Posted on 07/16/2004 4:53:39 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/16/2004 4:55:29 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/887_0_2_0/
That was considered. I think it's appendix 13 of the report. There are several reasons it was rejected. The most important is that the breakup sequence definitely began in the CWFT and proceeded from there (there are a number of ways to determine the sequence, metallurgy, sooting, etc. and they all agree).
OK, so why didn't a piece of space debris, say, penetrate the CWFT and set off the fuel-air explosion that overpressured the carry-through and broke the plane up? Because there's no hole. The structure was almost all recovered, and the bits that were not recovered, the inner and or outer skin between them and the great outdoors was recovered. (Actually the "missing" bits were probably among the fragmentary wreckage recovered, but couldn't be ID's with certainty and put into place. We are talking a max of a pound or so in sub-one-ounce fragments here and there). And none of those missing tank fragments can be gotten to in a straight line from outside the aircraft, except by going through skin and/or structure that evidences no hole.
SO... Imagine you have a helium balloon inside a shoebox that is taped shut. You come home from school and you open the box and the ballon is popped. You think your brother did it with his bb gun. But there is no hole in the box, and no hole in the balloon that resembles that made by a BB gun. Your brother didn't do it -- at least, not that way.
If you have followed me so far, you see that your space debris theory can't be responsible. ANd by the same reasoning, neither can missile fragmentation. (There are no signs of missile blast or fragmentation, or of a bomb, on the wreckage. Anywhere. And yes, these things leave definite signatures and NTSB metallurgists can spot them almost with their eyes closed). There was no question on Clipper 103. There isn't on TWA 800 either.
Here are a couple experiments that most TWA 800 refuseniks either don't know about, or don't understand:
Those tests were conducted by Cal Tech's Explosion Dynamics Laboratory (more members of the great conspiracy! Egads how will Jamie Gorelick rub them out now that they know too much? But I digress). Some of the conspiratroids latch onto the fact that these tests did not use Jet A, but they don't understand that the tests could not be conducted at 13,800 feet. The substitute fuel was selected because its properties at the test altitude in California duplicated the properties of Jet A at 13,800. It is very hard to get this across to someone who thinks that Boyle's Law is a cop show on TV....
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Banned, for repeating the jihadi lie that the Joooooz did 9/11... which makes about as much sense as his theories on this.
If you really want to read his superheated, fact-free drivel, you can find him on "whatreallyhappened.com" which is one of his websites (he has several so he can agree with himself). WHat Really Happened. That's as good a howler as Clinton's "Most Ethical Administration in History." But if you want to see what Mikey sayd, go ahead: it's a free country!
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Oh, I'm going to have fun with this.
First place, "spill patterns" refers to fluids. If you want to know the breakup sequence of the aircraft, look at the sequence group's report -- it's all based on physical evidence and it's pretty damn unequivocal. Yeah, Cashill, Sanders, et al lie about it.
Ask a physician what happens to humans when they are inside a vehicle that experiences accelerations of 40+ G.
This particular lie comes from Sanders. After being banned from the wreckage storage area, he had a friend steal a piece of upholstery from the wreckage. He, his wife and his friend were all convicted of this theft. He did have it analyzed and declared that the analysis shows that the stuff is rocket fuel. Unfortunately for Sanders the result is inconsistent with any known rocket fuel. It is, however, a good match for seafloor sediment. Dr. George Bizigotti addressed this in great detail and his response forms FAQ 2.1.5 of the alt.disasters.aviation FAQ.
That's true, they claimed they did it. They claimed AA 587 too (another mechanical). And they claimed the summer power failures of 2003. But you are in the position of accepting felons (Sanders) and terrorists at their word, while suggesting that thousands of disinterested government engineers and scientists are liars. Time for a vacation...
You mean, they were trying to keep secret the location of stuff ghoulish newsmen were trying to photograph, and creepy collectors, and conspiracy nutballs like Sanders (who was successful, briefly!) were trying to steal? Gee, why would they do that?
The wreckage is now used as a training aid for investigators, as part of George Washington University's aviation safety program (a very good one!) But wait, is GWU in on the conspiracy too...? [cinching the chinstrap on my foil helmet]
I dunno where this howler came from. First, what rescue squads? It was clear within an hour of the crash that no one was going to be rescued. Second, I never heard of anybody in the military having "whistleblower protection." Maybe I missed it -- I only spent 25 years in uniform.
Sanders was not prosecuted for "dissent." He was prosecuted for theft. A jury of his peers found him guilty despite his best line of "dissent" bullshit and a bunch of red herrings his lawyer dragged across the trail. SO was his wife; she now whines that "persecution" cost her her job. (What would YOU do to an employee caught stealing?) They argued this case all the way to the supreme court and lost all the way. Thieves and felons shouldn't get a break because they feel it's really important for them to steal. I have this old-fashioned idea that jail is the place that thieves should be hanging their hats.
The press dutifully reported the process of both the official investigation and the conspiracy nutballs. Ultimately, the official investigation won out because, in the final analysis, it is more credible. When the nutballs can advance Jailbird Jim Sanders (I know, Sanders fans, he only got probation... Felon Jim just doesn't "sing" OK?) and Michael "Blame the Jews!" Rivero as their spokesmen, they ain't gonna get a lot of credibility. Particularly given the tendency of these folks to be economical with the truth.
LOL. I always suspected Johnnie Cochran was a closet FReeper....
Then read the conspiratorial books with a new eye. Compare the tone, and the assertions versus what is proven in each. Why are Sanders's, for instance, technical experts mostly anonymous? None of them stole anything, so they should have nothing to fear. Is it that they don't exist? Or is it that they, like "aviation professional" Sanders, overstate their credentials? The experts on the NTSB side are all really experts... take a look at the bios of the technical people on that report (they all have real names and real CV's, unlike Sanders's pick-up team).
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
bump and save
Do you speak English as your fifteenth language or something?
What dimension do you live in?
As a multilingual genius, allow me to translate. "Almost none" means a number close to zero. There were 755 recorded witnesses. Few, if any stated they observed a missile. You can read their statements yourself from one of the sites at the link you provided.
Er, how about seven other planes (including military a/c?) Or to quote from Dr Bernard Loeb:
previous fuel/air explosions in the center wing tanks of commercial airliners that contained Jet A fuel have confirmed that a center wing tank explosion involving Jet A fuel can result in destruction of an airplane. Specifically, I am referring to the November 1989 accident involving a Boeing 727 operated by the Colombian airline Avianca that occurred during the climb after takeoff, and the May 1990 accident involving a Boeing 737 operated by Philippine Air Lines that occurred on the ground at the airport.
Speech date 8/22/2000
There also was, after Dr Loeb gave his speech, another fuel-air explosion which destroyed a Thai 737 on the ground. See here. Initial reports were that that was terrorism, too, but it was found to have been a tank blast in the "empty" centre wing fuel tank. (Empty tanks, every pilot, mechanic, and engineer learns, always contain a quantity of 'unusable' fuel, so they are never truly empty once the machine has ever had fuel in it).
Dr Loeb missed this famous accident to an Iranian Air Force Boeing 747 in Spain. (At the time, Iran was a monarchy under Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and an important US ally in the Middle East). In this case, lightning may have been the ignition source but the explosion that destroyed the plane inflight and killed all on board was most probably a fuel-air blast. I suspect that Dr Loeb did not mention this accident because the finding of probable cause is not 100% for fuel-air.
You really shouldn't post very strong statements of fact when authoritative contrary information is just a Google away. I will presume you have made an honest error. As far as the explosivity of Jet A, check the Cal Tech "Explosion Dynamics Laboratory" on line, they have done extensive research and they explain themselves in laymen's terminology, or in as much depth as you woulf like. As you point out, if the mixture is too rich (too much fuel) or too lean (not enough fuel) combustion, and therefore explosion, is not possible.
For many years aero engineers thought that it was inevitable for you to have a combustible fuel/air mix at certain ranges of altitude and temperature. So the answer has been to try to keep the third necessary ingredient (fuel, oxygen... and ignition), the ignition source, out of the fuel tank. The TWA 800 accident was unable to determine the actual ignition source. To the horror of the investigators, there were several potential suspects. In a belt-and-suspenders approach, the FAA ordered them all fixed. (NTSB investigates, FAA regulates).
After a while, the FAA was not comfortable with even that and as a result inerting systems will be required. (this removes ingredient #2, oxygen). The good news is that FAA and Boeing have come up with a lighter weight and less costly system than the military had been using. In the meantime, as I understand it 74's are all flying with the CWFT full, or at least with too much fuel for combustion of the fuel-air mixture ("too rich").
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Went to public school, didn't you? Do you have any idea how stupid you look when you post something that assertive, when it is absolutely, completely, wrong? Your statement is contradicted by science and disproven by history (the above mentioned fuel tank explosions). It is as wrong as saying you can't go around the world because you'll fall off the edge.
Here is Cal Tech's explanation of just how it is possible.
Now, I expect you to read that and apologize to everyone on this thread for either lying (which is deliberately posting false information) or running your mouth about stuff you don't understand, and claiming you did. Which, when you think about it, is still lying, once removed, but it may have been through overestimating your own knowledge, so maybe you shouldn't have to wear a scarlet "L" just yet.
You may be knowledgeable about many things, but your post here is a perfect illustration of Will Rogers's famous aphorism. "It's not what we don't know that hurts us. It's what we know that just ain't so."
If you can't understand the words on the CalTech EDL page, maybe you can make sense of the diagram. If you have questions, ask. There are numerous FReepers that did actually take physics (some that teach it).
Sorry for singling you out from all the people that post that guff, but I ran across your post exactly at the point where I had had it with endlessly repeated falsehoods, myths, and lies.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
We have a better chance of getting the guy on the grassy knowl than getting to the truth on this one.
Every time go expository on TWA 800, I find myself in need of a dictionary.
What's up with that?
I don't understand the psychotic word game you are playing. Let's start with one of my previous links: how does the following article support your statement that "almost none" of the eyewitnesses reported seeing a missile?
One other question: you are really James Kallstrom, aren't you?
New York Post
September 22, 1996
TWA Probers: Missile Witnesses "Credible"
By MURRAY WEISS
Criminal Justice Editor
More than 150 "credible" witnesses -- including several scientists -- have told the FBI and military experts they saw a missile destroy TWA Flight 800, The Post has learned.
Sources provided startling new details from the frustrating two-month probe -- persuading agents to acknowledge that the witnesses' accounts point toward a missile:
The FBI interviewed 154 "credible" witnesses -- including scientists, schoolteachers, Army personnel and business executives -- who described seeing a missile heading through the sky just before Flight TWA 800 exploded.
"Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible," a top federal official said.
Sources said the witnesses lived or were vacationing along Long Island's South Shore in Nassau and Suffolk counties when they saw the object heading toward the sky.
"When we asked what they saw and where they saw it, the witnesses out east pointed to the west, and the people to the west pointed to the east ," one source said.
FBI technicians mapped the various paths -- points in the sky where the witnesses said they saw the rising "flare-like" object -- and determined that the "triangulated" convergence point was virtually where the jumbo jet initially exploded.
Struck by the number and confidence of the witnesses, the FBI sat down many of the witnesses with U.S. military experts, who debriefed them and independently confirmed for the FBI that their descriptions matched surface-to-air missile attacks.
"The military experts told us that what the witnesses were describing was consistent with a missile," a federal official acknowledged. "They told us, "You know what they are describing is a missile.' "
Law-enforcement sources said the hardest evidence gathered so far overwhelmingly suggests a surface-to-air missile -- with the sophisticated ability to lock on the center of a target rather than its red-hot engines -- was fired from a boat off the Long Island coast to bring down the airliner July 17.
That theory would have the attackers launching their missile from a boat and fleeing north into Canada during the confusion immediately after the explosion. Investigators are reviewing an anonymous threat received after the Oct. 1, 1995, conviction of radical sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a law-enforcement source said.
The threat was that a New York area airport or jetliner would be attacked in retaliation for the prosecution of the sheik, convicted of plotting to blow up major New York City landmarks.
Investigators have been unable to find definitive evidence proving any of their three key theories: missile, bomb planted in the plane or a mechanical malfunction.
On Friday, the bomb theory took another tumble when the FBI revealed the plane had carried explosives within a year of the crash as part of a training exercise for drug-sniffing dogs.
That revelation could explain how traces of explosives were found on wreckage of the downed Boeing 747.
The overriding obstacle for investigators probing the missile theory has been the fact that Flight 800's engines show no signs of missile damage.
But military experts told the FBI several modern heat-seeking missiles -- in the hands of terrorists in Africa and available to their Middle East counterparts -- target a plane's "central mass."
These missiles -- launched from a shoulder harness or a small pad -- different from the Stinger missiles that Afgani freedom fighters used against the Russians -- are equipped with a super-sophisticated heat- seeking device and are able to reach higher targets.
TWA 800 exploded at 13,700 feet -- the upper limit for the newest of these portable-type missile systems.
Military experts pointed the FBI to man-portable missiles such as the SA -14 Gremlin, SA-16 Gimlet and SA-18 Grouse -- equipped with "proportional convergence logic" systems that are "sensitive enough to home in on airframe radiation" once it nears its target, rather than isolated hot spots.
Copyright 1996, N.Y.P. Holdings Inc.
Struck by the number and confidence of the witnesses, the FBI sat down many of the witnesses with U.S. military experts, who debriefed them and independently confirmed for the FBI that their descriptions matched surface-to-air missile attacks.
The fact that you resort to childish word games makes you look silly.
The latest SAM technology is able to lock onto center-of-mass.
Why did I get a request for a cookie from the New York Times when I clicked on this thread? The article is from WorldNetDaily.com
Unlike you (apparently) and the New York Post, I don't rely on anonymous sources for my information. The transcript of every single witness interview is a matter of public record and available on line. What becomes stunningly clear, is that there is no consistant eyewitness description of what happened that night. Furthermore, as anyone who has witnessed a SAM launch will tell you, the most obvious indicator is the smoke trail it leaves behind. In fact, that is all most people will see. The entire time the rocket burns, it smokes. A lot. So it is incredible that witnesses who reported a streak of light, did not also report a smoke trail. But very few did. Just like very few called it a missile. So you and the Post can say all you want that witnesses observed a missile, but that doesn't make that statement a fact.
Furthermore, not a single investigative body involved in the TWA 800 investigation could find any tangible evidence of a bomb or missile strike in the wreckage (including Boeing, TWA, ALPA and the NTSB). The IAMS report stated they thought an overpressure event happened outside the aircraft, but unless someone created a SAM that explodes without creating shrapnel, it is unlikely such an event occured.
Finally, infrared seekers cannot guide to the center of mass of a target. They can only guide on heat sources, because that is all they "see". An infrared missile will generally lock onto the hottest object it sees, and keep that object in the center of its focal array until impact. It doesn't know if it's locked onto a 747, an F-16, a flare or the Sun. It just knows it has to hit the hotspot. Radar guided missiles will guide to center of mass, but if you want to argue TWA 800 was shot down by a radar guided missile, you're opening a whole new can of worms that is even less likely. Bottomline, not surprisingly, the Post and its anonymous sources don't know what they're talking about.
So what did all those people see?
Are they all lying?
No. They are all telling the truth. It is folks who report that these people say they saw a missile fly up and impact TWA 800 that are lying. It is a lie made to support an otherwise unsupportable theory. It is a lie that is told over and over again with the hope that it will eventually become "truth". But the truth is on the record, and the record is a collection of signed statements by witnesses who do NOT say they saw a missile fly up and hit an airplane.
Er, I have a big vocabulary?
Hey, how many FReepers know what a 'hoplite' is? (was)?
ullage: the part of a fuel tank not containing liquid fuel, therefore, the part which will normally contain fumes from the evaporation of the fuel. It's a highly arcane technical term and maybe I should not have used it without defining it.
tatterdemalion: shabby; wretched; all beat-up! Can also be a n. for a person (especially a boy) in such condition. It might be archaic; my grandmother used to use it.
And yeah, I really use words like this in conversation... most of my friends an co-workers do too, but then, some folks need to know what an "ullage" is.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
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.