What Downed The Airliner?

[Bill Greenwood]

This fits under truth or myth like the post below about the POWs. An airliner took off from NY, climbed out over the ocean,and blew up, it may have been flight 982, can't recall exactly. Before you read the rest of this; what is your impression of the cause? The FAA said fuel tank explosion, then a story came out about a U S missle going off course and shooting down the plane. I know the details as a friend, Leslie Hicks wrote an article about it, and the source of the story was a fellow EAA member and T-34 owner. Witnesses even claimed to see smoke trails in the sky. Finally, the source admitted he made up the story and apologized. No conspiracy, just a good imagination from an otherwise creditable source.The smoke trails seemed to come from burning debris falling rather than a missle going up. Of course this is only an example, does not prove the POW story either way,

[TAdan]

IIRC it was TWA 800. I vividly remember watching the news coverage. Im gonna have to side w/ the NTSB on this one...worn wire + fuel tank/ fumes.

[astixjr]

The TWA 800 disaster hit pretty hard here in St. Louis. Some would argue that the tragedy was the event from which TWA could not recover. In the months following the crash, there was no shortage of people in town who were convinced the airplane had been shot down. Certainly, there were some military training operations in the area at the time of the crash but I never saw any compelling hard evidence that the plane was actually downed by a missile or other weapon.

I worked for a cargo airline in the late 80s and early 90s and was based at their heavy maintenance center in Arizona. I'm no expert on aging airliners but I spent some time crawling around the inside of 747s that were in the middle of D checks. Some of the 747s that I was in were from 1969 and 1970 and I can tell you that they appeared to be pretty worn out. Were they "safe"? Yes, I think they were but they all required a great deal of inspection, repair, and modification to remain safe. Would I put my family in one today? Probably not.

At the time of the crash, the TWA 800 airplane had 87,964 total hours and 16,034 cycles. It was the 153rd off the line and was built in 1971. I think the NTSB probably had it about right. It certainly seems plausible that one of the center tanks exploded.

It's a shame to see these grand old airliners reduced to piles of scrap in the Arizona desert. However, if you ask the folks that were on the Aloha Airlines 737-200 which had 35,496 hours and 89,680 cycles what they think, they would probably tell you these planes make better beer cans than airliners.

[PatM]

Are the fumes from jet fuel (close to kerosene) explosive? My old man was a mechanic with AA at JFK for 29 years. He did not buy the official explaination.

[astixjr]

Yes, Jet A "fumes" can explode under the right conditions. The NTSB investigation determined that the center wing fuel tank exploded but I do not think they ever determined the exact ignition source.

http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar98-26.pdf

Last edited by astixjr on Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

[rwdfresno]

Colonel Mustard, in the study, with the lead pipe.

[Paul Krumrei]

You have to look at the entire situation. A lot of factors came into place that caused the explosion.

1. Air Conditioners run for over 45-50 minutes prior to lift off, with a fuel take that was not full. Try putting a gas can on a fire for a period of time with about 1 inch of fuel in it, set it a side and have a spark next to it. Same concept.

The pressure, and the old wiring, and the air conditioners, and waiting on the taxi way for that period of time, it could have been static, that ignited it.

No missle was fired, no magic bullet.

Fuel+Fuems+Pressure+Spark=Explosion


Bless them on 800. Terrible thing to happen.

[bdk]

There was another incident of a 737 that exploded on the ramp as I recall.

Douglas never built their aircraft in the same manner (a difference in design philosophy), so it is thought that this would likely never happen on an MD-80 for instance.

Also note that there has been a lot of work done since then on inerting fuel tanks on commercial airliners- displacing air with a noble gas to remove the oxidizer from the fire equation.

[mustangdriver]

I was never one for conspiracy theories, but I will bite on this one. No way in hell that was a center fuel tank explosion. You have an eye witness that was flying a nearby helicopter and saw the explosion. He said from the time of explosion to impact, the aircraft never made a climb, but went straight down. That is a pilot and an eye witness. The climb is important in the story because that is what is supposed to be seen that made people think that they were seeing a missle. The NTSB only looked at 11% of all the evidence before they came up with what happened. So you are going to say that a 747 minus it's forward fuselage is going to fly straight and level for a few seconds, then climb 5000 feet and then roll over? No way. That thing would have rolled right away. The court just ruled in favor of giving the data to a group of pilots so that they can look at it. The judge in this hearing said that the NTSB should be ashamed of how much stuff they didn't look at.

[Bill Greenwood]

Mustang Driver, I believe the reconstructed wreckage show the exposion came from inside the fuselage right where the center tank was, if not what is the cause that you believe in? My post was not so much to promote any side, but to show that, at least in this case, the originator of the missle myth finally admitted that he made the whole thing up. Did you see the current movie about the phoney Howard Hughes story by Clifford Irving?

[mustangdriver]

I am not sure what brought it down, missle or not I doubt it was a center fuel tank explosion. Which let's put it in prespective would be the first one in this type of aircraft and the first one in the air in aviation history. A private investigation brought to the surface that eye witness statements were changed to fit what the NTSB needed to hear. Here is what I know. The eye witnesses report seeing what looked like cheap fireworks heading out to sea. Moments later see a fireball in the sky. An eye witness in the air watches the plane explode and then fall. The NTSB concludes that the plane had a zoom climb which is against what the eye witness saw. They say that the trailers in the sky are non importatnt. They don't have one shred of evidence to support a zoom climb or a fuel tank explosion.

[Kyleb]

The transponder information was the basis for the zoom climb claim.

Also, wasn't it twilight when the accident took place? Eyewitness reports are bad enough without failing visibility, but add in poor lighting and the results get even worse.

I know that my grandfather worked on an emergency B-47 mod program in the '50's because of fuel tank explosions. I know Boeing learned a few tricks over the years, but fuel, oxygen, and a spark is all it takes to make a fire or explosion.

I don't have a problem "buying" the accidental explosion theory. Why? Because there is no doubt that A) the fuel tank was nearly empty. B) The fuel tank had plenty of time to heat soak and therefore create a fuel rich atmosphere inside. C) In those conditions, it only takes a tiny spark and Boom...

What are the chances of a tiny spark? Small, but 747's have probably flown in a "primed for explosion" mode millions of times. And once, just once, it jumped up and bit 'em.

What are the chances of a stray missile? About zero. First, nobody tests missiles off the Jersey Coast. Second, there are NOTAMs and restricted areas for live fire exercises. Neither was in place that night.

A terrorist missile? If there was any physical evidence of one, I'd consider it. But there isn't.

Is any of this concrete? Naah. But I find it much easier to believe an "oops" story than a "huge conspiracy" story. Why? Because people can't keep secrets, so conspiracies get made public.

My personal experience with the impossibility of keeping secrets happened during the Iranian hostage crisis. I learned about the Top, Top, Top Secret "Credible Sport" program before the first ship flew. How? My best friend's dad was a shrink. One of his patients was involved in the program, and revealed it during a session. My friend's dad mentioned it to my friend, who asked me about it since A) I'm an airplane nut and B) Everyone in my family worked at Lockheed.

I'm sure it raised eyebrows when I asked: "Hey, are y'all building a C-130 with a bunch of rocket modifications to allow it to take off and land in a football field?"

"Ummmm..... no. And why do you ask?"

[King]

Is any of this concrete? Naah. But I find it much easier to believe an "oops" story than a "huge conspiracy" story. Why? Because people can't keep secrets, so conspiracies get made public.

A sane answer!

[Steve Nelson]

But conspiracy theories are sooo much more fun than prosaic explanations. I think the thing that drives conspiracy theorists is a fear of things being unpredictable and out of anyone's control. They just can't handle they idea that most events are the result of random chance or lone nutjobs, so they have to believe there's "someone" behind the scenes controlling events.

Take 9/11..working the overnight shift at an AM talk radio station, I've heard a million different conpiracy theories. Many of them hinge on claims that there's "no way" that the crashes and fires could have brought the towers down. But everyone I've ever talked to with engineering or firefighting experience has told me they knew the towers were doomed the second they were hit. The conspiratorial types just can't handle the idea that a bunch of terrorists could have caught us with our pants down, and that a massive FAA and government beauracracy simply couldn't respnd fast enough. Are there inconsistancies and unanswered questions? Sure. But that's just the way life is..it's messy and unpredictable, and sometimes poo poo just happens.


SN

[Bill Greenwood]

Steve, just saw a tv headline of a Newsweek poll. One out of five in US believe Iraqis did 9/11 attacks and 3 of 5 believe that Sadamn was involved.