Here is a picture of the plane 1 year before it crashed, Look familiar:
747-131F N53111 Iranian's owned it when it crashed. Ironic, huh?
Posted on 06/19/2013 4:09:14 AM PDT by servo1969
Iran, as a nation-state, would be insane “to take credit” for terrorist acts. That would be national suicide. That’s why they use proxy groups in the same way the US and USSR did during the Cold War, for plausible deniability.
That claim makes no sense just on the face of it. The Navy would practice real world situations. What possible battle scenario would be simulated by practicing on a stream of airliners? None of them approximate the kind of aircraft that the fleet would face in war. I don't know what happened to TWA 800 but it wasn't getting shot down by a Navy missile. Besides if that had happened somebody on the crew would have sold their story to Dateline long before now.
Yer forgetting....
Not really. I can’t forget something I never knew. Interesting tidbid though.
We sold the Shah F-14s (that were not AIM-54 capable). None of these were flight-capable by the 90s. We also sold Iran some Sparrow (AIM-7) semi-active radar-homing missiles.
First, there would be quite a bit of finagling necessary to convert a regular Sparrow to a Sea Sparrow. Just because we did so with a program doesn't mean Achmed could do so in his garage. Second, the range of those early Sea Sparrows were under 6 miles (purely point-defense), because they weren't being launched with an aircraft's speed and momentum. So you'd need an Iranian cruiser right under the plane... hard to hide. Third, they require the firing craft's radar to paint the target for the entire flight of the missile... something impossible to hide. We would have to have had an Iranian naval asset in US waters painting an airliner with fire-control radar for the whole flight of the missile... no way to cover that up.
There are much more logical assets (portable and terrorist-usable) that could have done this (especially ones that aren't semi-active homing). You're barking up the wrong tree here...
Everyone that saw the video knew instantly what happened to that plane, but for some it meant going into cover-up mode.
FR is still loaded with TWA 800 shills.
>> “This looks to me like a center fuel tank issue and NOT a missile.” <<
.
Total nonsense!
Jet fuel cannot be made to explode with that much force because it has to be heated close to its ignition point to even vaporize. Anyone that has used kerosene lanterns knows how difficult it is to use them in cool weather, and jet fuel is engineered to be less volatile than K-1 kero.
You make a fool of yourself.
Flying your ‘credentials’ here as you have gives you away completely.
“and jet fuel is engineered to be less volatile than K-1 kero.”
Not true. The flashpoint of Jet A and K-1 are the same. The primary diff between the two is that Jet A is allowed a higher Sulfur content. A secondary diff is mere taxation.
” mid air fuel tank explosions have taken out similar planes, very possibly including the SISTER plane to the 747 that was TWA800, back in the 1970’s.”
On the ground, right? Not at 13,000 feet in cold air.
A radio controlled version of an airplane is no where near the actual design of a real airplane. Not even close. The GC, alone, is different. Only a non-engineer with no knowledge of aerospace would even suggest such a thing as you did. That is completely childish.
Didn't the NTSB investigation claim that while the fuel tank was virtually empty there were still sufficient fuel/air vapor to be flammable? And that it had been heated both by sitting on the runway on a hot day and by the heat generated by the air conditioning packs located beneath the tank?
We may come at from different perspectives but people rooting or defending one side of evil vs. the other side of evil is madness... choose Good and Truth... our Govt is neither...nor is any of its propaganda arms... not sure when I realized that but thank God I have... I have seen God’s enemies ... and it IS US.. all the while asking God to bless us... Evil couldn’t have created a better counterfeit to spew ‘freedom’... especially the freedom from the ten commandments ...
The CG on a Pre fly by wire plane is similat to an RC scale model. On newer planes (not 747-100/200’s) the CG is further back and the tail provides lift. Not TWA Flight 800. I have 3 axis actively stabilized models, but Flight 800 was dumb... just like my model.
747-131F N53111 Iranian's owned it when it crashed. Ironic, huh?
The NTSB stated a blatant lie. (how unusual)
The NTSB report isn’t a “media coverup”. It makes sense and is well researched.
The 9/11 Trufer mentality is based on a lack of facts, strawman arguments and ignoring actual facts. How many “eye witnesses” and internet experts said that “controlled Demolition” brought down the towers on 9/11, even after we watched it all on live TV?
The NTSB report has actual facts and they point directly to the center fuel tank exploding.
Arguments that “jet fuel can’t explode” or ‘Planes can’t fly with their noses torn off” because some internet expert says so is 9/11 Trufer think.
747-131F N53111 proves 747’s can crash when their fuel tanks explode, Since I work for the manufacturer, I know JT9d engines will continue to run at full thottle, even in the Cockpit of the plane is torn away and from my small scale tests, I know a 747-100/-200 will continue to fly in a straight line and not tumble, even with its nose torn off to the wing root.
I want to know what role Brennan (who converted to Islam in the early 90’s) played in the non-investigation.
And the heavier alkenes are the sulfurous molecules with the higher lubricity.
Actually, the sulfur in the fuel isn’t about anything other the higher cost of obtaining lower sulfur fuel. That’s it. Nothing special about it. As a pilot, I buy the lowest cost fuel that does the trick.
PFL
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.