Planes still flying with same problem as TWA 800

[democraticinsurgent]

CNN) -- Ten years after the explosion of TWA Flight 800, the very problem that led to the disaster still has not been fully fixed -- despite a warning from the Federal Aviation Administration that it is "virtually certain to occur" again without additional safeguards.

In fact, the FAA predicts that without its recommended safety changes four more TWA-type disasters are likely to happen over the next 50 years.

The FAA wants jetliners equipped with a nitrogen safety system to prevent explosions by removing oxygen from fuel tanks. The agency would require the new safety system in new planes coming off the assembly line, as well as the retrofitting of 3,800 large U.S. passenger jets. (Watch video animation of the in-flight explosion -- 1:10)

"We're looking at potentially something that could prevent in the future another explosion from ever happening in the United States fleet," John Hickey, the FAA's director of aircraft certification, told "CNN Presents" as part of an investigative documentary airing Saturday and Sunday.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/14/twa.main/index.html

===============================================================================================

maybe those who think TWA 800 was shot down were right. Otherwise they'd take this issue more seriously, eh?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. The same problem? You mean missles flying around?

:tinfoilhat:

:hide:

[benburch]

2. LOL!

Amazing that people thought that, isn't it?

[hang a left]

3. I was gonna say that....

you funny

[Richard Steele]

4. Exactly!

No need for that tinfoil hat when all the eyewitnesses
and physical evidence spell "missile";
when the Miltary's top hardware expert says "missile";
when the videotape shows a MISSILE...etc.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Not to mention, if it was the center fuel tank that was the problem

the whole fleet would have been grounded and the problem fixed, like they did when the door blew off that plane in Hawaii.

If nothing was done, it can only be because there was nothing to be done.

[benburch]

9. There was no missile. nt

[anotherdrew]

10. ya! da gubamint says so! no missile! gotta be true!

seems like plenty of missile evidence to me. oh, but they say there wasn't one so it couldn't be true, god knows they'd NEVER lie about something like that. :sarcasm:

[benburch]

11. *I* say there was no missile.

That is my opinion as an engineer.

[Richard Steele]

13. Well, then what do you think happened? nm

[benburch]

16. It's fairly complex...

The center fuel tank was at the time of the explosion nearly empty and full of air and very warm jet fuel.

This jet fuel was above the vapor point for jet fuel. As you know, fuel burns; vapor explodes.

It was as warm as it was because the jet had an extended hold on a warm day, and the main air conditioner for that aircraft is nearly in contact with the center tank.

The center tank is generally drained first by flight crews because they want to keep the wing tanks, which directly feed the engines, topped up. You don't want to be in the air and need fuel in the wing tank only to find out that you cannot pump the center tank into them.

Now, all that is needed is a spark in that center tank to make everything go kaboom, but the tank is designed to prevent sparks of that sort.

Now, the NTSB would have you believe that the spark happened from wiring in ducts within the tank which over the years had rubbed together enough to lose their insulation.

I cannot rule that out, but I believe something different happened.

I believe that the positive pressure relief for the tank had failed due to the heat of the tank, and that the tank pressurized from expanding air and evolving fuel vapor. Finally a seam or seal in the tank, weakened by years of mechanical stress during landings and takeoffs, failed and an explosive vapor escaped and found a spark external to the tank, perhaps the static charge created by the escaping vapor itself was enough. This caused an explosion that either communicated through the gap or stove in the side of the tank and caused a secondary explosion.

The essential issue is the heat allowed to accumulate in an environment with air and fuel. Yes, the tank design considered this, but I really don't think that you know how materials will age and fail after two decades when you design such a thing.

Nitrogen purge is the right solution. Though I doubt the exact same problem will happen again, it being one of those rare things you cannot plan for in advance, some similar problem WILL occur, maybe even involving the wiring, or involving lightning or St. Elmo's fire or similar ignition source, and we need to purge that tank.

What operators are doing now, however, is keeping the tank full until after takeoff because it cannot usually get nearly hot enough to form vapor once airborne.

[Richard Steele]

20. So, the center tank became a fuel/air bomb and exploded....

...WITHOUT damaging the area around it, but instead causing
only the NOSE of the plane to be SLICED off
while the rest of the aircraft continues foreward?

I'm sorry, but the "center fuel tank explosion" scenario
does NOT match the physical evidence in this case, let alone account
for the eyewitness testimony.

[benburch]

21. Understand how the tank would most likely rupture, please.

Bu whatever ignition source, it would split at a seam and the force would absolutely be directional. And the failure would have been assisted by the internal pressurization of the aircraft.

And aircraft are a whole lot less solid than they look. They are strong as long as they remain intact, but as soon as you compromise the monocock fuselage most of the strength is gone. This is why the DeHaviland Comet airliners disappeared on atlantic crossings; The large square windows caused metal fatigue, and the skin began to tear at the corners, and the internal pressurization literally ripped the fuselage in half.

But you seem to be really emotionally invested in the missile theory, and you have a right to whatever faith what you like. I'm just telling you what I see as an engineer.

[Richard Steele]

25. I am only "emotionally invested" in the TRUTH.

And I am familiar with modern aircraft construction.
(It's spelled 'monocoque', BTW.)

The nose of that plane came off in a fashion which
rules out an internal explosion or overpressure situation.

Additionally, you've simply ignored the evidence from
the witnesses (and their cameras).

Looks like you and I shall have to agree to disagree
this time, Ben.

Peace.

[benburch]

27. No, it does not rule out an internal explosion.

But the explosive event only started the failure.

Once there was a big tear (likely in the belly of the aircraft) dynamical forces assisted by the aircraft's pressurization finished the job. Remember the nose section has no lift. It's considerable weight is lifted from the wing spars and the thrust structures that attach them to the fuselage. Once you destroy most of the strength from the structure, it just falls off.

And I knew I had the spelling wrong, I just couldn't recall the right one. :)

[Psephos]

36. I find Ben's analysis and arguments convincing compared to Dick's

No offense, Dick, but IMO Ben has you on points. Specifically, his analysis demonstrates good understanding of aircraft engineering, is internally consistent in its logic, and accomodates (rather than omits) inconvenient facts.

Peace.


A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed
because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth.
- Edward De Bono

[Richard Steele]

43. Yeah, sorry about doing the "spelling Nazi" thing.

I really fight the urge to do that, most days,
but every once in a while I just HAVE TO CORRECT SOMETHING!!

It's a sickness. :)

And as far as this flight 800 debate goes, well,
it kinda already WENT. I just can't muster much interest
in rehashing this case. I usetacould, but not anymore.

It's not so much that I am suffering "outrage fatigue",
that I no longer care about the incident.
I do.

But there are only so many hours in the day,
and my outrage has been getting spread pretty thin
these last few years. There's so much happening
RIGHT NOW that directly threatens us all, y'know?

[xzyra]

22. why would an over-sea flight have a near-empty fuel cell?

don't know what kind of mileage these baby's get, but seems like you might want a full tank when you are flying across an ocean?

Ya know, just in case there is traffic or something.

[benburch]

24. They have extra fuel for any such flight.

Just to cover things like ground holds.

They would not have taken off had they not a safe fuel margin.

[benburch]

26. Maximum range is 7,214 nm.

Distance from New York to London is 3005 nm.

[ozone_man]

28. But where did the spark come from?

Yes, empty fuel tanks are explosive, but all circuits that interface with fuel tanks are designed to be tolerant of two faults while not exceeding an energy limit (~200uJ). You need to come up with a spark. :)

On edit:

OK, I had to look it up.

This technical note describes research performed to determine the ignition hazard presented by small fragments of superfine steel wool that contact energized direct current wires in aircraft fuel tanks. Several different methods of shorting a circuit with steel wool were explored. An ignitable mixture of hydrogen, oxygen, and argon, calibrated to have a minimum ignition energy of 200 micro Joules, was used as an ignition detection technique. The electrical currents at the ignition threshold were recorded to determine safe maximum allowable current limits for fuel tank electronics. The lowest current found to ignite the flammable mixture was 99 milliamps (mA); the lowest current found to ignite a steel wool wad in air only was 45 mA.

http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TN05-37.pdf

[benburch]

30. The static electricity generated...

...when the hot explosive gas vents from the breech in the tank is likely sufficient. If not, there are lots of things immediately external to the tank that are not spark-proof.

[ozone_man]

31. There was a breech of the tank?

Or is this speculation?

[benburch]

32. That is my scenario.

Didn't you read it?

[ozone_man]

34. What is the failure history of fuel tank pressure relief valves?

Have there been other failures? How many?

I believe that the positive pressure relief for the tank had failed due to the heat of the tank, and that the tank pressurized from expanding air and evolving fuel vapor.

How is the seam or seal you mention related to the pressure relief valve? Or it's failing?

Finally a seam or seal in the tank, weakened by years of mechanical stress during landings and takeoffs, failed and an explosive vapor escaped and found a spark external to the tank, perhaps the static charge created by the escaping vapor itself was enough. This caused an explosion that either communicated through the gap or stove in the side of the tank and caused a secondary explosion.

It sounds plausible, and I like the nitrogen purging idea. Fuel tank sparks have been the usual suspects in fires, which is how the intrinsic safety lmits were developed.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

14. Gotta say, if it was the center fuel tank,

why wasn't every plane grounded and inspected?

As an engineer, you must at least wonder that.

[benburch]

17. Because there is a work-around.

Keep the tank full until after take-off. See above.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

33. Yeah, or fill it with nitrogen

but they do not do either. I can't find a single FAA directive on this.

[anotherdrew]

35. why not have the fuel in an air tight vacuum packed bag

like box wine? seems to me it's be a lot simpler to do than nitrogen

[noonwitch]

12. I saw the video-it looked like a missle to me

I'm not an engineer, though, and the video could have been edited to make it look that way, like the family did with that Terry Schiavo video that suckered me in.

But what I saw on the news looked like a missle hit to me.

[pitohui]

37. it was a missile

too many people saw the durn thing

but it will be forever whitewashed just as aa 587 will be forever whitewashed

this is why al quaeda now plans these multiple timed attacks because if just one plane goes down, we go all "ho hum" and pretend it didn't happen

i suppose there is some engineer's excuse for that one also, altho not enough of an excuse to make them ground similar aircraft

these aircraft were shot down but people in the northeast need to be able to fly and get places w.out being nervous wrecks so we are pretty much all complicit in the "oh well" theories

i'm torn abt it, i understand the reason why we can't give terrorists any more publicity than we have to but i still hate and resent the effin' lies

[guruoo]

41. And then they made it all go away

Perhaps a research run for the "new Pearl Harbor"?

http://www.twa800.com/eyewitness/wire/mikewire-eyewitness.htm
http://twa800.com/images/mikewiregraphic.pdf

[KamaAina]

29. All I know is what I heard on the radio that night

from New Haven, Conn. I was lying awake listening, for some reason, to this dog-awful sports show where the host was, so help me dog, doing a Beavis and Butt-head impression.

Next thing I know, he's saying, "Heh-heh, heh-heh, a plane just, like, exploded over East Moriches, heh-heh." (You had to be there.) Quickly over to WCBS news radio (the powerful NYC stations come in in New Haven like they were next door). Here's what I heard, at a time when all we knew was that a plane had gone down:

An interview with a woman who had been walking her dog along the beach at the time. She reported that she thought it looked like a small plane had collided with the jet. In a way, that makes it more credible than if she had said "missile": a missile strike would look to someone who wasn't expecting one like a mid-air collision, while a fuel tank explosion would not.

[lonestarnot]

51. missile missile missile.

[elehhhhna]

5. ya beat me to it. RATS.

[soothsayer]

6. lol! beat us all to that

[democraticinsurgent]

7. good setup eh?

i was wondering how many would leap at the chance on this one.

any more i am thinking we should will our tinfoil hats to the pukes. they are the ones living in the conspiracy theoryland, not us.

[Copperred]

18. I know really... LMAO

[Julius Civitatus]

15. That because what they told us WASN'T THE PROBLEM

It couldnt' be any clearer.

[Julius Civitatus]

19. Video about witness reports that the CIA misrepresented

At least it's definitely interesting:

http://flight800.org/flight800.mov

Pay attention at the portion showing the "CIA animation", where the "reliable" agency explains that all the witness accounts were not what they appear, and come up with lots of theories as to why all those many witnesses saw something ascend from the ground and hit the plane. Fancy graphics and lots of effort for an animated version of "nothing to see here, move along. Just a visual mirage, move along..."

The very witnesses say the CIA twisted and misrepresented their own testimony to "prove" they didn't see what they saw.

:tinfoilhat:

[Minstrel Boy]

23. statements concealed

[JohnyCanuck]

38. Check out these eyewitness sketches and an animation

Thanks for posting that MB

Check out the eye-witness sketches along with their reported description of what they saw at http://www.serendipity.li/more/goddard2/01.htm What's really interesting to see is the animation applied to one of the eye-witness's sketch.

TWA Flight 800 Missile Theory
Witness Sketches Contradict Officials

by Ian Williams Goddard

Trans World Airlines Flight 800 exploded on July 17, 1996 off Long Island killing all 230 passengers. Within days media reports said over one hundred witnesses indicate a missile hit the jet. <1, 2> However, officials concluded: "The witness reports and the streak of light are consistent with them having observed Flight 800 in crippled flight. They're not consistent with a missile." <3> Is this official conclusion consistent with the witness accounts?

All witness sketches of the "streak of light" found in the official report contradict the official conclusion just quoted. <4> As demonstrated Dr Thomas Stalcup, the witness sketches show a projectile heading to the crash in the opposite direction of Flight 800 as it would be seen in their fields of vision. <5>

Eyewitness Sketches of The Flight 800 Crash

The first graphic below shows the sketch of FBI witness 649 transition into an exacting animation of that detailed account. Foreground contents and their relationship to aerial events exactly replicate the view of witness 649 thanks to a comprehensive analysis by Thomas Shoemaker. <6> The resulting animation is like the downloaded memory of witness 649 (downloading may be slow).


Continued at: http://www.serendipity.li/more/goddard2/01.htm

IMHO TWA 800 is just one more bit of evidence as to the deep and profound corruption of the US federal government and US government agencies.

[Endangered Specie]

49. 'They' must not be very good at silencing them if they get a full page ad

in a national newspaper.

[Minstrel Boy]

50. disingenuous much?

They were not allowed to testify at the NTSB's public hearing, and they had to pay to get their statements into a newspaper.

[Minstrel Boy]

53. some more statements:

" said, 'Are you sure you didn't see something going down and not going up?' I said, 'No....Gosh sakes I ain't that stupid. I ought to be able to tell if something is going up in the air or going down in the air. No, and I said I'm not changing my mind about it. I'll stick to that until I die. I said I saw something going up and I said there was no question in my mind. I said I'm telling you what I saw." - Roland Penney, Flight 800 eye-witness; quoted from an interview with Cdr. William Donaldson presented at the AIM conference, October 18, 1997.

"This is either a train wreck in the sky, or an explosive device - mid-air, outside the plane. The measurements indicate there was an explosion - a big explosion - outside the cockpit." - Navy Cmdr. William Donaldson (ret.); a former plane crash investigator; Louisville Courier-Journal, 1-9-98

"All evidence would point to a missile. All those witnesses who saw a streak that hit the airplane...you have to assume its a missile. In an investigation like this, you can't overlook anything." - Adm. Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff;
Louisville Courier-Journal, 1-9-98

"More than 150 credible witnesses - including several scientists and business executives - have told the FBI and military experts they saw a missile destroy TWA 800. 'Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible,' a top federal official said. 'When we asked what they saw and where they saw it, the witnesses out east pointed to the west, and the people to the west pointed to the east'."
- The New York Post, September 22, 1996.

http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9806&L=flight-800&T=0&P=11514

[lostnfound]

39. No opinion, but "Into the Buzzsaw" had 2 or 3 interesting essays

from different reporters who found their work on TWA800 the subject of intense pressure from the government.

[Minstrel Boy]

45. Into the Buzzsaw's Kristina Borjesson became a "former" CBS news producer

for investigating beyond the official cause of the crash of TWA 800. Because, despite the

* more than 100 eyewitnesses who saw a streak of light ascending from the ocean surface impact the aircraft;
* FAA tracking of a missile-like radar return, and detection of a high-speed (Mach 2) ejection from the aircraft after the initiating event;
* localized re-crystallization of metal consistent with a missile impact, which could not be explained by the official breakup sequence;
* FBI admission of traces of explosives PETN and RDX on cabin seats;
* seat foam containing missile residue;
* report of French intelligence that the plane was downed by a missile;
* cover-up of a US Naval missile exercise off the coast of Long Island;
* radar track of an unidentified surface vessel speeding from the scene the moment debris began to fall, rather than assist with search and rescue

and more, Borjesson had become a "conspiracy theorist" for challenging the finding of a compromised investigation. For her efforts, she found her phone tapped and her car broken into, with only documents pertaining to the crash stolen. Events she would have had a hard time believing, had she herself not walked "into the buzzsaw":

The buzzsaw is a powerful system of censorship in this country that is revealed to those reporting on extremely sensitive stories, usually having to do with high-level government and/or corporate malfeasace. It often has a fatal effect on one's career.

Borjesson goes on to write that "anyone who doesn't buy the government's unproven theory...is a 'conspiracy theorist'":

Tacitly attached to the term "conspiracy theorist" are all kinds of other nouns and adjectives like "goofball," "nutcake," "bottomfeeder," "crazy," and so on. Using insulting and false labels to marginalize dissenting or politically incorrect voices is a ploy that government and corporations as well as the press use on a daily basis.

[Launch Pad]

40. Maybe it's because there was no problem with the plane

The Boeing 747 has been in service since 1970. One plane mysteriously "blew up" as it climbed through 14,400 ft in the night sky over the Atlantic. Nothing like that has happened since then with the 747. Investigators were quick to dismiss the report from an airline pilot who saw a fire trail that met up with the plane as a fire trail from the plane going down.

I'm sorry, I simply don't believe it "just blew up."

[onager]

42. Thanks, Ben Burch

For a rational explanation. Threads like this just about make me give up hope completely on DU. When it comes to PCTs, DU is not much better than Free Republic. Maybe worse.

"Witnesses! Witnesses! Eyewitnesses!" (Never mind that most of the witnesses were at least five miles away from TWA 800 when it exploded. And some witnesses described seeing things that are just impossible for the human eye to see.)

Well, let me ask one question: what about the other witnesses?

The most popular missile theory seems to be accidental launch by a U.S. Navy ship. That theory alone has some serious problems, but let's assume it's true. Since I work in aerospace/defense, I've been aboard a guided-missile destroyer (DDG) when it conducted exercises. The chances of an accidental launch are about as great as Donald Rumsfeld admitting a mistake.

A U.S. Navy ship capable of launching a missile has a crew of several hundred people. You expect me to believe that several hundred people on board a ship saw a missile "accidentally" launched. And not a single one of them mentioned it to anyone else?

I'm sorry. Human beings just don't work that way. Somebody always talks, especially about something this big.

And that's only one sub-set of witnesses. I personally know that the air defense grid on the Eastern Seaboard is thick with systems specifically designed to detect missile launches. (I know that because I've worked on them. My company makes a system used by several of the military services.)

If anybody's missile were launched right off the East Coast, those systems would have lit up like pinball machines. That's exactly what they were designed to do...since, as a nation, we have a sort of vested interest in knowing if anybody just launched a missile in our neighborhood.

Now I would have to believe that not just hundreds, but thousands of witnesses were silenced. All the way from the lowliest enlisted person sitting at a console, right up thru the chain of the officers supervising them, to the Generals and Admirals.

Impossible. Interservice rivalry alone would ensure that somebody in the Army, Air Force or Marines would talk about how badly the Navy had screwed up.

So where are the affidavits (or dead bodies) of all those witnesses? It's the same problem the 9/11 kooks have with their missile theory--an ever-expanding number of people who had to disappear or be otherwise silenced. (Including the families of the disappeared.)

[Endangered Specie]

46. ahhh.. facts, reason... very unwelcome in tinfoilhat land!

I think TWA was simultaneouly hit by no less than 5 different missiles in a 2 second period

1 was stored on the plane and detonated
1 was launched accidentally and hit
1 was intentionally launched and acidentally hit
2 were both intentionally lauched and hit, one by us another by terrorists

and btw, JFK was shot 37 times by 29 people in the 7 second period

[Minstrel Boy]

47. strawmen, ridicule, ad hominem, and yet

you speak of reason?

[Endangered Specie]

48. Just sarcasm...

not necessarily good sarcasm :shrug:

[daleo]

52. Given the failure of air defense on September 11, 2001 I am not sure

that I can agree with this statement:

"If anybody's missile were launched right off the East Coast, those systems would have lit up like pinball machines. That's exactly what they were designed to do...since, as a nation, we have a sort of vested interest in knowing if anybody just launched a missile in our neighborhood."

[JohnyCanuck]

44. More video links on jet fuel/vapor combustibility.

Check out video demonstrations where retired US Navy Commander Bill Donaldson (an experienced US Navy air crash investigator, now deceased) attempted to reproduce the proposed center tank explosion by using containers with fuel/air mixtues matching the conditions in the TWA 800 centre wing tank and then introducing a spark or source of ignition. None of them produced a violent explosion until propane was added to the fuel/ air mixture. Commander Donaldson was convinced that it was a missile that brought down TWA 800.

See video clips at link below, Real Player required:

The experiment starts with the fuel heated to 140 degrees which is the highest temperature that the NTSB estimated that the fuel could have reached at 14,000 ft. While the fuel is theoretically flammable at 127 degrees at sea level, you will see that there is no combustion until the fuel reaches 185 degrees. Then there is only a slow burn, approximately 3 seconds, in which the vapor is consumed and the fire goes out. The final test is with Jet A fuel and Propane, similar to the Cal Tech tank explosion video. You can see that the introduction of Propane adds significantly to the volatility and is not even remotely representative of the Jet A Fuel's true combustibility.

http://twa800.com/pages/fuel.htm