Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: leadpenny
You're an aviator, right? OK, do center tanks ever fly without fuel because the dispatcher is adhering to company policy (as long as he doesn't file illegally under Flag operations (FAR 121) and the captain signs off on the dispatch)? Think, maybe, a design flaw by the engineers could have put an electrical, or some other potential ignition source, close to that tank? Think, maybe, that erosion or some other wear and tear element might have exposed an empty tank, full of fumes, to that ignition source?

OK, now that I've got your attention, I'll even benchmark for you: what were the chances that an uncontained engine failure could sever all three hydraulic systems on a DC-9 (United 232, Sioux City)? A billion to one? Think, maybe, the odds were lower for a center tank explosion on TWA-800? Is my point clear now?

The main foul up involved with this whole investigation was that when the incompetent people with guns and badges, the FBI, arrived on the scene, they screwed the site up for the real accident professionals, the NTSB.

32 posted on 02/15/2003 5:58:19 AM PST by Archangelsk (I haven't convinced anyone, and I don't care. My reward is being on the side of the non-conspirators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: Archangelsk
Your post #32 answered my question, thanks.
34 posted on 02/15/2003 6:04:39 AM PST by exnavy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: Archangelsk
Is my point clear now?

Not really. I'm guessing that you are coming down on the side of mechanical failure? BTW, I think you mean DC-10.

35 posted on 02/15/2003 6:06:23 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: Archangelsk
Think, maybe, a design flaw by the engineers could have put an electrical, or some other potential ignition source, close to that tank? Think, maybe, that erosion or some other wear and tear element might have exposed an empty tank, full of fumes, to that ignition source?

Think, maybe, that if one of these scenarios would have actually been the cause that the whole fleet would have been grounded?

Think, maybe, that hundreds of eyewitnesses saw a short-circuit hot enough to ignite jet fuel?

I really hate to be on the conspiratorial side here, but all the reading I've done on this incident points away from mechanical causes IMO. Especially the circumstantial evidence, like all the misdirection coming from the FBI, the radar images being unavailable, hundreds of eye-witness classified as "drunk," war vets flying other planes in the area that described "ordinance" as what they saw before the explosion, Clinton in the White House at the time when the media reported as "news" every press release....

I wish I still had the link to the debris field analysis article I read back then. It layed out in a fashion that precluded any possibility of the center wing tank failure being the cause. It was very damning evidence.

Mr.M

60 posted on 02/15/2003 7:33:08 AM PST by Marie Antoinette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson