Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Massachusetts Group Sues Over Flight 800 Debris
Newsday ^ | 13 July 2006 | Joseph Mallia

Posted on 07/13/2006 4:00:05 PM PDT by Hal1950

A Massachusetts group has filed a lawsuit to force federal officials to release information about a piece of debris from Flight 800 that it hopes will show that a missile downed the plane.

Federal investigators have dismissed that explanation as the cause of the 1996 explosion that killed all 230 people aboard. Instead they concluded that a spark ignited fuel tank vapors.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Boston, demands that the National Transportation Safety Board respond to numerous freedom of information act requests made since 2004.

Tom Stalcup, who heads the East Falmouth, Mass.-based Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization, which filed the suit, said he is "very certain" that federal investigators found the piece of debris and are now concealing evidence of its existence.

Radar data show the piece of debris falling at high speed from the plane and a Navy salvage map shows it was later recovered, said Stalcup, 36, a physicist and owner of a West Falmouth, Mass., company that makes wireless weather stations. Despite this evidence, federal officials won't explain what happened to the debris once it was recovered from the ocean off Long Island, he said.

"One piece in particular landed closer to JFK Airport than any of the other thousands of recovered items ... after exiting the airframe at apparent supersonic speeds," the suit says.

NTSB spokesman Paul Schlamm said the agency does not comment on pending lawsuits, but said most federal agencies have limited resources to respond in a timely way to Freedom of Information Act requests. "We are aware that there's a FOIA backlog," Schlamm said.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: lawsuit; ntsb; planecrash; twa800; twaflight800
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 07/13/2006 4:00:08 PM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

Moonbats go home!


2 posted on 07/13/2006 4:02:02 PM PDT by mbx1231
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
Federal investigators have dismissed that explanation as the cause of the 1996 explosion that killed all 230 people aboard. Instead they concluded that a spark ignited fuel tank vapors.

And again I ask, why on earth would a Pan Atlantic flight have an empty fuel tank?!?
3 posted on 07/13/2006 4:03:02 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
A Massachusetts group has filed a lawsuit to force federal officials to release information about a piece of debris from Flight 800 that it hopes will show that a missile downed the plane.


4 posted on 07/13/2006 4:03:07 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950


Seem to recall close to 100 reported seeing ground to air missle before the plane exploded.


5 posted on 07/13/2006 4:07:33 PM PDT by Paperdoll ( on the cutting edge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
And again I ask, why on earth would a Pan Atlantic flight have an empty fuel tank?!?

The real question to ask is why doesn't this happen more often?

6 posted on 07/13/2006 4:14:09 PM PDT by Bommer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mbx1231
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
7 posted on 07/13/2006 4:15:13 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
A Massachusetts group has filed a lawsuit to force federal officials to release information about a piece of debris from Flight 800 that it hopes will show that a missile downed the plane.

It would make for some interesting discussions if it can be proven that a (possibly) terrorist fired missile brought that aircraft down. I'm not suggesting that's what happened or even posing another "conspiracy" theory, just speculating on the possibility.
8 posted on 07/13/2006 4:17:50 PM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bommer

Well, according to the NTSB, the conditions have to be just right, and the moon has to be waxing into full, and magnetic north must be perfectly polarized, blah blah blah blah blah. What a bunch of crap.


9 posted on 07/13/2006 4:25:49 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468; Paperdoll
FIRO asks that those interested enough to make a contribution to their legal expenses, send a check, payable to FIRO, to Nancy Hessler, Treasurer, P.O. Box 2003, Lombard, IL 60148-2003 Lombard, IL 60148-2003.
10 posted on 07/13/2006 4:32:29 PM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

And again I ask, why on earth would a Pan Atlantic flight have an empty fuel tank?!?




Because you don't need a full tank of gas in a 747 to cross the Atlantic.


11 posted on 07/13/2006 4:37:30 PM PDT by aviator (Armored Pest Control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bommer

IIRC, it is because they do not need the extra fuel. It just adds more weight.

Fuel is pumped between the tanks to make sure equal weight in the wing tanks, from the center tank, after one leg of the flight, for instance.

I.E. They don't fill up all tanks every time they land.

I know. I flew private planes and you fill er up when you land.

I am going on what information I got from the investigation.


12 posted on 07/13/2006 4:38:40 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (I will go down with this ship, and I won't put my hands up in surrender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll
Why would terrorists shoot down their own plane? If anyone knows the capibility of the US military and their ability to shoot down a plane pre-9/11 I would be interested, but as far as I have been informed, the only plane in the air during that time was some Air Guard jet in North Dakota. I dont know if the United States had the ability to shoot down passenger planes. Maybe its possible the missile came from a submarine or a destroyer. I'm sure this subject has been beaten to death.
13 posted on 07/13/2006 4:39:05 PM PDT by barnbarn_2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aviator

Oh, and I guess your a pilot, or work in the industry? No you may not need a full tank, and I didn't even insinuate that. But there would most likely be a fair amount of fuel in that tank. They stated that it was empty. Which I continue to disbelieve.


14 posted on 07/13/2006 4:41:00 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: barnbarn_2000
The following very detailed report was personally prepared by two airborne witnesses shortly after the disaster and posted by them on the internet - but it does not appear to be included in the witness portion of the NTSB's final report. Those who believe the NTSB should include it are encouraged to contact the NTSB direct and press them to do so. Witnessing The Downing of Flight 800
15 posted on 07/13/2006 4:44:43 PM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: barnbarn_2000


It was reported to have been a commercial airliner, just having taken off.


16 posted on 07/13/2006 5:05:02 PM PDT by Paperdoll ( on the cutting edge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: barnbarn_2000

>Why would a terrorist shoot down their own plane?<

??? And what planet are you from, pray tell?


17 posted on 07/13/2006 5:14:11 PM PDT by Paperdoll ( on the cutting edge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
And again I ask, why on earth would a Pan Atlantic flight have an empty fuel tank?!?

Not unusual, the plane has far greater range than the trip it was on, and you only are required excess fuel for a specified additional time period beyond your flight plan. An extra above and beyond that is unnecessary load and is inefficient.

Better to ask how you get Jet-A (similar to Kerosene) to ignite with an electrical spark, and why hasn't it ever happened before or since given the millions of flights by these planes. It's just not a credible explanation.

18 posted on 07/13/2006 5:25:23 PM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll
Seem to recall close to 100 reported seeing ground to air missle before the plane exploded.

Over 130 independent witnesses from all round the bay, and their reports, for the most part, triangulated to pinpoint the launch position.

This entire testimony was suprresed by the NTSB.

Nothing to see here...

19 posted on 07/13/2006 5:42:57 PM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mbx1231

Moonbats who believe the Clinton cover-up of Flight 800 go home!


20 posted on 07/13/2006 5:55:34 PM PDT by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
And again I ask, why on earth would a Pan Atlantic flight have an empty fuel tank?!?

The great circle route from New York to Paris is considerably shorter than the full fuel range of a 747 which can easily fly from Los Angeles to Australia, non stop. It does not make economic sense to pay to carry thousands of pounds of unnecessary fuel so the Center Wing Tank is usually kept empty on those flights... the ullage (nominally empty measurement of fuel) is usually around 50 gallons sloshing around in the bottom of the tank.

21 posted on 07/13/2006 6:11:18 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
But there would most likely be a fair amount of fuel in that tank. They stated that it was empty. Which I continue to disbelieve.

The normal ullage of the "empty" Center Wing Tank is about 50 gallons.

22 posted on 07/13/2006 6:15:12 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wil H

It was a very hot day and flight 800 was delayed. It sat for an extended period of time on the taxiway with the air conditioners running at full tilt. The AC condensers are located directly below the main fuel tank, where the minimal amount of fuel in the bottom of the "empty" tank was easily heated and some of it vaporized.

The freak part of the accident was the spark in the fuel gauge circuit inside the tank, caused by some cracked wire insulation in the main wiring harness.


23 posted on 07/13/2006 6:39:16 PM PDT by Zman516 ("Allah" is Satan, actually.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll
I apoligize, I thought we were talking about another 9/11 conspiracy story. Next time I promise to read a little closer.

I was listening to a Neal Boortz broadcast a long long time ago and he had on the show one of the inspectors of the Flight 800 crash and towards the end of the conversation he alluded to the causation of the crash, using an adjective that would more adequately describe a projectile rather then a fuel tank exploding from a spark. I just don't remember what the exact language was. Nor do I remember the broadcast date. Boortz and cast talked about that a lot a long time ago. They said it was more likely fired from a boat and more likely a laser guided rocket if this happened at all.
24 posted on 07/13/2006 7:14:35 PM PDT by barnbarn_2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

Oh, and I guess your a pilot, or work in the industry? No you may not need a full tank, and I didn't even insinuate that. But there would most likely be a fair amount of fuel in that tank. They stated that it was empty. Which I continue to disbelieve.
-------
The main tanks had the required amount of fuel to reach the destination. We are talking about the empty center tanks. These planes have more than one fuel tank!


25 posted on 07/13/2006 7:46:53 PM PDT by aviator (Armored Pest Control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mbx1231
While it's hard to disagree with "Moonbats go home!", I might ask for clarification regarding just who the moonbats are we're referring to.
26 posted on 07/13/2006 7:59:39 PM PDT by Lloyd227 (and may God bless Oriana Fallaci)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
"Moonbats who believe the Clinton cover-up of Flight 800 go home!"

Why? What evidence have you to indicate otherwise?

27 posted on 07/13/2006 8:04:32 PM PDT by Lloyd227 (and may God bless Oriana Fallaci)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll
Seem to recall close to 100 reported seeing ground to air missle before the plane exploded.

If a ship-to-air missle hit that plane, it would have been blown to bits.

28 posted on 07/13/2006 8:09:14 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
I hope these folks don't get their hopes too high.

IF there was a terrorist missile attack and cover up, {and I think there was}, No one is going to leave ANY incriminating evidence around to be found.

29 posted on 07/13/2006 8:43:13 PM PDT by labette (Student of Murphy's Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
if it can be proven that a (possibly) terrorist fired missile brought that aircraft

George Stephanopolous said on tv that it was brought down. He should know. He was in the Clinton White House and they went to the situation room as soon as they heard what happened.

30 posted on 07/13/2006 8:51:27 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber; barnbarn_2000


Gentlemen: I have no knowledge of ground to air missles, but, as I said before, around 100 people reported seeing something like one going up before the plane exploded. I also seem to vaguely remember something about evidence that something had hit the plane from the underneath it.
Human body damage?????? It would be interesting to see the remnants of that fusilage, right? We'll probably never know for sure, but I'd put money on a cover-up.


31 posted on 07/13/2006 9:10:10 PM PDT by Paperdoll ( on the cutting edge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
"The normal ullage of the "empty" Center Wing Tank is about 50 gallons."

I don't think you know what the word "ullage" means.

32 posted on 07/13/2006 9:13:11 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
If a ship-to-air missle hit that plane, it would have been blown to bits.

Only if the missile were armed. The most credible theory about the incident is that a US Navy test missile with an inert "dummy" warhead managed to pass intact through a target drone before locking on to TWA 800. Being radar guided, it then passed through the center section of the 747-100 and ruptured the fuselage.

33 posted on 07/13/2006 9:18:10 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
"The most credible theory about the incident is that a US Navy test missile with an inert "dummy" warhead managed to pass intact through a target drone before locking on to TWA 800. Being radar guided, it then passed through the center section of the 747-100 and ruptured the fuselage."

The irony in that statement is beautiful. That is "the most credible theory"?!? To who? Maybe to someone who knows absolutely zero about missile guidance, surface to air missiles, or anything related to military missile firing exercises.

34 posted on 07/13/2006 9:21:03 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Try Night Fall by Nelson DeMille. While it is just a novel that deals with the downing of Flight 800, DeMille put a lot of research time into the book.

According to everything he found, a shoulder-launched SAM would not have the range to reach the airliner, but a system-launched missile would.

There was a mysterious high-speed surface craft that fled the scene while all other boats raced in to search for survivors, so he uses this unidentified vessel as the catalyst for one of his best mysteries.

35 posted on 07/13/2006 9:24:20 PM PDT by Stonewall Jackson ("I see storms on the horizon.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: barnbarn_2000
Maybe its possible the missile came from a submarine or a destroyer.

That's crazy talk.
36 posted on 07/13/2006 9:53:05 PM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
I don't think you know what the word "ullage" means.

It actually means the amount of liquid that is NOT there in a partial tank.

In this instance it has been used to indicate the amount that is left over in a tank that is to all extents and purposes "empty"... the part that cannot be pumped out or easily drained. I have seen it used in both ways.

37 posted on 07/13/2006 10:00:13 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
That is "the most credible theory"?!? To who? Maybe to someone who knows absolutely zero about missile guidance, surface to air missiles, or anything related to military missile firing exercises.

Especially to those who know a great deal about missile guidance, surface to air missiles, or anything related to military missile firing exercises. It has been the spontaneous center fuel tank explosion/3000 ft climb theory that the least credible to the vast majority of technically knowledgeable people.

38 posted on 07/13/2006 10:00:26 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
Only if the missile were armed. The most credible theory about the incident is that a US Navy test missile with an inert "dummy" warhead managed to pass intact through a target drone before locking on to TWA 800. Being radar guided, it then passed through the center section of the 747-100 and ruptured the fuselage.

The Navy doesn't do livefire exercises anywhere near Long Island.

The closest area where that goes on is the Virginia Capes Operating area off the mouth of the Chesapeake. It does extend north almost to the mouth of the Delaware, but, exercises of any sort, at least in my recollection, are rather rare even that far north.
39 posted on 07/13/2006 10:01:59 PM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth
The Navy doesn't do livefire exercises anywhere near Long Island.

They certainly don't anymore.

40 posted on 07/13/2006 10:05:28 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
"Especially to those who know a great deal about missile guidance, surface to air missiles, or anything related to military missile firing exercises."

Really? Then perhaps those "experts" could explain how the target tracking and missile guidance radars that employ very powerful and narrow beam radar energy using specific pulse and frequency codes to guide a missile to the only target they are tracking, could then guide that missile to another target operating miles away. And perhaps those "experts" could explain how the radar seeker located in the relatively fragile nose of a surface to air missile could survive not only the impact with a target drone, but survive plunging through that drone and arrive intact on the other side, never breaking contact with the radars guiding it to its target, and then maintain not only the energy but the ability to guide to a second target located miles away from its intended target which it then impacts with enough energy to penetrate and guide through without leaving a trace of its existence. And perhaps those "experts" could point to a single example of the US military conducting surface to air missile tests in an extremely crowded civilian air corridor. And while they're at it, perhaps they could point to the launch location of the supposed target drone.

But if they did describe such a scenario, they obviously wouldn't be "experts" in any of the topics described, because none of them could or would happen.

With regard to the cause you listed for the demise of TWA 800, you clearly have not read the NTSB report, (supported by both TWA and Boeing) that does not describe what you state is the most likely scenario for the end of TWA 800.

I've wasted plenty (too much) time on these threads trying to explain to people the difference between fact and fiction. Most of those people (maybe all) have never read the actual accident investigation report of this incident which is available to any an all at the following links....

NTSB TWA 800 Final Report
TWA 800 Investigation Docket Materials

...and that says all I need to know about their "expertise". Instead they prefer to get their information from conspiracy artists who make a living propagating phony theories for blood money through such "credible" sources as WorldNetDaily. I no longer have any delusions of steering someone like that toward anything resembling reality. Anyone who is really interested in the truth will have the intellectual integrity to read the NTSB information for themselves. Unfortunately, most of the people who subscribe to conspiracy theories have little real intellect or integrity and they prove it every time they refuse to read all the facts available about incidents like TWA 800. Rather than actually reading the NTSB report they simply deny it could be true. Yet, they don't even know what it really says (hint: the NTSB does not support the statement that TWA 800 climbed 3000' after its nose separated).

That is my final comment on this thread.

41 posted on 07/13/2006 10:41:50 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zman516
It was a very hot day and flight 800 was delayed. It sat for an extended period of time on the taxiway with the air conditioners running at full tilt. The AC condensers are located directly below the main fuel tank, where the minimal amount of fuel in the bottom of the "empty" tank was easily heated and some of it vaporized.

The flight took off at around 6:30 I believe and climbed to 14000 ft before the plane exploded. The outside air temperature could not be a factor and if you are claiming the AC Condensers are a factor then all 747's should be grounded immediately.

140 degrees is the highest temperature that the NTSB estimated that the fuel could have reached at 14,000 ft. While the fuel is theoretically flammable at 127 degrees at sea level, when tested, there was no combustion until the fuel reached 185 degrees. Then there was only a slow burn, approximately 3 seconds, in which the vapor was consumed and the fire went out.

There is no way that center fuel tank "exploded", just as there is no way that the plane climbed an additional 3000 ft after being split in two as the NTSB farcically claimed.

42 posted on 07/13/2006 11:18:39 PM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
The normal ullage of the "empty" Center Wing Tank is about 50 gallons.

The only time that there is only fuel vapor in the tank's ullage (the area in the tank above the fuel level) and in the vent lines, occurs when the airplane is stationary on the ground or during low-speed ground operations. The design of the vent system includes a scoop under each wing tip oriented into the relative wind which acts to slightly pressurize each tank through the vent lines that run laterally from surge tank to surge tank. This acts to evacuate the fuel vapors from the ullage and also to put a "head" pressure on the fuel to decrease the vapor formation.

43 posted on 07/13/2006 11:30:20 PM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
NTSB TWA 800 Final Report
TWA 800 Investigation Docket Materials

So the best you have is an "accident" investigation report from where the FBI pulled jurisdiction over the NTSB, with recovery efforts handled by the Navy, and a computer simulation of a 3,000 foot assent by a nose-less aircraft done by the CIA!

That is my final comment on this thread.

We'll see, jokes like you tend keep on giving.

44 posted on 07/13/2006 11:45:16 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lloyd227

Just read all the information about Flight 800 here on FR and if you're still not convinced it was a cover-up, there's no point in conversing.


45 posted on 07/14/2006 7:56:38 AM PDT by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
Well, I know from experience that liquid fuel is infinitely less volatile than vapors. My father proved that to me when I was about nine. He took a match, lit it and threw it into a bucket of gasoline. The match went out. He then took another match, and tossed it, albeit carefully, into a gas can that had recently been emptied. A violent and rather large flame burst out of the can's tube; fortunately it didn't blow up, but it was only a four or five gallon can. Now, I will agree that Jet-A fuel may not be volatile, but I would venture to guess that it's vapors are.
46 posted on 07/14/2006 3:14:02 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: aviator
These planes have more than one fuel tank!

I am completely aware of that fact. And I was under the impression that an aircraft has multiple fuel tanks for things like redundancy and ballast. I.E. You don't want all your fuel in one place so you distribute it to balance the plane. I am no pilot, and I was asking if you were to find out what you may know of these things. It just doesn't seem likely, to me, that a fuel tank would be empty. I would think they would have some fuel in it, just for the simple fact that (as the NTSB asserts) leaving it empty would make it more vulnerable to catastrophic failure, as has happened in the past with other aircraft.
47 posted on 07/14/2006 3:21:50 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
The flight took off at around 6:30 I believe and climbed to 14000 ft before the plane exploded. The outside air temperature could not be a factor and if you are claiming the AC Condensers are a factor then all 747's should be grounded immediately.

Obviously, the AC condensers location under the fuel tank is not by itself considered a problem, under any circumstances.

What seperated this incident from the countless thousands of other times of similar conditions was the freak short circuit in the main wiring harness which grounded out within the tank fuel level wiring, causing a spark.

I don't claim to know all the answers, and I hated the Clinton administration as bitterly as anyone here, but I don't believe there was any cover up. A coverup would involve many people, and "many people" can't keep their collective mouths shut.

48 posted on 07/14/2006 5:51:44 PM PDT by Zman516 ("Allah" is Satan, actually.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Zman516

If you think a hot, late, afternoon in New York is a "contributary factor" then we better stop all takeoffs of 747's from all places between the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer.

Don't let's ever have a 747 go to Baghdad (125 Deg in the summer), Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Nairobi, etc, etc for fear the fuel tanks might explode....

in fact, might as well permanantly ground the plane, it's totally unusable...

As for the cover up, The collective mouths HAVEN'T been able to stay shut, that's why there are so many people out there claiming it was a shoot down.


49 posted on 07/14/2006 6:08:15 PM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Now, I will agree that Jet-A fuel may not be volatile, but I would venture to guess that it's vapors are.

Read my post 43, the vapors are scavenged from the tank once the plane commences takeoff roll and a head pressure supresses the formation of new vapor.

The 747 has been in service for over 35 years. There are hundreds in the air right now. How have we got away with only one fuel tank exploding in all that time?

So it turns out we have only had one catastrophic event of this nature in all that time and it coincidentally happened at exactly the same time that 136 unrelated, independent witnesses saw a red streak of light shoot up from the surface and end at the plane at the precise moment it exploded into a fireball - what an amazing coincidence!

Who'd have thunk it?

50 posted on 07/14/2006 6:24:44 PM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson