Posted on 06/07/2009 12:31:42 AM PDT by neverdem
My mistake. I didn’t read the entire article. The implication from the start is that their fate was related (why else would it reopen TWA flight 800?).
I probably misread something earlier... Basically that they would be trying to fly over the storm and that this particular storm had wicked weather at 50,000 feet - or something to that affect...
Well, the missile theory has a few problems (setting the eyewitnesses aside for a minute), the first being tactical. I'm unaware of a MANPADS that can reach an aircraft reliably at 13,000'. The Stinger's operational ceiling is about that, or rather less. The copies cranked out by the Soviets and Chinese are about the same, for obvious reasons (their propellants aren't any better than ours).
And remember the attempt in Kenya a few years ago to take down an airliner with a pair of ex-Soviet SA-14's (the Stinger copies I referred to). The attempt failed.
A further problem for the TWA 800 missile enthusiasts is the fact that the explosion occurred dead-center in the aircraft, whereas SA-14's, Stingers, etc., are IR homing and typically strike an engine. Recall the DHL Airbus A300 freighter that was struck on one wing (photo) over Baghdad by an SA-14 MANPADS but managed to land safely.
If TWA 800 had been struck by an SA-14, a) it might easily have survived the attack and landed safely, the 747 being a big, capable aircraft with multiple system redundancy, and b) if it had succumbed, the sequence of events would have been a lot different.
They were transitioning what is known as the "inter tropical convergence zone" or the ITCZ. This is where trade winds from the northern and southern hemispheres converge. This convergence often results in very violent convective weather. My guess is weather wasn't the only factor, though. Usually, a crash is caused by a series of events that stack up on each other to cause the crash. All too often the last item in the stack sadly is pilot error....
Forensics don't lie. The forensics of the airplane showed
*no explosive material of the type associated with any known warhead, and certainly not on any "Stinger" type missile.
*This was explained away in "First Strike" as the (what I will call) "attack" missile didn't explode---it "passed through." This would be more unusual than electric static charge, more about which I will comment in a moment.
*Since Saunders had no explosive residue, he then focused on the infamous "red residue" that he claimed could be evidence of a "pass through" missile---i.e., one that didn't explode but simply passed through the airplane. Problem: this also would not cause the explosion. Saunders then hypothesized that such a missile wasn't the "attack" missile, but now changed his story to claim it was an off-course drone from a Navy exercise being chased by an "attack" missile. Ok, so now we have TWO missiles, neither of which showed up on ANY radar screen anywhere.
I have yet to find any military person who thinks a Stinger, given the range, altitude, and distance, could have reached TWA 800. It was at the very, very extreme end of a Stinger IF . . . IF . . . the shooter was perfectly situated underneath TWA 800. But then see problem #1: no explosive residue.
The so-called red residue of a pass through missile was explained by other chemical reactions, and for such a pass through missile to have been the culprit, it would have left massive, other consistent signatures everywhere---in hull entry, throughout every piece of recovered (compromised) material. No such evidence was ever found.
No radar has ever detected missile evidence; the Navy staunchly denied ever conducting tests, and no Navy person has ever once broken with that denial.
As to the static electricity, this was reproduced on the show "Mythbusters" a few years ago. They achieved a fuel tank explosion under similar (not exact) conditions that to them was stunning in the violence of the explosion. It literally blew their test article apart.
See my critique above. One more point: You could say, "Well, the terrorists used a pass through missile without an explosive warhead." Wow. That would be a first, and it would be taking a phenomenal risk that it would have the effect it did. If it passed through the hull but didn't cause an explosion, it would damage the plane, but not necessarily destroy it.
Correct...and the last one was in Arkansas last week.
The Mythbusters did nothing to reduce the oxygen content of the atmosphere around their test subject to mirror the oxygen content in the center fuel tank of TWA800 at 12,000'-14,000'. Since they didn't do this their "test" was meaningless....
Rubbish.
There are multiple unidentifieds on the radar images.
There is always a variable that cannot be reproduced. But it’s funny how quickly people want to disregard any test that doesn’t support their thesis-—which has already been disproved.
Evidence?
US Navy Standard missile could.
But far more likely is
(1) pilots lost control of the aircraft in turbulent/grey skies, it departed controlled flight and the airframe broke apart due to mechanical stress, or
(2) a small bomb exploded on-board the damaged the aircraft to the point it degraded and fell apart in the sky.
As a former race track firefighter, I can tell you that sealed fuel tanks, even partially filled ones, even heated ones, *DO NOT* explode from internal ignition. We used to demonstrate the fact during noob training by dropping a lit match down the gas tank filler tube of a wrecked passenger car. The fumes at the mouth of the tube flared, and then the match went out.
Once you understand the explosive limits and flammable limits of various fuels, you’ll KNOW the TWA 800 explanation is just absurd.
Just to make you think a bit ... *IF* TWA 800 was hit center mass by a missile, it was probably radar-guided, not IR, like a ‘Stinger’. THAT implies a level of sophistication not usually associated with your garden variety Achmed-the-jihadist level of terrorist. So, who was on that airplane that needed ‘dying’? So much so that serious SAM technology needed to make certain it worked. An IR-guided SAM might have only hit an outboard engine, or even missed all together, considering the altitude and the frontal aspect ratio of the shot. A 747 is a sturdy bird. I personally doubt a ‘Stinger’ or similar would have been able to cause what happened to TWA 800.
“See my critique. Saunders is way off base if you look at the forensic evidence.See my critique. Saunders is way off base if you look at the forensic evidence.”
Well, I have no interest in reopening an old sad story.
I merely said that I was in the camp that says IT MAY HAVE BEEN SHOT DOWN.
I can only go by the statements of many eye witnesses.
I have no other opinions about it.
As for the AF flight, it is just one of those things.
Something went wrong at the wrong time.
I'm not disregarding anything pertinent. I'm stating a simple fact of the chemistry of combustion. You can't have explosive combustion of kerosene without oxygen. Oxygen doesn't exist in sufficient quantities at a pressure altitude of 12,000'-14,00' msl to allow for explosive combustion of kerosene.
In order to get kerosene vapors to achieve explosive combustion at that altitude it must be compressed. This is precisely what happens inside a jet engine.
Since the center fuel tank, and, in fact, all fuel tanks on all aircraft are vented to the outside ambient pressure in order to allow for fuel and tank expansion and contraction as the aircraft ascends and descends, where did the oxygen inside the tank come from that allowed the vapors in the tank to achieve explosive combustion? It's a really simple question, and one that nobody, not the CIA, the FAA, the FBI, the NTSB, none of them, and certainly not "Mythbusters". has answered.
You can parrot all the so-called answers from the FBI, CIA, FAA, NTSB (and Mythbusters) as loud and proud as you want, but it still doesn't answer this simple question of chemistry.....
When you have a group of over 100 witnesses, two of them were FBI agents on an outing, taking out a full length ad proclaiming that they saw a missile hit the plane I believe them.
I will always say that that plane was brought down by terrorist period.
I agree with you about the missile. *IF* it was a missile, it was likely a radar-guided, or a least terminally-guided (radar or optical) missile in order to hit center mass. AND when you add on the altitude of the strike, the scenario of Achmed with a Stinger or similar just doesn’t make sense.
ALSO, the nature of the reports of the missile track and smoke trail do NOT align to the flight characteristics of one of the US Navy’s big SM-1s, or SM-2s. So let’s leave the US Navy out of this.
I’ll go with a sophisticated attack using a radar-guided SAM
In order to get Jet-A fuel to explode it has to be agitated. You cannot just put a match to it, it won’t burn.
So what caused the fuel to explode?
No, it has to be compressed, thereby enriching the oxygen mixture.
You cannot just put a match to it, it won’t burn.
Kerosene will barely burn at sea level. If you throw a match into a pan of kerosene, 9 times out of 10 it will go out. That's because the vapors aren't explosive and cannot achieve explosive combustion, even at sea level pressure.
So what caused the fuel to explode?
Whatever caused the airplane to explode. I don't know what was the cause, but quite obviously fuel vapor wasn't 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.