flight 800. This video has shown up on his website but there is a concerted effort to corrupt it.
2: There were navy exorcises being conducted in the area; why? Nobody knows or is willing to say.
3: Wreckage of a target drone washed up on a nearby beach. He believes this was the missiles intended target.
4: Samples of an orangeish substance was identified as containing among other things Ammonia Per chlorate and Aluminum.
Please don’t shoot the messenger.

1. Pierre Salinger's "proof" of this was an email message that had been spread around the internet after the crash.
2. There are Navy exercises all along the east coast all the time.
3. There are all kinds of unsubstantiated reports including one saying that a target drone was found in the wreckage of TWA 800. No real evidence has been offered.
4. That was adhesive used in making the seats.

Edit: I posted the above from memory. After doing a bit of research, the response to "2" above should actually be that there was no exercise going on in that area. There was only one military ship and only one military aircraft in the area.

-- Roger

 

[boomtube]

Now shall we discuss all the conspiracy theories concerning KAL Flight 007?

 

[luke strawwalker]

Two axioms that I've found are largely true in life...

"Where there's smoke, there's fire" and "Never believe ANYTHING the government tells you".

Later! OL JR

 

[JFlagg]

I was watching a news report that night right after it happened. One thing that has stuck with me was an eye witness report from a surfer. He was paddleing out from a Coney Island beach for a last wave of the day and as he was paddleing he watched. He was probibly the closest person to the plane. He said he saw a streak and a small white flash from the airplane then a big yellow flash. He was facing East as he was paddleing, focused on the plane before anything happened. Never heard of him again after that.

They probably buried him right next to Hoffa.

 

[GregGleason]

In the wiki article, there is an audio of what a pilot (in the vicinity of TWA 800) witnessed, relaying the information to his ATC. On it he speaks of seeing a bright light and lowering his landing gear, ostensibly to make himself visible to avoid a mid-air collision. But unfortunately the audio ends as he is describing that event.

Greg

 

[AlexK]

The explosion originated inside the fuel tank. A missile, as you explain, would not be likely to enter the fuel tank then explode. Most anti-air missiles don't even hit their target before setting off their warhead*. That's why, as I mentioned, the conspiracy buffs have invented a new type of missile to try to explain how the explosion originated in the fuel tank. A simpler explanation, of course, is that a spark in the electric system set off an explosion of the fuel and air in the tank.

*When I worked on the AMRAAM program, 60 Minutes aired a story about how the missile had failed to hit the target during its tests. What they didn't explain is that the tests were designed that way on purpose. In a real mission the missile's warhead would explode when the missile got close to the target, spreading shrapnel to destroy the target. It wasn't designed to actually hit the target. During tests, there was no warhead and they didn't want the missile to hit the target since target drones are expensive to replace. But, after the 60 Minutes report (and some congressional questioning), the software in the missile was tweaked and one pilot fired four missiles simultaneously at four targets. Two of the missiles actually hit the targets and two came close enough that a warhead-equipped missile would have destroyed the targets.

-- Roger

absolutely 100% true - I just didn't want to go into warhead design paradigms in my original post and was probably a bit too liberal in my use of 'impact.'

KAL 007 is a great comparison - because it WAS shot down - of what is far more likely to happen to a passenger plane if it's damaged by a missile. This isn't to say that TWA800 couldn't have been hit in the center-wing tank, but to do so would require a lot of things to go exactly right, INCLUDING detonating the fuel vapors in the tank and WHILE leaving no evidence of high-velocity external penetrations whatsoever. I'm also not so sure of the ability of shrapnel to set off the fuel-air mixture, anyway - unless it penetrated a wire, caused it to short, and THAT set off the fuel. But now we're talking collision cross-sections - and it's not like being able to hit the broadside of a barn (which is really only about 10^-28 square meters, but I digress...).

 

[jadebox]

Two axioms that I've found are largely true in life...

"Where there's smoke, there's fire" and "Never believe ANYTHING the government tells you".

What's truly amazing is that the government is never able to do anything right ... except when it creates and maintains these elaborate conspiracies!

-- Roger

 

[3stoogesrocketry]

https://press.epixhd.com/programming/twa-flight-800/

There are two major points that confuse me the most .

1 . TWA 800 was 12 minutes into a flight to Paris France . Why would the center fuel tank be empty ? It would need every ounce of ATF to reach France. ATF has a Octane rating of 20 . It does not have the potential energy needed to make a massive explosion . Look at a car that catches fire . The fuel tank doesn't explode , there is a Blevy flare up .

2 . There is undisputable evidence of shrapnel impacts on the right wings leading edges . The metal was blown INTO the wing not out as if there was internal explosion. The center fuel tank is AFT of the wings . It must have been a magical explosion that pushed the debris forward , then take a sudden 180 degree turn , and proceed to travel at super sonic speeds into the leading edge .

All of my information is from a former shipmate of mine who spent 2 years on her final tem paper at Embry Riddle , I'm not just pulling it outta my butt lol .

Eric

 

[luke strawwalker]

What's truly amazing is that the government is never able to do anything right ... except when it creates and maintains these elaborate conspiracies!

-- Roger

I said nothing about a conspiracy, you did...

Cover up though is a different matter...

I don't believe anything the government says-- in fact, if the government says it, you can be pretty well sure it's a lie. If the CIA is involved that goes double.

Don't have the first clue what happened, but it's a safe bet that it's not what the gubmint/CIA said...

That's all... Later! OL JR

 

[Larry Curcio]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned that we were originally some of the alleged conspirators. There were stories of HPR flights that accidentally or purposely took the plane out... at 14K feet. Yeah. It's some trick, but it wasn't a bit funny at the time when we had the law suit goin'.

 

[jadebox]

https://press.epixhd.com/programming/twa-flight-800/

There are two major points that confuse me the most .

1 . TWA 800 was 12 minutes into a flight to Paris France . Why would the center fuel tank be empty ? It would need every ounce of ATF to reach France. ATF has a Octane rating of 20 . It does not have the potential energy needed to make a massive explosion . Look at a car that catches fire . The fuel tank doesn't explode , there is a Blevy flare up .

2 . There is undisputable evidence of shrapnel impacts on the right wings leading edges . The metal was blown INTO the wing not out as if there was internal explosion. The center fuel tank is AFT of the wings . It must have been a magical explosion that pushed the debris forward , then take a sudden 180 degree turn , and proceed to travel at super sonic speeds into the leading edge .

All of my information is from a former shipmate of mine who spent 2 years on her final tem paper at Embry Riddle , I'm not just pulling it outta my butt lol .

1. The distance from NY to Paris is about 6000 km. A 747 uses about 12 liters per kilometer. So it takes about 72000 liters of fuel to make the trip. The 747-100 holds up to about 200,000 liters of fuel. So, it's tanks were only about half full at take off.

The CWT has a fuel capacity of 86,363 pounds, but whenever the six wing tanks hold sufficient fuel for a flight, the CWT only contains fuel remaining from the last flight, providing optimal spanwise wing load distribution. Ground crew personnel measured approximately 300 (about 50 gallons) pounds of fuel in the CWT prior to Flight 800’s final takeoff. (https://nsc.nasa.gov/SFCS/SystemFailureCaseStudyFile/Download/172)

2. There was no evidence of damage from the detonation of an explosive device anywhere in the wreckage. The wings did come apart some time after the fuselage broke apart.

-- Roger

 

[cwbullet]

Not buried near hoffa, it is on the grassy knoll

 

[jderimig]

The explosion originated inside the fuel tank. -- Roger

I believe one of the former NTSA investigators that will be featured in the documentary will describe that the bodies recovered who were in the seats closest to the center fuel tank showed no sign of explosive trauma. Not sure but it will be interesting to hear these accounts from the former government retired first hand investigators.

 

[jadebox]

I believe one of the former NTSA investigators that will be featured in the documentary will describe that the bodies recovered who were in the seats closest to the center fuel tank showed no sign of explosive trauma. Not sure but it will be interesting to hear these accounts from the former government retired first hand investigators.

I can't address claims I haven't heard, of course. But, the NTSB's investigation was one of the biggest and most expensive of all time. I really doubt the makers of a TV documentary are able to do the same kind of research. I suspect the TV show will recycle some of the previously debunked stuff then add a few new things that will keep the conspiracy forums buzzing for a while. But, the existing evidence is so overwhelmingly conclusive that they'll need to present something really extraordinary to convince anyone other than the gullible that a missile was involved.

-- Roger

 

[Marc_G]

Haven't you people seen Lost? That's what's going on here. The TWA plane never crashed in the ocean... it's on the Island! Seriously: oceanic flight 815 ... TWA flight 800... both supposedly lost over an ocean... Think about it!

 

[COrocket]

https://press.epixhd.com/programming/twa-flight-800/

There are two major points that confuse me the most .

1 . TWA 800 was 12 minutes into a flight to Paris France . Why would the center fuel tank be empty ? It would need every ounce of ATF to reach France. ATF has a Octane rating of 20 . It does not have the potential energy needed to make a massive explosion . Look at a car that catches fire . The fuel tank doesn't explode , there is a Blevy flare up .

2 . There is undisputable evidence of shrapnel impacts on the right wings leading edges . The metal was blown INTO the wing not out as if there was internal explosion. The center fuel tank is AFT of the wings . It must have been a magical explosion that pushed the debris forward , then take a sudden 180 degree turn , and proceed to travel at super sonic speeds into the leading edge .

All of my information is from a former shipmate of mine who spent 2 years on her final tem paper at Embry Riddle , I'm not just pulling it outta my butt lol .

Eric

A few things...

Boeing specs say the range of a 747-100 has a range of 6100 miles. It is approximately 3150 from JFK to Paris. So the aircraft had to be slightly greater than half full to complete the trip with reserves. On a 747, the Center Wing Tank is completely emptied before any fuel is drawn from the wing or stabilizer tank to reduce wing loading. With the exception of takeoffs, all four engines draw from this tank which means it gets emptied relatively quickly. So the fuel not needed for the flight would have been left out of the CWT, which explains why it would have been partially if not completely empty.

Second, the CWT is not aft of the wing, it is in line with the wing, hence the name. This stuff is taught at Riddle, I'm not sure why your colleague would overlook these things. Anyway, jet fuel has plenty of potential energy to overpressurize a fuel tank if ignited. Considering the critical location of the CWT it is foreseeable how a structural failure at that location could result in an inflight breakup.

 

[Rocketjunkie]

Also, the plane sat for a couple hours on the runway with engines idling for the AC in the cabin. There was a vapor/air mix in the tank on take off.

Also, another piece of fallout - shortly after the crash, a new regulation was imposed. We did a lot of overseas shipping and we now had to include a piece of paper certifying that the package did not contain an explosive device. If we were going to ship a bomb, would we say so? How stupid can they get Our main product were clocks, so the packages frequently were ticking...:y: It was always fun to go to the post office with a ticking box :dark:

 

[dave carver]

Haven't you people seen Lost? That's what's going on here. The TWA plane never crashed in the ocean... it's on the Island! Seriously: oceanic flight 815 ... TWA flight 800... both supposedly lost over an ocean... Think about it!

I quit watching Lost when the engines on a wrecked jet started up.....

 

[jderimig]

Is a empty fuel tank that much more dangerous than a 1/8 or 1/4 fuel tank?
Is the 747 CFT and wiring unique from other aircraft fuel tank designs?
In the total history of aviation with how many other near empty fuel tank explosions have there been?

I am skeptical that BOEING did not think of electrical sparking in fuel tanks in their required DFMEA's which would have required design controls to prevent such a failure.

How could many independent witnesses who claimed something streaking upwards to the sky from several greatly different angles of view when reconstructed provide the same earth frame trajectory?

 

[Rocketjunkie]

Is a empty fuel tank that much more dangerous than a 1/8 or 1/4 fuel tank?
Is the 747 CFT and wiring unique from other aircraft fuel tank designs?
In the total history of aviation with how many other near empty fuel tank explosions have there been?

2 others, both on the ground. After the TWA 800 incident, the FAA required inspections of all other 747's. Several were accidents waiting to happen. There was a place where the wires rubbed themselves raw and eventually caused a short. The wiring was redesigned to prevent the problem and installed on all 747's.