TWA Flight 800

[gdjsky01]

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

Roger I <3 you. :wink:

But like 911 truthers, climate deniers, evolution deniers, Kennedy conspiracists, chem trails believers, UFO coverup believers. and all the other wackos, bringing science and logic to a discussion is simply more evidence of a cover up. They are unsinkable rubber duckies. Let them go through life grasping at whatever straws makes them happy. As long as they don't try and teach it to my kids.

 

[jadebox]

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.

The FAA reported at least 26 documented fuel tank explosions/fire from 1959 through the TWA 800 accident. See: https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf page 179.

-- Roger

 

[jadebox]

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

Cover up though is a different matter...

I guess you could have a massive conspiracy without a cover-up, but it wouldn't be very effective.

-- Roger

 

[TALON]

When this tragic event took place there was one thing that people reported that said SAM to me.*
Several people heard two reports/bangs/explosions. When I heard this, I thought that the 1st bang could have been a missile exceeding the speed of sound. I do NOT know how loud a sonic boom would be from a SAM, I don't know if different size airframes cause decibels to vary. But when witnesses stated they heard 2 bangs, it was a SAM I thought could have caused the first boom!*
Not saying I think that this is relative to the event, just what I thought at the time when I heard wittness reports.

 

[Marc_G]

Roger I <3 you. :wink:

But like 911 truthers, climate deniers, evolution deniers, Kennedy conspiracists, chem trails believers, UFO coverup believers. and all the other wackos, bringing science and logic to a discussion is simply more evidence of a cover up. They are unsinkable rubber duckies. Let them go through life grasping at whatever straws makes them happy. As long as they don't try and teach it to my kids.

+100

 

[jderimig]

As long as they don't try and teach it to my kids.

Skepticism is the greatest thing to teach kids. (its in your sig).

 

[Scotty Dog]

Wheres Jimmy Stewart when ya need him.

 

[Marc_G]

Skepticism is the greatest thing to teach kids. (its in your sig).

There's skepticism, which is a good thing, and denial, which is quite another thing...

 

[GregGleason]

Interesting.

The thread has entered the arena of epistemology.

I will say that the burden of proof is on those in the documentary. Unless they can provide a "smoking gun", it's hard to see how anything substantive will come from it. Other than providing grist for the conspiracy mills.

Too bad there is no video of the event.

Greg

 

[Peter Olivola]

Epistemology? Only if you're arguing that the conspiracy theories are scientifically valid. Which is about the same as calling intelligent design science. Isaac Asimov's comment about the problem in the U.S. is the mistaken belief that one person's ignorance is equal to another person's knowledge would seem to apply aptly in this situation.

Interesting.

The thread has entered the arena of epistemology.

I will say that the burden of proof is on those in the documentary. Unless they can provide a "smoking gun", it's hard to see how anything substantive will come from it. Other than providing grist for the conspiracy mills.

Too bad there is no video of the event.

Greg

 

[Loki Research]

chem trails believers

+1
After watching the first minute of this 4 hour documentary, then skipping ahead if you like to the 5 minute mark and more, what do you think it is? A super moist vapor trail?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxNeoXkL0mM&feature=player_embedded&list=PL33B5E7B025F583C4#at=467

This is not normal.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/549565_399734776741283_1145671041_n.jpg

Neither is this.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/997009_10200166791032461_94055504_n.jpg
What about this one?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd....80x480/253078_345025742282782_687609042_n.jpg

Do your research everyone. That is all I have to say.

 

[3stoogesrocketry]

Aw common Scott , its so much easier to listen to the T.V.

 

[Loki Research]

LO , on the TV! Did anyone see this on the Kool-Aid tube?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH8MkWK2hmc

Or this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeGbon86m9M

Or this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGgq4S5vgk4

Sorry, I thought I heard someone say earlier something about a conspiracy and a Navy training exercise the day of the Flight 800 tragedy.

Okay, just one more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l47D5ISemds
BTW, did they ever find where the 2.3 Trillion dollars went?

 

[GregGleason]

Epistemology? Only if you're arguing that the conspiracy theories are scientifically valid. Which is about the same as calling intelligent design science. Isaac Asimov's comment about the problem in the U.S. is the mistaken belief that one person's ignorance is equal to another person's knowledge would seem to apply aptly in this situation.

Peter you missed the point I was trying to make.

For example, your epistemology is based in science, which stems from your world view. Not everyone shares that world view. We are talking about how we know what we know. You filter your information through science, and "science" as you define it. Anything that doesn't fit that paradigm is either suspect or rejected. Again, not everyone rolls that way. Remember, just because one wears a lab coat does not make them an angel. Scientists are beset with the same nature as the rest of us, and you can find scoundrels in academia as easily as you can find them on Wall Street or any other institution.

Another example, there are those that believe everything the government says. That is part of their epistemology. There are those at the other end of the spectrum that automatically distrusts everything the government says, especially when coming out of certain sectors of the government. We can all agree that the government was "wrong" when ATF put AP on the "bad list". Those of us in the rocket community used our epistemology (i.e., our knowledge of the burning characteristics of AP) and engaged the federal authorities in the court system and won.

Closing the loop, because the government was the source on the final report on TWA 800 some will automatically accept it and move on, while others will be predisposed to not believing much of it. It all depends on your epistemology, which often has nothing to do with science.

Peter, I know that you and I have radically different world views. But at least we agree on one thing: let's keep the CG in front of the CP when we fly 'em.

Greg

 

[jadebox]

When this tragic event took place there was one thing that people reported that said SAM to me.*
Several people heard two reports/bangs/explosions. When I heard this, I thought that the 1st bang could have been a missile exceeding the speed of sound. I do NOT know how loud a sonic boom would be from a SAM, I don't know if different size airframes cause decibels to vary. But when witnesses stated they heard 2 bangs, it was a SAM I thought could have caused the first boom!*
Not saying I think that this is relative to the event, just what I thought at the time when I heard wittness reports.

You wouldn't hear a sonic boom from a missile unless it passed over you while it was going over the speed of sound. From the vantage point of the observers, no sonic boom would be heard if a missile was involved.

The eyewitness accounts don't match what a missile would look like (a missile doesn't leave a trail of flame at night), but they do match what burning fuel from the wrecked aircraft as it continued upward would look like.

-- Roger

 

[H_Rocket]

View attachment 134822

 

[Peter Olivola]

No proof, no reality. You're using epistemology as an excuse for not being able to provide proof. That is exactly what's unacceptable to me about anything that isn't proof based. Anything else I could or would say tips into the political.

Peter you missed the point I was trying to make.

For example, your epistemology is based in science, which stems from your world view. Not everyone shares that world view. We are talking about how we know what we know. You filter your information through science, and "science" as you define it. Anything that doesn't fit that paradigm is either suspect or rejected. Again, not everyone rolls that way. Remember, just because one wears a lab coat does not make them an angel. Scientists are beset with the same nature as the rest of us, and you can find scoundrels in academia as easily as you can find them on Wall Street or any other institution.

Another example, there are those that believe everything the government says. That is part of their epistemology. There are those at the other end of the spectrum that automatically distrusts everything the government says, especially when coming out of certain sectors of the government. We can all agree that the government was "wrong" when ATF put AP on the "bad list". Those of us in the rocket community used our epistemology (i.e., our knowledge of the burning characteristics of AP) and engaged the federal authorities in the court system and won.

Closing the loop, because the government was the source on the final report on TWA 800 some will automatically accept it and move on, while others will be predisposed to not believing much of it. It all depends on your epistemology, which often has nothing to do with science.

Peter, I know that you and I have radically different world views. But at least we agree on one thing: let's keep the CG in front of the CP when we fly 'em.

Greg

 

[Vaportrail]

I've been working aviation for quite a while. I also have been busy doing the mandated modifications to all Boeing aircraft as a result of this including NGS mods. The report from the NTSB doesn't fly with me, nor does it with anyone else I've worked with.
The doc is just further speculation. I doubt there will be anything of significance coming from re-opening a 15 year old case, but the current report stinks of something else.
Eye-witnesses are the worst kind of witnesses, but are we going to say that the military personnel who claimed the same streak before explosion also don't know what they saw?
If it was re-opened, who do you get? The NTSB and FBI have already had their two cents in it. The CIA is a joke. Private sector? Then one might claim whoever paid the most would sway the decision unlike government agencies...

 

[Zonie]

You obviously don't live within 100 NM of a major airport with takeoffs and / or landings every 30-60 min. This is normal air traffic contrail activity.

+1
After watching the first minute of this 4 hour documentary, then skipping ahead if you like to the 5 minute mark and more, what do you think it is? A super moist vapor trail?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxNeoXkL0mM&feature=player_embedded&list=PL33B5E7B025F583C4#at=467

This is not normal.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/549565_399734776741283_1145671041_n.jpg

Neither is this.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/997009_10200166791032461_94055504_n.jpg
What about this one?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd....80x480/253078_345025742282782_687609042_n.jpg

Do your research everyone. That is all I have to say.

 

[3stoogesrocketry]

If its common , why dont they go away ?

 

[Chud]

Roger I <3 you. :wink:

But like 911 truthers, climate deniers, evolution deniers, Kennedy conspiracists, chem trails believers, UFO coverup believers. and all the other wackos, bringing science and logic to a discussion is simply more evidence of a cover up. They are unsinkable rubber duckies. Let them go through life grasping at whatever straws makes them happy. As long as they don't try and teach it to my kids.

You should really learn to not trust everything the glowing box in your living room tells you. In regards to flight 800, I would suggest starting with this documentary. Listen to the witnesses, watch the science, hear the lies and tell me something was not/is not funny about the investigation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mZQ4v6Hlww

 

[jadebox]

You should really learn to not trust everything the glowing box in your living room tells you. In regards to flight 800, I would suggest starting with this documentary ...

Now, that's funny.

The NTSB's report is available at https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf. You'll find that it's a much better source of information about what actually happend.

-- Roger

 

[Chud]

Now, that's funny.

The NTSB's report is available at https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf. You'll find that it's a much better source of information about what actually happend.

-- Roger

NTSB's report....thats like having the fox report to you what happened in the hen house. If an agency that is "responsible" conducts it's own investigation on itself, then surely it has to be the truth. Watch the committee hearings...the NTSB dances all over and around many questions, doesn't interview any actual witnesses and seems to protect it's interests. I guess some like being a sheep.

 

[Loki Research]

Thanks Al. Looks like you're the only one who dare get close. ;-)

Has any one seen this? Reported 6 days ago.
It talks about a different documentary than the one someone mentioned earlier?

Seems as though Mr. Kallstrom is smugly, a bit over confident. 6:32---> "Not a missile. Never was, never will be"
I love how he laughs it off when asked why it would have been covered up, as if that would be so absurd it's preposterous.
And if it was, or if he did cover it up, why would he do anything but continue to lie about it? It's not like he's in court under oath.
Oh but wait, even then, people still lie under oath, regularly. Opps :eyepop: Busted! Wouldn't you thing the Director know better than to give away his "tell" when lying? Pisst...you're rubbing your forehead James.

I have one question though. If the official cause of the accident was the center fuel tank exploding, then how come the "bad company" animation shows the nose falling off before the plane supposedly climbs ~3,000', and then explodes in a big fireball? If the center fuel tank exploded causing the crash, wouldn't that be all she wrote at that point? How could the entire back 3/4 of the plane increase in altitude that much higher for that long after a center fuel tank EXPLODING? I sure don't know what happened, but I do know that there are a lot of things in the official story that don't make any sense, science or not.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. ;-) Just saying.

 

[Marc_G]

I have one question though. If the official cause of the accident was the center fuel tank exploding, then how come the "bad company" animation shows the nose falling off before the plane supposedly climbs ~3,000', and then explodes in a big fireball? If the center fuel tank exploded causing the crash, wouldn't that be all she wrote at that point? How could the entire back 3/4 of the plane increase in altitude that much higher for that long after a center fuel tank EXPLODING? I sure don't know what happened, but I do know that there are a lot of things in the official story that don't make any sense, science or not.

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).

I'm not qualified to have a useful opinion one way or another, so I can't comment intelligently on the aerophysics of all this, but to me the more likely scenario is some folks are looking to make money from the documentary by stirring all this up, than some big gov't conspiracy.

Marc

 

[jadebox]

NTSB's report....thats like having the fox report to you what happened in the hen house. If an agency that is "responsible" conducts it's own investigation on itself, then surely it has to be the truth. Watch the committee hearings...the NTSB dances all over and around many questions, doesn't interview any actual witnesses and seems to protect it's interests. I guess some like being a sheep.

The NTSB was responsible for the crash? That's one I haven't heard before.

Seriously, it's very easy for people to come up with these conspiracy theories. But, as the NTSB report shows, it takes a lot of work to determine what actually happened. The description in the report matches the evidence well. The conspiracy theories, on the other hand, require you to believe a lot of incredible things - most highly unlikely and many that conflict with the evidence.

-- Roger

 

[AlexK]

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).

I'm not qualified to have a useful opinion one way or another, so I can't comment intelligently on the aerophysics of all this, but to me the more likely scenario is some folks are looking to make money from the documentary by stirring all this up, than some big gov't conspiracy.

Marc

Forget 'qualified,' this is pretty much exactly what will happen to a jetliner if the front is blown off. The Cg/Cl (center of gravity / center of lift) relationship is HUGELY important in aircraft. Center of lift is over the wings, and so a (stable) aircraft wants to have the center of gravity over the wings, too - you want it as close to the center of lift as possible. It's just like rockets and Cp, except you want the two points on top of each other. Once the front of the plane was 'removed' the Cg shifted back, causing the plane to pitch up, which made it climb until the wing failure. It's much the same phenomenon that caused the 747 crash at Bagram air base a couple months ago - in that case it looks like the cargo shifted, the Cg was thrown too far back, and the plane pitched up uncontrollably, stalled, and dropped out of the sky.

 

[10fttall]

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 .

Whoever told you it needs every ounce of fuel NY-Paris is either pulling your leg or needs to have their degree revoked. Have you ever looked at a globe and seen the size of the Atlantic vs. the Pacific?

 

[RichardSATX]

I've been following this thread and trying to stay out of it. But here goes. The NTSB Report is not proof. The findings in this one (and yes I read it) are "probable cause" of the accident. It's their best theory. Do I believe it? I think it is a possible cause. Does it really mean anything, no. They took action on other similar 747's to eliminate the possibility of it occurring on those based on what they felt happened. That's a good thing. Do I automatically dismiss any other possibility based on the report? Not only no, but heck no. They made an educated guess, that is it. Their ignition theory for the tank fumes is a bit of a stretch in my opinion requiring two simultaneous problems for it to work. But it is not impossible. And I do have the background in every aspect of this, 32 years worth.

 

[jadebox]

I've been following this thread and trying to stay out of it. But here goes. The NTSB Report is not proof. The findings in this one (and yes I read it) are "probable cause" of the accident. It's their best theory. Do I believe it? I think it is a possible cause. Does it really mean anything, no. They took action on other similar 747's to eliminate the possibility of it occurring on those based on what they felt happened. That's a good thing. Do I automatically dismiss any other possibility based on the report? Not only no, but heck no. They made an educated guess, that is it. Their ignition theory for the tank fumes is a bit of a stretch in my opinion requiring two simultaneous problems for it to work. But it is not impossible. And I do have the background in every aspect of this, 32 years worth.

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