Sure, why not? If you are making stuff up, you can make up air-conditioning systems heating the wings.
It looks like they use a ground system to cool the aircraft when it's waiting.
The onboard air conditioning system exhausts under the belly.
Posted on 06/13/2016 8:53:08 AM PDT by Lockbox
Also the report requires the fuel to be at a temperature of 96.4° F. Max temperature for that day was 86 degrees, presumably at the hottest part of the day.
Also the flight took place at 8:31 p.m., which was well after the peak heat of the day.
...
The fuel was heated by the air conditioning packs and calculated to be flammable at the time and altitude of the accident.
Sure, why not? If you are making stuff up, you can make up air-conditioning systems heating the wings.
It looks like they use a ground system to cool the aircraft when it's waiting.
The onboard air conditioning system exhausts under the belly.
See Post 177.
Explains how it can be much hotter. . .
At the time the FBI investigation was prematurely shut down in November of 1997, the FBI had failed to identify a fast moving boat captured on radar only 2.9 nautical miles from Flight 800 when it exploded. Mr. Schirilo, who replaced Mr. Kalstrom, admitted that fact in a letter to Congressman Traficant.After his retirement, Mr. Kalstrom was taped stating the boat captured on radar was really a helicopter. Considering the radar target was non-transponder and was tracked on the surface at speed below 36 knots for 35 minutes prior to disappearing over the horizon, even FBI agents have acknowledged Mr. Kalstrom’s excuse is nonsense.
Witnesses afloat and ashore observed a six second missile burn (Stinger rocket burn is 6 ½ seconds) coming from the near vicinity of the unidentified boat.
Re: The unexplained loss of TWA Flight 800
Phil's footnote: As with Weldon, Traficant was taken out. Everyone has a file. The fast boat provides a possible non-Navy source for the agent which deposited the explosive residue so inconvenient.
If the engines aren't running, how are the fuel tanks going to get hotter?
The auxilary power unit is in the very tail of the aircraft, and I doubt they run cooling lines up to the wings to cool it.
The point is electronics and hydraulics lines are routed through the fuel tanks to cool the lines, and there are actuators and other components that are in the tanks. . .the result is fuel is hot, and can be very hot, and can be ignited (as a previous Post of mine referenced just a few cases where this happened.).
Good-bye, have a nice evening/night.
The NTSB did extensive testing of the heating from the air conditioning packs, and did an emulation test flight a year after the TWA 800 accident. It’s all in the report. Nobody needs to make up anything, and the operation and location of the air conditioning packs are meticulously explained, which you obviously need to study.
Presumably none of which are doing anything when the bird is just sitting there on the ground.
. .the result is fuel is hot, and can be very hot, and can be ignited
That is the alleged result, but it isn't very well supported by the available evidence.
If your theory were correct, all of these aircraft would be potential bombs. Funny thing is, they aren't all blowing up willy nilly.
No I don't. I have a much better source of information. The Federal Agencies will arrive at the conclusion that the President orders them to arrive at.
Were their conclusions correct, this would not be the only such incidence of a 747-100 blowing up in mid air.
From the NTSB report:
Examination of the temperature data collected during the emulation flight test indicated that the highest ullage temperature measured within the CWT was 145F and that it occurred in the left mid bay just before the airplane began to taxi for takeoff. Examination of the temperature data also indicated that the highest ullage temperature measured at 13,700 feet msl was 127F and that it occurred in the left mid bay (see figure 33). Table 6 shows the maximum and minimum recorded ullage temperatures at 13,700 feet msl during the emulation flight test.
The Safety Board also measured the ambient air and component surface temperatures within the air conditioning pack bay. At the time that the flight test airplane was pushed back from the gate (after operating on the ground for 2 3/4 hours with the Nos. 1 and 3 air conditioning packs operating), air conditioning pack component surface temperatures ranged from 250 to 350F, and ambient air temperatures within the pack bay ranged from 148 to 228F.
As previously discussed, the CWT is configured within the airframe such that the air conditioning packs are located in an enclosed bay, directly below and very near the bottom surface of the CWT. Because of the high temperatures at which the air conditioning packs operate, the ambient air temperature within the pack bay increases when the air conditioning packs are operated. As a result of these elevated temperatures, heat in the pack bay is transferred into the CWT through its bottom surface. Some of this heat is transferred out of the CWT (for example, into the wing main fuel tanks or the main landing gear wheel well), and some of it remains in the CWT. This heat flow results in a significant increase in the temperature of the CWT fuel and ullage, which was shown in table 6. The temperature variations within the CWT are illustrative of this heat flow. In general, the hotter temperatures in the CWT ullage were located in the lower, center portions of the CWT (nearest the heat source), whereas cooler temperatures were measured around the sides and top of the CWT (where heat was transferred out of the
CWT).
So your belief that it’s a conspiracy relieves you from knowing the facts.
Good bye.
I am saying that all the elements were there for that to be a huge possibility.
1. There was a multi-nation naval exercise going on, involving missiles being shot at drones.
2. TWA800 was at a lower FL than normal.
3. TWA800 was 'near' the exercises.
4. Sometimes 'tests' (missile firing, drones flying) don't always go as expected.
rouge Iranians
That’s hugh!
(source: www.indiastrategic.in)
You mean like an ASW Helicopter ? One that was dropping torpedoes on the submarine ?
O'Hara, Caitlin, 13, of Irvington, N.Y. (daughter of Janet and John O'Hara).
O'Hara, Janet, 39, of Irvington, N.Y. (wife of John O'Hara).
* O'Hara, John, 39, executive producer at ABC Sports, of Irvington, N.Y. (husband of Janet O'Hara, father of Caitlin O'Hara)
Here is the complete list of passengers.
If you don't let air into the tank, either the fuel can't be pumped out, or the tank will collapse. It's not like they could, or would, fill it with water.
There were two types of vertical launch tubes on submarines at the time. Ohio class had twenty four 88" tubes for SLBMs (not ICBMs) while Los Angeles class flights II and III had twelve 21" tubes for cruise missiles. (Flight I boats could only launch missiles out of the four 21" torpedo tubes.)
At the time, the submarine weapons were Tridents (SLBMs), Tomahawks (land attack cruise missiles), Harpoons (anti-ship missiles), Mk 48 ADCAPs (torpedoes) and Mk 67s (mines). There were and are no submarine launched anti-aircraft missiles in the US Navy. Remember, you are talking to a submarine vet that was in the navy at the time.
You can probably fit the SM-2 surface to air missile from a destroyer/cruiser in the VLS tubes, so I don't really know what you mean by "hacking." I'd say the real issue would be where do you find these SM-2's designed be launched from underwater? Or did the Clintons design an entirely new missile in their first term to add to the incredible list of moving parts to this conspiracy?
I suppose it was a cinch to integrate these anti-aircraft missiles into the AN/BSY-1 Combat Control System too, right?
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.