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 ...
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.
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.