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

Skip to comments.

TWA explosion sparks filter production at Porvair
Citywire ^ | 26 June 2007 | Helen Burggraff

Posted on 06/26/2007 8:24:12 AM PDT by Hal1950

UK filtration and advanced materials group Porvair is among a number of companies working to prevent accidents like the one that killed 230 passengers aboard TWA flight 800 in a fireball off Long Island.

The Boeing 747 en route to Paris from New York exploded 12 minutes after takeoff from JFK International airport on 17 July, 1996. The cause was the subject of intense debate for years, but investigators concluded vapours ignited in a fuel tank.

Nearly eleven years later, Boeing has given initial approval ('qualification') for one of Porvair’s filter designs to prevent similar explosions in aircraft fuel tanks, the company said on Tuesday.

‘We had expected production of this unit to start immediately after qualification, but delays with other suppliers to this project have postponed this until later in the year,’ Porvair (PRV) said in a statement.

Porvair’s filter is part of a more complex unit for airplane fuel tanks that's being assembled from parts contributed by a number of manufacturers, Porvair group finance director Chris Tyler said in an interview.

The aerospace fuel tank inerting filter, as it’s called, is designed to inject nitrogen into an aircraft’s fuel tank in order to create a ‘fire blanket’ that eliminates the risk of an explosion, he said.

Porvair in February signed a supply agreement with Parker Hannifin for a filter similar to that being designed for the Boeing fleet’s fuel tanks to be used in the fuel tanks of Airbus aircraft.

(Excerpt) Read more at citywire.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Unclassified
KEYWORDS: aerospace; twa800; twaflight800
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 06/26/2007 8:24:14 AM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

So, they have figured out how to filter shoulder fired missiles by terrorists?


2 posted on 06/26/2007 8:26:59 AM PDT by TommyDale (Rudy Giulianiís candidacy is fading faster than an abortionistís conscience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Hal1950

4 posted on 06/26/2007 8:28:34 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

I will never believe that ridiculous story...........ever!.........


5 posted on 06/26/2007 8:30:05 AM PDT by Red Badger (Bite your tongue. It tastes a lot better than crow................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChenangoShooter.308
Project Bojinka and Other Hijack High-jinks
6 posted on 06/26/2007 8:36:20 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

You mean a 747 cannot climb 1800 ft without its nose?


7 posted on 06/26/2007 8:36:34 AM PDT by zek157
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ChenangoShooter.308

Amen, Bro. Why they’re messing around with these million dollar laser dazzlers for civilian aircraft when they haven’t even been proven for military use yet is beyond me.

They could outfit an airliner with a missile threat/flare dispenser for around $100,000 each, and be done with it.

It’s not as if those things are going to be dropping flares on every takeoff, starting grass fires. Get what’s proven and on the shelf installed and be done with it.


8 posted on 06/26/2007 8:39:22 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Slick couldn't let a terrorist attack on the U.S. ruin his reelection!

Sandy Burglar would later risk a prison sentence to steal TWA800 documents from the National Archive and keep them out of the 911 hearings.

9 posted on 06/26/2007 8:41:19 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
Not a single eyewittness testified at the TWA800 hearings, not one.

No statistical evidence or calculations were ever produced by the CIA to show how they came up with their B.S. video recreation.

10 posted on 06/26/2007 8:45:12 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
So, they have figured out how to filter shoulder fired missiles by terrorists?

How does one go about firing a shoulder fired missile from a little boat in the North Atlantic, hitting a large plane at altitude, causing it to explode? I'm sure I'm missing something, but that scenario would seem to surpass the operational capabilities of every MANPADS I'm familiar with.

11 posted on 06/26/2007 8:47:41 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
The Boeing 747 en route to Paris from New York exploded 12 minutes after takeoff from JFK International airport on 17 July, 1996. The cause was the subject of intense debate for years, but investigators concluded vapours ignited in a fuel tank.

It's funny how those vapours in planes before and since this event never did ignite. Perhaps they only ignite when prompted by some outside force --- like a missile. I guess the investigators must have missed that.

12 posted on 06/26/2007 8:48:38 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

TWA Flight 800 was just off Long Island, not in the North Atlantic.


13 posted on 06/26/2007 8:49:48 AM PDT by TommyDale (Rudy Giulianiís candidacy is fading faster than an abortionistís conscience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

C’mon, International flights routinely take off with empty fuel tanks.


14 posted on 06/26/2007 8:51:11 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

So, nearly 11 years later we’re looking at ways to keep planes from blowing up on their own? This hasn’t concerned anybody before now? Hmmmm.


15 posted on 06/26/2007 8:51:39 AM PDT by scott7278 (Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
C’mon, International flights routinely take off with empty fuel tanks.

Yeah, they run off the vapors.

16 posted on 06/26/2007 8:56:47 AM PDT by scott7278 (Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
My wife was one of about a dozen engineers that designed the "cobra" wireing for those planes. I will even name the company. AMP, now Tyco.

To this day they all say, IMPOSSIBLE. Of course they were never called to the hearings.

17 posted on 06/26/2007 8:58:26 AM PDT by AGreatPer (Impeach Reid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

TWA 800 = one of the biggest gubmint coverups of all time.


18 posted on 06/26/2007 8:59:26 AM PDT by Sig Sauer P220
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

Thanks for the post. “FIRST STRIKE” is a must read and hats off to Jack Cashill and Jim Sanders for their excellent work in authoring the book.


19 posted on 06/26/2007 8:59:41 AM PDT by True Republican Patriot (God Bless America and The Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
TWA Flight 800 was just off Long Island, not in the North Atlantic.

TWA Flight 800 exploded 8 miles into the North Atlantic.

But please, let me know which MANPADS systems have the ability to hit a plane at 15,000 feet traveling at 500mph. If you can find one, I'm sure every country in the world would be interested in purchasing it.

20 posted on 06/26/2007 8:59:43 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

Why let the truth get in the way of propaganda?


21 posted on 06/26/2007 9:09:58 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

http://www.dsd.es.northropgrumman.com/commercial_aircraft/threat/zone.html addresses current threat. What it was back then I don’t know but I am looking.


22 posted on 06/26/2007 9:17:43 AM PDT by beltfed308 (Rudy: When you absolutely,positively need a liberal for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Stingers come pretty close:

Light to carry and relatively easy to operate, the FIM-92 Stinger is a passive surface-to-air missile, shoulder-fired by a single operator, although officially it requires two. The FIM-92B can attack aircraft at a range of up to 15,700 feet (4800 m) and at altitudes between 600 and 12,500 feet

The Gremlin has a max range of 4500 meters, so that's not inconcievable. Since it was designed to hit combat aircraft, tracking a commercial jumbo would be childsplay.

The SA-18 Grouse has a max range of 16,000 feet. So there's another one.

You really should do just a teensy bit of research before you spout off that it's 'impossible'.

L

23 posted on 06/26/2007 9:18:41 AM PDT by Lurker (Comparing moderate islam to extremist islam is like comparing small pox to ebola.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: scott7278
Actually, new aircraft such as the A380 and Boeing 787 will have onboard nitrogen generators to "inert" the empty tanks by filling the empty space above the fuel with nitrogen. These nitrogen generators, and the associated plumbing, are designed into the new aircraft from the start. The debate was over requiring inerting equipment to be retrofitted into existing airliners, which would run into the billions.

I still lean towards the "errant training missile" from an Aegis destroyer theory, however. The FAA tried and tried to get a 747 center fuel tank to explode using jet fuel, heat, and a spark, but couldn't. They ended up filling the tank with propane in order to duplicate the explosion.

Excerpt from the Sandia Labs final report

"Laboratory tests at Cal Tech suggested that the combustion behavior of heated gaseous Jet-A fuel-air mixtures can be replicated using a mixure of hydrogen-propane premixed with air. The choice of this simulant fuel-air mixture is based on reproducing bum rates and overpressures in laboratory-scaled vessels. The use of the simulant fuel bypasses the difficulties associated with heating liquid jet fuel, hence, the quarter-scale test apparatus required minimal external environmental control."

24 posted on 06/26/2007 9:19:47 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
...working to prevent accidents like the one that killed 230 passengers aboard TWA flight 800 in a fireball"

Never happened before that night -- never happened since.

Who would waste money buying their product?

25 posted on 06/26/2007 9:24:03 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker; Alter Kaker
Stingers come pretty close.

In Afghanistan, stingers were used well beyond their specified range for hitting slow-moving Soviet aircraft.

26 posted on 06/26/2007 9:30:41 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

It wasn’t “at altitude,” it was below 14,000’; it had just taken off minutes before. Furthermore, it was asked to delay climbing to give vertical clearance to another aircraft, so it was even lower than it could have been given the time since takeoff.


27 posted on 06/26/2007 9:31:16 AM PDT by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Actually, new aircraft such as the A380 and Boeing 787 will have onboard nitrogen generators to "inert" the empty tanks by filling the empty space above the fuel with nitrogen.

Everybody trying to make money from a fraud.

Sounds like all the Y2K consultants!

28 posted on 06/26/2007 9:32:51 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

This British company is never going to make the big bucks preventing spontaneous fuel-tank explosions in 747s.

They need to get with the 21st Century and cash in on the current scare: global warming.

Get a mega-contract with the British government to filter out greenhouse gases and turn them into fertilizer and they’ll make billions off the gullible.


29 posted on 06/26/2007 9:33:13 AM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Stingers come pretty close:

No, they really don't. Stingers can't hit anything above 12,500 feet and they can't hit anything going anywhere near 500 mph. There's no way in hell that a Stinger -- or any MANPADS -- can come close to hitting a commercial airplane at speed and at altitude.

The Gremlin has a max range of 4500 meters, so that's not inconcievable

Yes, it is inconceivable. TWA 800 was at about 4500 meters when it exploded, so the Gremlin could have hit it... maybe... if it had been hovering like a helicopter and the person who was firing it was standing on dry land directly underneath. But at 500mph, there's no way it would have anything like the range needed to down the plane. Same goes for the SA-18. We're not talking about this being a little bit beyond the maximum capabilities of any of these missiles, this is far beyond their capabilities.

Moreover, all of them would have had to have been fired from boats 8 miles out into the ocean, not an easy task by any stretch. If you've ever tried to use a MANPADS, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

30 posted on 06/26/2007 9:46:57 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
In Afghanistan, stingers were used well beyond their specified range for hitting slow-moving Soviet aircraft.

Perhaps. But a Boeing 747 is not a small ground support aircraft flying low and slow. The aircraft in question was at around 4500 meters and traveling at 500 mph. That's so far beyond a Stinger's capabilities, it's almost laughable.

31 posted on 06/26/2007 9:49:33 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
C’mon, International flights routinely take off with empty fuel tanks.

But they don't routinely blow up immediately after!...........

32 posted on 06/26/2007 9:58:20 AM PDT by Red Badger (Bite your tongue. It tastes a lot better than crow................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Strela missiles can hit a target moving at 310 meters per second. That's well over 600 mph, so your math is waaaay off.

The SA-16 H Gimlet can hit a target moving over 800 mph. So you're full of crap on this one, too.

It took me all of 3 minutes to look that info up.

So you're simply wrong. Hit the links I provided and see it in black and white.

Hitting a commercial aircraft at 15K ft with a MANPADS wouldn't be all that difficult at all.

L

33 posted on 06/26/2007 10:00:08 AM PDT by Lurker (Comparing moderate islam to extremist islam is like comparing small pox to ebola.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: zek157
You mean a 747 cannot climb 1800 ft without its nose?

It could with the aid of a small rocket, fired from below........

34 posted on 06/26/2007 10:01:56 AM PDT by Red Badger (Bite your tongue. It tastes a lot better than crow................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
How does one go about firing a shoulder fired missile from a little boat in the North Atlantic, hitting a large plane at altitude, causing it to explode? I'm sure I'm missing something, but that scenario would seem to surpass the operational capabilities of every MANPADS I'm familiar with.

TWA800 was at 13,800' msl.

TWA800 was just off the southern coast of Long Island.

Given your ignorance of the facts about exactly where TWA800 was at the time of the explosion, I would seriously question any knowledge you may possess about the operational capabilities of any MANPAD.

35 posted on 06/26/2007 10:04:43 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (After six years of George W. Bush I long for the honesty and sincerity of the Clinton Administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
Most believe that TWA 800 exploded in a huge fireball at 13,800 feet. However, that huge fireball explosion took place below 7,500 feet - perhaps as low as 5,000 feet. One of FreeRepublic's most ardent missile shootdown conspiracy theorists, Swordmaker, puts that huge fireball explosion at about 7,000 feet

The key witnesses are Sven Faret & Ken Wendell who prepared their own detailed report. They were flying at about 8,500 feet and saw the huge fireball explode below that altitude, flew over to the smoke cloud it left and determined that the top of it was at 7,500 feet

The brief fiery streak, seized upon by the conspiracy theorists as a missile, appears to have been the ignition source of the huge fireball explosion as evidenced ty the fact that by then all of the wreckage had been falling for quite some time.

Additionally, ten expert metallurgists (four from NTSB, three from Boeing, two from FBI Laboratory, and one scientist consultant) determined from their own extensive examinations of the wreckage that there was no evidence that TWA 800 was the victim of a missile(s) shootdown.

36 posted on 06/26/2007 10:10:42 AM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Well stated, hats off to You!


37 posted on 06/26/2007 10:13:27 AM PDT by True Republican Patriot (God Bless America and The Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Although I have read two books regarding the flight I claim absolutley NO expertise or inclination to enter this argument.
I would like to know your experience and theory about the crash of flight TWA 800 ?
I am not trying to be a smart A$$. I would really like to know what you think.


38 posted on 06/26/2007 10:14:57 AM PDT by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Never happened before that night -- never happened since.

Not entirely true. The sister plane to TWA 800 (both were 747-131's delivered to Iran in the early '70's), blew up in midair in 1976 over Madrid, Spain after (supposedly) being hit by lightning.

Never say never.

The 747 is great plane with a marvelous safety record but, did it ever occur to you tin foil hatters that the cover-up may be on the Boeing end of it?

39 posted on 06/26/2007 10:15:55 AM PDT by UNGN (I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
No, they really don't. Stingers can't hit anything above 12,500 feet and they can't hit anything going anywhere near 500 mph.

TWA800 was flying at 275 knots (316 mph), not 500 mph.

40 posted on 06/26/2007 10:17:17 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (After six years of George W. Bush I long for the honesty and sincerity of the Clinton Administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
TWA800 was flying at 275 knots (316 mph), not 500 mph.

You're right and I'm wrong and at 275 knots, the plane was still outside of the operational range of a MANPADS.

41 posted on 06/26/2007 10:20:57 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: woodbutcher1963
I am not trying to be a smart A$$. I would really like to know what you think.

I'm in no way an aviation safety expert and have no way of evaluating the official report blaming the center fuel tank. In fact, as you may have noticed from me getting the airspeed completely wrong, I know very little about Flight 800. I do, on the other hand, know a bit about MANPADS, having worked with them in civilian and military capacities.

42 posted on 06/26/2007 10:28:29 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
You're right and I'm wrong and at 275 knots, the plane was still outside of the operational range of a MANPADS.

What makes you so cock-sure it was a MANPADS?

43 posted on 06/26/2007 10:29:14 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (After six years of George W. Bush I long for the honesty and sincerity of the Clinton Administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
TWA800 was just off the southern coast of Long Island.

As far as MANPADS go, 8 miles into the Atlantic is more than "just off."

Given your ignorance of the facts about exactly where TWA800 was at the time of the explosion, I would seriously question any knowledge you may possess about the operational capabilities of any MANPAD.

I don't see how the two are related. I've worked with MANPADS professionally and am aware of their capabilities. I've never researched Flight 800.

44 posted on 06/26/2007 10:30:56 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: UNGN

Several Boeing 737s have suffered catastrophic accidental center fuel tank explosions as well.


45 posted on 06/26/2007 10:31:56 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
What makes you so cock-sure it was a MANPADS?

I'm not. Whatever caused Flight 800 to go down, it was almost certainly not a MANPADS.

46 posted on 06/26/2007 10:32:27 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Never happened before that night -- never happened since.

Only one DC-10 has had an engine fall off in flight. So was AA 191 hit by a missile over O'Hare?

Is there some set number of mechanical failure modes below which it's impossible for something to be an accident? I'm curious as to what that number is.

47 posted on 06/26/2007 10:36:21 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
I'm not. Whatever caused Flight 800 to go down, it was almost certainly not a MANPADS.

According to one of Cashill's super-secret sources several weeks ago (or, more lilely, a voice in his head) it was a Tomahawk missile.

Amazes me how guys can continually embarass themselves in print like that and still have an audience.

48 posted on 06/26/2007 10:38:09 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
As far as MANPADS go, 8 miles into the Atlantic is more than "just off."

Who said the MANPADS was fired from 8 miles away?

49 posted on 06/26/2007 10:52:59 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (After six years of George W. Bush I long for the honesty and sincerity of the Clinton Administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
I'm not. Whatever caused Flight 800 to go down, it was almost certainly not a MANPADS.

Many, including the DHS, State Dept. and Northrup-Grummann disagree with you about the threat and operational capabilities of MANPADS. (The MANPADS Menace: Combating the Threat to Global Aviation from Man-Portable Air Defense Systems)

MANPADS can strike aircraft flying at altitudes up to approximately 15,000 feet (4572 meters) at a range of up to 3 miles (4.82 kilometers).

...

See 'Zone of Susceptibility' on page 4. (MANPAD Protection for Commercial Aircraft)

50 posted on 06/26/2007 10:55:31 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (After six years of George W. Bush I long for the honesty and sincerity of the Clinton Administration)
[ 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