Posted on 02/17/2004 2:40:05 PM PST by ZGuy
Even if my guess was correct that the filter was using the same technology as most scuba shops, anytime you tag AVIATION and FAA to the item, you can multiply the cost by 100.
Oh well, it is better than hauling heavy 3,000 psi tanks of Nitrogen around on an aircraft.
The technology did impress me and you should be proud of your job.
In 1990, a Philippine Airlines Boeing 737-3Y0 was waiting for takeoff from Manila when the center fuel tank exploded.
In 2001, a Thai Airways International 737-4D7 was destroyed while sitting at the terminal in Bangkok. The aircraft was being prepared for a flight when it exploded. A bomb was suspected at first because initial tests showed traces of C-4. Later tests by both the Thai military and U.S. investigators did not find any traces of C-4. (It would have been good for the Thai government for it to have been a bomb so they could have used it as an excuse to go after the groups who were at first suspected of the "bombing".)
The design of the center fuel tank system on the Boeing 737 and 747 are very similar. (This may have been changed on the newest models but we're talking about the 737/747 Classics [747-100/200/300 and 737-100/200/300/400/500 series].) A problem with one type would guarantee both require modifications.
Perhaps...
I have a copy of the radar tape when TWA 800 was destroyed. I am one of those "kooks" you seem to fear. Or, perhaps, I was just someone that paid attention to the factual information and did not care where it would lead.
As I said in a previous post on this thread: It does not matter how TWA 800 was destroyed.
This technology will prevent fuel tank explosions, no matter what the source. Even an aircraft hit by a missile would not have it's fuel tank explode.
In today's post 9-11 age, the ability of a terrorist to target an aircraft with a SAM is a very real possibility.
This technology may give the pilots a fighting chance of landing safely.
Oops, I should have read your earlier post. Membrane separation seems like a reasonable approach.
SCR, do you have any comments on the likelihood of a fuel tank explosion on TWA-800? How hot does jet fuel need to be to explode at 13,000 ft?
In any case, the missile is pretty likely to do enough damage to the structure to crash an airplane with or without a fuel tank explosion.
You and I both know that minor fact of chemistry, but we will not use this thread to discuss the subject. I wish the NTSB had placed a 747 fuel tank on Pikes Peak in Colorado (13,700 ft) and demonstrated their theory, but that is another subject. If they could get Jet fuel to explode at that temperature and fuel-air ratio, I would have been more than convinced.
You and I can both agree that a Nitrogen atmosphere would eliminate any possibility of a future fuel tank explosion.
Agreed?
As a kid I had a lot of experience lighting and re-lighting kerosene space heaters. I lit some when the burner elements were still red hot. You could get your hair burned off with the rush of flame, but there was never anything like an explosion.
One of the most popular theories is that it was a Stinger, SA-7, or some other IR man portable SAM. Well, the problem with that theory is that these missiles track IR sources. In other words they go after heat and the hottest thing on a 747 would be the aircraft's JT9D engines. If a missile such as a Stinger/SA-7 hit a 747 on its engine, the worst possible outcome out be the engine falling away from the aircraft. Boeing aircraft are designed to have the engine break free from the pylon in the event of a major fire. This will keep the burning engine from causing damage to the wing and igniting the wing's fuel tanks. The aircraft can continue to fly with one engine missing and TWA 800 could have easily returned to JFK with this kind of damage.
Secondly, N93119 (the 747's registration) was well out of the range of a land fired man portable SAM. Also, it was nearing the maximum effective range of the older generation man portable SAM's (the kind terrorists use) if they were fired from directly below it.
Third, others claim it was a U.S. Navy ship that shot down the 747. Well, lets look @ it this way. If it was an U.S. Navy ship, we must assume it was either an SM-1 or SM-2 missile. Other Surface to Air missiles (i.e. Sea Sparrow) are usually carried on aircraft carriers, or non front line ships. That would mean the ship must be an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, Spruance class destroyer, or one of the Aegis Guided Missile ships, the Ticonderoga class cruiser or the Arleigh Burke class destroyer.
Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigate:187-287 man crew
Now when these ships fire their SM-1 or SM-2 missiles, not only does everyone on the ship know it but if you don't clear that area of the ship before firing, someone will eat missile exhaust for dinner. Given today’s climate, I don't think the U.S. government could keep that many people quiet, even if the person only spoke anonymously. I've spoken @ length with a professor @ my university who is an expert in U.S. Naval history as well as most naval weapons. (If anyone needs proof of his credentials, I’ll post a list of books he has written or contributed to.) He is also of the opinion it would be impossible to hide the fact that a U.S. warship fired a missile @ the same time TWA800 crashed. Someone on that ship would figure it out and blow the whistle.
Some people say “Why would an airliner just blow up in midair?”. Well, as I said above two other aircraft have blown up for no good reason.
N93119 was one of the oldest 747's still in service. Problems with wiring in older aircraft was already well known but no one expected it could lead to a disaster. Also, N93119 sat on the tarmac @ JFK and baked for hours. That day, the center fuel tank only contained a small amount of fuel. Also, the center fuel tank on a 747 sits above the aircraft's air conditioners. The heat from the air conditioning units and from sitting out on the tarmac baking in the summer sun would have resulted in the fuel going from liquid to vapor. Now anyone who has a clue knows that fuel vapor is far more explosive than liquid. Put jet fuel in a bucket and drop a match in and the match goes out. Take a container of fuel vapor and put a match in it and there will be a loud BOOM. It is well within the realm of possibility for an aging, damaged wire to arch and ignite the fuel vapors. The result would be an explosion powerful enough to destroy any commercial airliner.
Then we get into the "eyewitnesses". Eyewitnesses are notorious unreliable when it comes to air crashes. I remember right after USAir 427 crashed how many different stories the eyewitnesses had that were being played on CNN. One claimed the aircraft was on fire. Another claimed the engines exploded, while still another said the engines "popped" and then stopped running. The last one was my favorite. A young woman claimed the aircraft simply stopped in mid air and fell straight down. Now we all know what happened to the aircraft. It suffered an un-commanded rudder deflection, not engine failure, fire, or a total stall. Still, the eyewitnesses claimed this was the case.
The same thing happened with American 587 back on 11-12-01. Eyewitnesses said that the left, right, both, and neither engines were on fire. Some said they heard an explosion while others said they did not. Other people said the right engine fell first from the aircraft while others said the left engine broke loose first. Obviously everyone saw the same event but interpreted it differently.
With the exception of the people who saw a "streak of light" in the sky, there is ZERO proof of a missile. What the people saw was an aircraft explode @ a good distance from their position. Now anyone with ½ a brain will tell you that perception can be distorted by distance. The thing that makes most people who are in the aviation field wary of the conspiracy theories that surround TWA 800 is the fact that all of the so called "evidence" is very weak and almost always can be refuted without much effort.
Those who are skeptical of the conspiracies that surround TWA 800 are that way because most of the theories are so far out there that it is beyond the realm of logic. Some people imply that Klintoon had it shot down because there was someone on board he wanted dead. Others have said it was done because certain foreign military personal were on board. Why is it so hard to believe that maybe it was simply a mechanical failure that brought down the aircraft?
I have yet to see any so called "evidence" other than what someone has put on a website or a rumor passed down through the cousin of a friend who's brother works in the FAA. The radar tapes that Pierre Salinger came out soon after TWA 800 were later shown to have been altered. If you look at the ATC recordings of the night TWA 800 crashed you will not find any reference to a missile or "streak of light" coming up from the ground. All you hear is the pilots calling ATC to report an explosion and an aircraft falling into the ocean.
In one of the records I have, you hear Air Traffic Control calling in vain
As someone who has a deep interest and love for aviation, it is still hard to listen to that tape. (I have a .WAV recording of it on my computer that I keep for the historical value but rarely open the file.) If I really believed it was shot down, I'd be yelling the loudest for an investigation.
Let me tell you a little story from July 17th, 1996 (the day TWA800 crashed). Aviation photography is my hobby and on that day I was at Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport. There were two 747's there that day. One belonging to British Airways and the other to KLM Royal Dutch Airways. Traveling on the KLM aircraft, was a group of almost 200 high school students going on a missionary trip. When I got home that night, I was relaxing in front of the computer when CNN broke in saying a 747 had crashed in the Atlantic. My first thought turned to those 200 kids and how I might have watched them board the aircraft that took them to their deaths. Soon after MSNBC (This was MSNBC's FIRST night on the air. With only a minimum staff to help, Brian Williams did an excellent job covering the crash.) said it was a TWA 747 from JFK. But for those few minutes, I couldn't get the image of 200 smiling, happy kids who were now dead somewhere in the Atlantic.
There is circumstantial evidence of a coverup. There were a lot of U.S. Navy vessels in the area. And a terrorist's missile didn't have to be a man-portable missile if it was mounted on a boat. For example, the SAM-6 is a portable self-contained radar-guided system and a single missile must weigh a few hundred pounds. Not man portable but easily portable in a small powerboat (launching it would be no picnic, but these are people who don't really care about getting burned alive by rocket exhaust). It would easily take out any commercial airliner. The warhead must be several kilos of high explosive.
I think you are correct that, at the very least, an IR SAM would have taken out an engine and maybe broken a wing, but it could not have cracked open the airplane and left no opportunity to declare an emergency.
Sort of a mini-FAE.
The only incident he ever had involved diesel fuel which ignited while he was filling a section of a tanker truck.
The tanker was divided into 4 or 5 five 10,000 gallon(I'll verify with him after he gets home from work). He had filled a section a little more than halfway when it ignited.
All it did was burn, no explosion.
The fire marshal never determined what ignited the fuel. It was a hot summer day.
Point is, while I'll buy the fact the jet fuel may have ignited...I have a hard time believing it exploded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.