Funny you should post this now. Wht airplanes crash is on weather now covering twa 800. Biggest stretch of engineering bs and excuse making ive seen in a long time. Looks like 4 years of investigative bull spit to me.
Explosion in the center fuel tank blows the forward fuselage off and not the wings? Horseshit.
I was watching the events fold on CNN back when it wasn’t blatantly leftard. There was and will only be segment that the field reporter did that I didnt think of closely back then. Told this many times on FR..
The CNN reporter interviewed some families on the beach and they were having a BBQ or something. THREE of the dudes said that before the explosion they saw something rise from the sea. The reporter said ‘explain and one of the guy said like a big splash of water at the horizon(something like that) and all 20 or so people on the beach said “yeah”. I thought they were confused about AFTER the explosion but they really did say BEFORE. I doubt you will find that segment on youtube.
I’m watching too.
Experts from the CIA were brought into the case.
The only problem is—they brought in the disinformation team!
And the thing keeps climping
Are you addressing my points (below)?
Looking forward to your explanation how a 4’ long, 4” diameter, non-reflective missile can be seen hitting a huge jet from miles and miles away. . . with smoke-trail burn-out well below 5,000’. . .well below and behind the jet (flies a pursuit profile, not interception profile) and outside its engagement envelope.
(That was the leading conspiracy theory until it was soundly de-bunked)
Now what, since the MANPAD thing doesn’t work, sub-launched ballistic missile fired?
ALL missile firing are conducted in weapons testing areas, NOTAMs issued and routing controlled by ATC, and everyone on a ship or sub hears the launch as the firing rings the ship/sub like a bell. . .and everyone , from thew 18-yr old to the crusty Chief are silenced. . .after 30-yr serving and and working with, the military, ain’t ne secret can be kept. . heck we knew about the F=-117 long before its debut. . .and it was a totally black program.
Ranges of the missile are published reflecting ballistic ranges, not an accurate reflection of tactical engagement range/envelope. Classified 3-1 manuals have nice graphics showing this.
The jet was a receding target and if MANPAD was shot, it would have been a tail chase and that significantly reduces the range. Meaning the jet would be outside the range of the missile by the time it got to altitude.
Again, small missile, non reflective, no plume, motor burned out, no way it can be seen at the ranges discussed—unless you are superman.
Internal wiring and hydraulics are routed though the fuel tanks for cooling, so internal sparking can (and has) happened.
From previous Post:
Center-line fuel tanks have a history of explosions. There is a history of aircraft loss due to wire chaffing, electrical arching and such. While the short-list of examples provided below are 707-type, it is a threat that all jets have because electrical wires and hydraulic lines are routed through fuel tanks for cooling. 707, fighter aircraft, 747, it is almost universal that all jets are designed that way.
KC-135: History of Destroyed Aircraft (USAF version of the B-707 is the KC-135: https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/kc-135-history-of-destroyed-aircraft/
“22-Jun-59 57-1446 A Walker AFB Main fuel tank explosion on ramp (maintenance)”
“3-Jun-71 58-0039 Q Torrejon AFB Crashed following in-flight explosion of the nr. 1 main fuel tank. Chafing of boost pump wires in conduits was determined to be as a possible ignition source.”
“13-FEB-87 60-0330 A Altus AFB Landed on the runway at altus afb on fire, cause was an arc in the fuel vapor area due to a compromised coax from the HF radio, aircraft subsequently burned to the ground in the infield after it rolled off the runway”
“4-Oct-89 56-3592 A Loring AFB In-flight explosion (aft body tank) during approach”
FAA: “ Since 1959 there have been 18 fuel tank explosions on transport category airplanes” http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-98A.pdf
The cost of complying with regulations that remove the center line tank explosion threat is tens upon tens of millions of dollars, and the airlines absorbed that cost. . .and the airlines and OEM know the systems and if they knew the tank was not the cause then there would have been lawsuits and public hearings defending against the allegation it was a tank explosion. Heck, the OEM would have been right there alongside you saying it was bunk..
And with the threat of another center line tank explosion, the airlines and OEM have to fix the problem otherwise they would be sued out of existence. . .the fact the airlines and OEMs did not challenge the regulation and made the changes means they knew it was the cause.
Mitigation study: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/AIAAFDC32143b.pdf
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TG1.pdf
I will leave now, I’ve said my piece and it would be pointless to continue.
I enjoy conspiracy theories like anyone else, but to me the lack of proof is not proof that there is a conspiracy.
Cheers and bye-bye.
Explosion in the center fuel tank blows the forward fuselage off and not the wings?
...
The recovered wreckage indicated that the explosive force went out through a hole in the front of the tank.