Posted on 11/06/2007 9:21:21 AM PST by neverdem
There made a lot of those planes. If there was indeed a defect then it's not beyond reason that there would have been more than one plane that had the same problem.
They made a lot of 767s, too, but to my knowledge only one has been torn apart in mid-air when its thrust reversers deployed. They made a lot of DC-10s, but only one that I'm aware of had a its cargo hatch fail catastrophically or have an engine tear off. They made a lot of MD-11s but so far as I know only one was brought down by an electrical fire.
Civil aircraft are well designed, well tested, and generally carefully manufactured and maintained. When system failures occur, as the will with any manufactured product, they are rare and usually don't occur again because a solution is identified and a corrective action put in place. The fact that a one time failure could cause a fuel tank to explode under the right conditions doesn't surprise me much, and the fact that it hasn't happened again doesn't surprise me at all. It just means that recommended corrective action has been taken.
MythBusters couldn’t reproduce the explosion for gasoline fuel tanks. The link that I gave you was for MythBusters shooting multiple bullets into filled and “empty” gas tanks.
They didn’t explode.
Moreover, kerosene fuel tanks are even less combustible. Orders of magnitude safer. Less volatile.
Civilian airliners burn kerosene. TWA 800 burned kerosene.
TWA 800 didn’t just self-detonate. Witnesses on the ground and at least one pilot in the air reported seeing a missile launched from the surface rise to impact TWA 800.
Now *that* impact could have exploded the center fuel tank.
It seems that some would dispute any assertion that it is a fact that it was a one time failure associated to a defect that caused the fuel tank to explode.
I guess the dog will continue to chase it's tail on this issue.
Yep. It was memorable to me. At the time, I lived right across the highway from LAX and remember seeing a whole slew of DC-10s lined up, just parked week after week. Quite a sight, really.
I understand that. There are many who believe it was a missile of some type, though that flies in the face of a considerable amount of evidence. And of course there are always those who jump at the chance to blame anything on Clinton.
The gas tank theory was incredible from the get go. I thought the evidence of a surface to air missile was obvious. The question is who did it. Why would the U.S. do a training exercise in that airspace? The whole story made no sense.
Actually, an issue with the plane is the most plausible. If you’ll really do some research, you’ll see that the gas tank isn’t as incredible as you may believe. Warning, you can’t be lazy and just shoot from the hip if you want to learn it.
Apparently not, I got flamed for mentioning it!
Ping to #80
My memory of it(I was on duty TWA at the time) was that 800 was delayed because of equipment issues and when it finally left the gate, the procedure for a late departing flight is that it jumps to the head of the line. The scheduled departure was, in fact, an El-Al flight but 800 bumped the line and got clearence for that departure slot. If an attacker was selecting a target based on scheduled departure times, TWA 800 would have, to their knowledge, been the El-Al aircraft. I heard that here in STL within a day of the incident in a briefing.
Thanks, always interesting reading.
It was well known within the airline industry that El-Al had that slot.
And I’ll repeat, show me a terrorist who bases his plans on a airplane leaving on time from JFK and I’ll show you a terrortist who has either never flown into or out of New York or who is a complete idiot.
I would guess that information pertaining to TWA 800 was included in the documents stolen by Berger.
John
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.