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 ...
Moonbats go home!
Seem to recall close to 100 reported seeing ground to air missle before the plane exploded.
The real question to ask is why doesn't this happen more often?
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.
And again I ask, why on earth would a Pan Atlantic flight have an empty fuel tank?!?
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.
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.
It was reported to have been a commercial airliner, just having taken off.
>Why would a terrorist shoot down their own plane?<
??? And what planet are you from, pray tell?
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.
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...
Moonbats who believe the Clinton cover-up of Flight 800 go home!
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.
The normal ullage of the "empty" Center Wing Tank is about 50 gallons.
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.
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!
Why? What evidence have you to indicate otherwise?
If a ship-to-air missle hit that plane, it would have been blown to bits.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you know what the word "ullage" means.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
They certainly don't anymore.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.